Loading...
Approved Minutes - 1991-05-06 U sy �a � � n u i+ O } o LAKE WEG O PLANK NG 'C EPT. FILES nY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES n, r r^, a r�, • • G? y ,, C. 1 1\ CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES May 6,L991 1 ill 1 , 1 I. CALL TO ORDER The Development Review Board meeting of May 6,1991 was called to order by Vice— Chairman Stanaway at 7:35 p.m, IL ROLL CALL :. Board members present were Mr. Starr,Ms, Remy,Mr,(heaves,Mr, Stanaway and Mr, Sievert. Mr,Bloomer and Mr.Poster were excused. Also present were Robert Galante, Senior Planner; l+Iamid Pishvaie,Development Review Planner;Mike Wheeler, Associate Planner; Cindy Phillips,Deputy City Attorney, and Kathy Avery, Senior Secretary, III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr, Greaves moved for approval of the November 28, 1989/Vittattes, Ms.Remy seconded the motion and the first vote carried with Mr. Greaves,Ms, Remy and Mr. Starr voting yes. Mr. Sievert and Mr. Stanaway abstained, 0 Mr. Greaves ntovedrfor approval of the Decemb .,.1 9 mutes., Ms.Remy seconded the motion and the first vote carried with Mr, Grertves, Ms, Remy and Mr. Starr voting yes. Mr.Sievert and Mr, Stanaway abstained. Ms. Remy moved for approval of the D .,;,�Mr►Starr ' seconded the motion and the first vote carried with Mr.Greaves,Ms. Remy and Mr. Starr voting yes, Mr Sievert anct1.4r, Stanaway abstained. A quorum of Board members eligible to vote on the► i C ..M 11iktes was not available. .t,, Ms.Remy moved for approval of the I) c mhe 17. 19.9.0QMInutes, Mt'.Starr seconded the motion and it carried with Mr.Sievert,Mr,Greaves,Ms,Remy and Mr. Starr voting yes. Mr. Stanaway abstained. i` IV. PETE'rrIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS None, 'V. PUBLIC HEARING 12 Q,a request by Green Street Architecture for approval`to construct a 35,1 square foot mixed use center comprised of the followinguses: a)11,000 square foot retail use; b)' 1,7800 square foot;office use;and c )6,200 square foot !, ayeare use. The site is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of 411 VVestlaite Drive and,Parkview Drive north of Kruse Way,otherwise described as 'ax Lot I07 of Tax Map 2 lE 6. 5/6/91 l Rl3 Minutes Pit e 1 of 9 Mr. Galante stated that the applicants had rquested"postponement of the hearing in 4111 orerderrtatice to additrewhenss the a issuesneWheari raisedngdate in the was staff sposcheduled.rt, He explained that staff would SD 6-91/VAR 9-91(a-b),a request by Dimension Homes,The for approval of the creation of two parcels from a 10,r157 sq. ft. parcel. Also the applicant is seeking approval of two Variances as follows: a) a 25 ft.Class 11 variance to the Access Development Standard which requires that each parcel abut a public street for a minimum of 25 feet. Parcel D is proposed to have no frontage on a public street;and b) a Class Ix variance to the Parking and Loading Development Standard which requires each dwelling to provide two off-street parking spaces in addition to a carport or garage. The applicant proposes to provide no spaces which comply with the standard. The applicant is also proposing;a Future Streets Plan serving property within 20' of the applicant's site. Mike Nelson,ffinyencion Domes Inc,,,explained that they had found a way to reconfigure the property so that a variance to the Parking Standard would not be required. He requested a continuance to the next meeting so that they could meet with staff to work out the:details, agreedday 410the application was continued. He to waive the 10 rule for the two weeks that Mr. Greaves moved to continue 513 6-91/VAR 9..91(a-121 to May 20,1991 Ms, Remy seconded the motion and it carried with Mr.Sievert,Ivlr. St anaway,Mr. Greaves,Ms.Remy and Mr. Starr voting yes. 0,61..zwskidamtayAlu691 a request by BOOR\A Architects for approval to modify,Condition A.10 of the original approval Ind a vaar:dace in order to increase the height of the proposed cyclone fence which borders the soccer field along ` MV elrose"frok 6'to 12' high. The site is located at 55 Kingsgatc(fax Lot 600 of Tax Map 2 1iE 6AC). Vice-Chairman Stanuway explained the quasi-judicial hearing procedure. He inquired if any Board members had any ex parte contacts or conflicts of interests and no one did, He then asked for a irvport front staff. ,,. Humid Pishvaie noted that the site was the new elementary school at Kingsgate'and Melrose, He explained that a condition of the original approval was that the fence bordering the soccer field be 6 feet in height. The applicants were now concerned that the height would not be adequate, He noted that Palisades and Lake Oswego High School had 12 foot tall fences. He explained that staff's only concern was the visual . impact, He read the proposed conditions which required that the fence be vinyl clad in black or green and that the shrubbery material be planted closer to the fence, 5/6/91 D113 Minutes Page 2of9" p Ms. Remyquestioned whether securitywould be adequate on the site since there would , 0be shrube blocking the view and rPishvaie explained . that the shrubbery didn't extend along the full length;of the fence and the field would be v►sible front Kingsgate. halt Robert Curry,BQOW ,720Portland explained that their primacy concern was the safety of the children and the'conditions proposed by staff were acceptable,to than, D Ms.Remy questioned whether the applicant's concern was that the children would kick balls over the fence and Mr, Curry responded that she was correct and he noted that older children and adults would also be using the field which increased the potential for balls flying over the fence. Vice-Chair Stanaway inquired if anyone else would like to testify and there was no one, 1 He then closed the public hearing for Board deliberation, Ms.Remy moved for approval of pit - . Mr.Starr seconded the motion and it carried with Mr. Sievert,Mr, Stanakway, Mr. Greaves, Ms Relay and Mr. Starr voting yes. 1 SD 9.91�SD 10-91\$D J 1-91\YAR 1"1-91(a-)1HHR 4-91,a request by Kenneth Guenther for approval of a lot line adjustment,a three pared minor partition,a 4- lot subdivision approval of a lot line adjustment,partition and the subdivisio of a historic landmark site,and three variances as follows; a) a 32 ft.Class 2 variance to the 65 ft.lot width required in the n-»1.0 zone, b) a 2511.Class II variance to the Access Development Standard which requires that each parcel abut a public street for a minimum of 25 feet. None of the proposed parcels or lots abut a public street;and {) a Class II variance to the Hillside;,Protection and Erosion Control Development Standard in order to build on slopes greater than 50%. The , applicant proposes to develop 1,103 sq.ft.of the site which exceeds 50% slope. The site is located at 16715 Phantom Bluff Court(Tax Lots 180a1, 1900, 1902, 1905 and 2600 of Tax Map 2 1E 9( C) Vice-Chainnatt Stanaway explained the hearing procedure. He then inquired if any Board members had any conflicts of interest of any ex parte contacts, Mr. Greaves disclosed that the applicant was a recent client of his employer but he noted that it would not influence his decision. Mr. Wheeler explained that there was a lot of history to the project and he described the various components of the application in detail. He noted that four of five parcels ' involved in the proposal were created improperly and explained that a portion of the application was an attempt to rectify their improper creation. / 410 5/6/91.ORB ,lutinutes Page$of ti 0 He explained that staff recommended denial of SD 11 91 and HR 4-91(c)but 410 recommended approval of SD 9-91,SD 10-91,VAR 11-91(a-c)and lift 4-91(a-b) subject to several conditions. Ile noted that the Board was in possession of Exhibits 54-51 which were included in a staff report addendum that was distributed at the meeting, He introduced two letters into the record which were received at the bearing and labeled as Exhibits 62 and 63,a letter from Bilary McKenzie and a letter from the Lake Oswego Corporation. Ms. Remy noted that the Board had received a significant number df.eXhibits at the hearing and she expressed concern that they would not have ample time to read through all of them, Mr Wheeler suggested that the Board could take testimony and then continue the hearing if needed, Mr. Greaves referred to Exhibit 61 which was a letter from the City Attorney, and he noted that it said that a subdivision must not result in a landmark to be split into separate lots. Mr,Wheeler explained that there were some inconsistencies in the Code language and they needed to be interpreted by the Board. Mr.Galante also noted that the historic inventory defined the area of historic significance as being Tax Lot 1900 an�dyy1.83 acres in size; however,the Tax Map showed Tax Lot 1.9tifl as being only 1.,49 acres in size. eys }'Donuell,8amis, t' d7r ;tta►>�. ' . i1' Portland expressed concern with the City Attorney's memo and asked if it was appropriate to give testimony on,the Historic Landmark issue or if the applicant should take his application to the Historic Review Board. Ms, Phillips responded that it would be appropriate for the Board to hear testimony on 10 `k�the whole application and decide at the end of testimony on the historic issue and the 3oard agreed with her interpretation. I`1r. Monahan referred to Ordinance No,2000,Historic Preservation, and explained that ft had several purpose statements which included Putvose No, 9 which sought enhancement of property values and increased economic and financial benefits,to the City and its inhabitants; Purpose No, which sought to provide clear procedures anu' standards to ensure that the ongoing operation and maintenance of residential, commercial and industrial uses were not affected in a'manner that jeopardized the economic viability of such uses;and Purpose No. 14 which called for pprotecting-pri�Vate C;..roperty owners against extraordinary cost occasioned by the application of`the hapter. He noted that the interpretation made by the City Attorney placed Mr Guenther in the position of not being able to subdivide his property,which was counter to the Ordinance. Re noted that the applicant's request was a major development and he cited LOC 58,020 which stated that subdividing involving a Landmark can be done in conformity z with the requirements of the Chapter,LOC 58.025(b) which assigned the Development Review Board with the authority to approve major development occurring on or to a Historic Landmark; and LOC 58.143 which listed four findings that the Board must,. make to approve a proposed subdivision, He discussed the definition of a landmark and noted that the grounds around the site were not'designated as a landmark. He urged the Board to find that the City Attorney's interpretation was in error and the intent o€' Ordinance No,2000 was to allow subdivisions.4111) Page 4 of Minutes 5 o 210.15 explained that the 41110 proposed site plan retained,all of the historic features listed on the Historic Resources nventory on a single lot, He presented graphics for the Board which showed the original size of the Sundeleaf property,and he discussed how several lots were partitioned off,:trAostly to Sundeleaf family members, He discussed the design of the {4 plat which protected the Landmark lot which was proposed to be 26,540 square feet with large perimeter trees. He emphasized that they would be retaining all features of the landmark and they would provide adequate setbacks for the newly created,lots, Vice—Chairman Stanaway noted that his employer had dealt with John Tess who was about to testify; however, he stated that it would not influence his decision. John Tess,Heritage Investment Corporation)mentioned that he had had extensive '` experience dealing with historic buildings. He presented slides to the Board which showed other historic homes in Oregon that Mr.Guenther has owned and improved, He also presented several slides and described both the interior and the exterior of the Sundeleaf home, He noted that although the home was designed around the view of the lake, a lot of the plantings were overgrown and obliterated a majority of the views, He explained that they would be maintaining those features which contributed to the historic character of the house and he stated that the proposed setbacks were adequate for a landmark building, Vice-Chair Stanaway noted that it was probably not the intent of the original landscape architect for the foliage to become so overgrown, Mr.Tess suggested that the foliage could be selectively pruned to restore the original appearance of the site, 40 Mr. Sievert noted that the proposed lot 1 was steeply sloped and even though tole elevation was lower than the lot containing the landmark structure, he questioned whether a home located on lot 1 would impair the view of the landmark structure, Mr. Tess responded that the view could be impaired but there should be no problem as long as the home was designed and located on the site correctly, n I Mr,Dills discussed the design of a home which could be unobtrusively located on lot 1, Mr, Starr inquired how the design of the home located\i.. of I could be controlled to prevent it from intruding into the view of the landmark home and Mr, Dills responded that it could be controlled through a deed restriction, proponents, 34 noted that he resided on Lot 2600 and owned Lot'1800 which was a strip of property which gave him access I to the lake, He stated that Mr.Guenther's request to subdivide his property was no different than other property owners in the city who were allowed to subdivide their lots, He felt that denying a property owner the reasonable use of their property was unfair. He urged the Board to allow commerce to move ahead. Mr. Greaves inquired if the denial of the lot line adjustment would affect his legal access to the lake and Mr Mills responded that he would still have legal access, Rob C1oss, 597 South Shore,,Lake Qswego37O34 agreed with Mr, Mills and didn't feel that Mr.Guenther's proposal would affect the integrity of the property, 411 1 5/6/911)11B Minutes Page 5 of 9 7j (A 410 Art DeRosin,Palls Lake Oswego 97034 stated that the Association felt that the development of the site) Iii would diminish the quality of the neighborhood. ,�,;� r~r` 1 ,? Testifying as a concerncdthome owner,Mr.DeRosia pointed out that Mrs.Sundeleaf z, originally turned down an offer from a developer who wanted to subdivide the property. She subsequently sold it to Mr.Guenther at a lower price because he represented that he it would live in the house and preserve the integrity of`tlte property. l~ie pointed out that the Historic Inventory listed the site and the large olds-growth cedar and fir trees as part of the Historic Landmark. lie noted that if houses were built on the subdivided lots as. the applicant proposed,it woul',require the removal of 26 of those large trees, He also noted that some of the proposed property lines were located on the retaining walls. He noted that Mr.Guenther's proposed street widening-plan went over his property line , and included no shoulder. He remarked that Mr. Guenther's street plan didn't provide for pedestrian access and he felt that the present 20 foot wide road with 5 foot shoulders on both sides was appropriate. Bob.Ilobe ,Oswego 97034 concurred with Mr, OeRosia's comments, He expressed concern with Exhibit 48, which was an easement agreement that Mr.Guenther entered into with the Oicringeers,conveying a walking easement across Mr. Guenther's property to Oswego Lake. Joe Blerrmann,2 5O Souuth h 1lt?d.,Lake Owego 97A34 supported Mr. DeRositt's presentation. He noted that one of the exhibits in the staff report wits a --- \`\ petitiosin in opposition signed by all but four property owners within a 300 foot radius of rat Hlolierg. 16777 Phantom Dittrf,Late OFWegO,97Q3A stated that she did not want to set;the quality and tradition of Lake Oswego destroyed and was opposed to the subdivision. ,, p , 1,.0awegO 97034 was opposed to the application and urged utenial. Ho'submitted Exhibit 63 for the record which was a letter from the Lake Oswego corporation. He noted that the Board was fbeing asked to approve a subdivision whose primtrty amenities would be the lake front access which the Lake Oswego Corporation was opposed to and did not recognize. He c; stated that they would like the applicant to identify which lots-would not get access to the lake,since they wouldn't all be eligible'' lie was concerned with potential drainage problett s and he was also concerned with the lack of access to the site for emergency vehicles. He noted that Mr.Guenther bought the property with full knowledge that the site was historic.to the l He stated that he was opposed to the applicant granting walking easake. W alter, Cielson, ti tim,Oswego 97434 stated that Mr.Guenther had approached him asking for support in the application or Mr.Guenther would have several large trees, which were located on his property but within the 15 foot road easement,cut down in order to widen the road. He declared that he was opposed to the subdivision. attt t nto_ " itta t ifsi.eke Qswego.2 " agreed with the testimony in opposition to the application. He explained that'1s M . Guenther had asked ill5/6/91 DRpt Minutes Page 6 of 9 z, 1 for his support of the utility easement and since he wasn't in favor,Mr.Guenther told him he,,,rould have the`water and gas which ran through Mr,t3uenthcr'i easement shut 4. off. j .L. t stated that he was asked to sign a petition in support of the application and was told by Mr. Guenther that if he didn't support the installation of sewer lines he would be cut off; therefore,he 11 11 was opposed to the application. % Rel uttat William Monahan,Attorney,explained that the request met all the criteria for 11 • approval and the historical integrity of the site would be maintained, .11,1gia1115,1)141i pointed out that Phantom Bluff Court ranged In width from 11 to 16 feet, Be explained that tile application proposed 20 feet in order to meet City standards. He suggested that widening the road would improve pedestrian safety. Be responded to concerns about locating a flat roofed home in front of the Sundelcttf home and lie noted that there were many such houses along the lake already. Mr. Sievert inquired whether Mr.Guenther was aware that the property was historic when he purchased the site, Mr.Dills responded that there was a master list of potential historic properties and Mr.Guenther was aware that the site was on that list, Mr. Greaves referred to the City Attorney's memo and inquired if it was in the parameters of the Board's authority to make a determination on the property surrounding a historic structure. Mrr Galante read the option;that the City ttorney 411 provided for the Board to follow. He noted that the City Attorney recommended that the Historic Review Board delimit the extent of the landmark designation on the property. Mr. ()relives suggested that the Board could provide a tentative finding which would p explained that if the IIttf3 findings differed from the DRB, the application would go allow the Historic Review Board the o ortunit to delineate the historic site, He back before the DRB. Ms. Phillips discussed the history of the historic landmark list: She also noted that Tax Lots 1900 and 1905 comprised 1.$3 acres,which was listed as the landmark site on the Cultural Resources Inventory Field Form,Exhibit 40. Mr, Greaves asked for a clarification of HR 4-91(a) (b)and,(c), Mr, Wheeler explained that the reason for three separate historic requests was to correct the improperly created parcels and provide for the subdivision of the historic resource. Seeing no further testimony to come before the Board,Vice—Chairman Stanaway closed the public hearing for Board deliberation, ))01berathm, The Board deliberated and determined the following 1. The Sundeleaf house was placed on the Historic Landmark List at the request of Mrs.rSundeleaf and Mr.Guenther bought the property with the knowledge that the site was considered historic, 5/6/91 DIt13 Minutes Page 7 of 9 , 6> wf 2, The Board was not in favor of locating a home on proposed lot 1,which was , 41 located between the Sundeleaf house and the lake. 3 Testimony,presented'by opponents that Mr.Guenther had made threats against neighbors disturbed the Board, 4. The Board agreed with the letter from the Lake Oswego Corporation and found that the applicant had failed to work with the Lake Corporation, 5. The Board found that the applicant's dilemma was a self-created hardship, ardship, 6, The Board found that emergency access to the site hadn't been addressed in the proposal, 7, The Board found that the subdivision would adversely affect the character of the neighborhood, 8, The Board found that while approval of Sr)9-91,VAR i 1 l(b)and FIR 4-91(a) was appropriate, they were opposed to the balance of the application, Dill Monahan asked that the l#oard determine whether they had ale authority,to grant or deny the subdivision of a piece of property that had a historic landmark designation, Mr. Oreaves remarked that any application that would delineate a different configuration for Tax Lots 1900 and 1905 would not be appropriate because it would alter the historical significance of the site as a whole. Mr. Greaves moved for approval of ► 'l id as it 110 affects or relates to SO 9-91 along with the conditions of approval as listed in the staff report,excluding conditions 1 14,and in the findings as deliberated by the Board. Ms.Remy seconded the motion and it carried with Mr,Sievert,Mr. Stanaway, Mr.Greaves,Ms.Remy and Mr,Starr voting yes, Mr. Greaves moved for denial of - (bl n tle `. 1.(b ,as they relate to that application,for the reasons set forth in the deliberations by the Board. Ms.Remy seconded tie:motion and it carried with Mr. Sievert,Mr. Stanawayy, Mr.Greaves, Ms. Remy and Mr. Starr voting yes. Mr. Grooves moved for the denial of$D UU99I 14-1.-.. . i ,fit 1, d. [I 91(c),as they relate to that application,in accorde ice with the reasons and deliberations of the Board. Ms.Remy seconded the motion and it carried with Mr, Sievert,Mr. Stanaway, Mr.Oreaves,Ms. Remy and Mr, Starr voting yes, ,' VI. GENERAL PLANNING 0 None, VII. OTHER BUSINESS.,Findings,Conclusions and Order Mr.Starr moved for approval of R)).1.6ztafr.22,7A,Ikuling,s,Conclusimituil cb . Mr. Greaves seconded the motion and the second vote carried with Mr. Greaves,Ms.Remy and Mr.Starr voting yes. Mr.Sievert and Mr. Stanaway abstained. 410 5/6/91 DRl3 Minutes Page 8of9 VIII, ,A1D,1"OUR1MENT 0 , I Seeing no further business to co,he before the Development Review Board,Vice-- '). Chairman Stanaway adjourned the meeting,gat 11:15 p.m. Respectfully'Submitted, Kathy Avery ,. Senior Secretary /kaa 10/15/91 0 '0 5/6 911 13 Minutes fags9of9 c r 0 • • u i f) (! ii 'Lnk a , ��- CITY' OF LA .E OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES 410 May 20, 1991 H,: C) I, CALL TO ORDER w r; .+ I , The Development Review Board meeting of May 20,1991 was called to order by . Chairman Poster at 7:30 p.m. II. ROLL CALL, Board members present were Mr.Bloomer Mr. Starr,Ms, Remy,Mr,Foster,Mr. Stanaway and Mr, Sievert Mr,Greaves was excused. Also present were Robert Galante, Senior Planner;I-Iamid Pishvaie,Development Review Planner,Barbara Smolak, Associate Planner; Cindy Phillips,Deputy City Attorney; and Barbara Anderson, Senior Secretary, III, PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS None IV, PUBLIC HEARING • Mr.Wheeler noted that SD 8-91 should be continued until the June 3, 1991 meeting. because of notification problems: Mr,Wheeler explained that all material had been 410 submitted on time; however, notices were mailed with an incorrect hearing date, He explained that new notices had been sent out. D .21.4 modified re rtbmittal of SD 53-901, a request by Compass Corp.for approval of the creation of three parcels from a 1,2 acre site. The parcels are proposed to be 13,870, 17,030 and 21,540 sq, ft, in size, Also,the applicant is pro osing a Future Streets Plan serving property within 250'ft,of the applicant,s site, The site is located on the north side of Country Club Road,east of I{naus Road(Tax Lot 1300 of Tax Map 2 IE 4DB), Staff coordinator is Micht►el'Rt'UVheeiet,, SLt fitit.. tlll ef. Mr. Starr moved for ontrawance.14SD 8-91 to;Tune 3,1991, Ms. Remy seconded the motion and it passed with Mr.Bloomer,Mr,Starr,Ms, Remy,Mr,Foster,Mr. Stanaway and Mr, Sievert all voting yes, r 1)4-91\VAR 9-91, a request by Dimension Homes, Inc, for approval'of the creation of two parcels from a 10,157 sq,ft.parcel. Also the applicant is seeking approval of a 25 ft.Class II variance to the Access Development Standard which requires that each parcel abut a public street for a minimum of 25 ft., Parcel B is proposed to have no / frontage on a;public street, The applicant is also proposing a Future Streets Plan serving property within 250' of the applicant's site. The site is located at 5302' Rosewood Street(Taxi Lot 3703 of Tax Map 21E 18A13). Staff coordinator Is Naiad m May 6, 1991,, Chairman Foster asked the Board members if there were any ex parte contacts or 410 conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he asked for the staff presentation, ORB Minutes 5/20/91 Page 1 of 8 Si a' r1 0 Mr,Wheeler stated that the Board had received the original April 26, 1991 staff report,. pie then said that an addendum to the staff report was mailed. Mr.Wheeler presented two additional exhibits,Exhibits 12 and 15 to the Board. Be then explained the roposal. Mr. Wheeler noted that VAR 9-91(b) was withdrawn. He discussed the history and background on the roposal. He concluded by saying that the proposal could meet all applicable criteria with the imposition of conditions1. The Board questioned Mr,Wheeler about the access easement. Mr,Wheeler explained that a portion of the access easement was granted over property that did not belong to the grantor. Applicant Mike Nelson,Dimhnsionlio nes,256st Robinia Lane,Po it pd,explained that the earlier easement was written incorrectly.. 1.Ie explained that there was a revised roadway easement, Mr. Nelson stated that the applicant had no problems with the. recommended conditions of approval, He submitted'the correct legal description, Exhibit 16,and a map,Exhibit 17,to the Board. ajr The Board questioned Mr, Nelson about the lot configuration, Mr-Nelson explained that the existing dwelling had been moved onto tlrn lot several years ago. fie stated that the lots were configured to allow a minimum of 5,000 sq., ft for each lot; Qpponeti t 5 illMarlene Peaton,Dtivre„Develoinnent tls, tlte.ns v. '►u, 97035,stated that she was opposed to the easement dedication. She was also opposed to the Eoture Streets.Plan, Ms. Deaton stated that she was in favor of the partition, but questioned the need to record the Future Streets Plan as part of the proposal, Mr,Galante explained that the recordation of the easement and the future streets plan was a requirement of the City He explained that when there was undeveloped land adjacent,to a site, then a future streets plan was required to show how the streets could connect in the future, iteiiitOlitil Mike Nelson stated that the easentont al°eady existed and that access for Parcel 13 already existed. He said that the t ,'y issue was whether or not the street would be public or private. Pelibera_jtu The Board found that the proposal did not reasonably divide the property into two legal lots which met both the minimum lot area and minimum required setbacks. The Board believed the irregular lot line,proposed in order to achieve the necessary square footage under the R-5 zoning regulations, to be a manipulation of the development requirements. The Board found that the irregular lot line configuration was an improper way to partition a parcel which is burdened by the presence of an existing dwelling that doce not easily comply with required setbacks or lot area and which would result in development which would appears to not even meet minimum standards, 411 D1t11 Minui r1'11/4)1 rage 2 of 8 u The Board found that the irregular lot• line confused the pattern or ownership and use tharwould occur between lots, They agreed that residential privacy could not be i ,• assured when borrowing front one property's yard area to meet the minimum size F requirement to create a new lot. r � I ' ' The Board expressed concern over the two-off street parking spaces being located In -, front of the house,noting they should be located in front of the swage instead. ' Ms.Remy moved for :11,. Mr.Starr seconded the motion " k '' and it passed with Mr, Sievert►Mr, Stanaway, Ms, Remy, Mr, Starr and Mr,Bloomer all voting yes. Mr.Poster voted no. r -' w.-.M� �,..... .w...r+...r..�r.Y..,r...rr.+ --..wr T....rww.r...—rt+.Wo-+r wetW'1+..n.wR ww;W1M1 l(+w ww Ww.+..i....i;w..e ww kiiY.Mw : . i ' ., f Tt.1- T9 911'VAR 10-9►li a request by lirtrher Prank Properties to develop a free standing,9,000 sq ft retail\mnethcal building on the south side of the shopping w center parcel. Two new lots will be cleated for proposed development requiring a variance to the requirement that every lot have at least 25'of frontage along a public street The site is located at the northwest corner of,fie intersection of Monroe Parkway ' and Boones Perry Road(Tax Lots 1018c 2(0 of Tax Map 2 lB SAA), Staff coordinator is Robert Gtdante.Senior elnnller• r° ' • Pains;of Oide h> ric►4sllitallll f tJ. tt +au n ,, 4; r stated that the staff report was incomplete. He suggested that the Board postpone the hearing. :7 .--' Robert Galante pointed out that the staff report was complete; however,when it was ' printed some of the exhibits did not copy because they jammed in the copier. He F ,. ; explained that the staff reportt was reprinted and remalled to various persons, Mr.1�� , ; Galante recommended that the hearing be held and left open to comment on the missing .�'";;r exhibits. i '; 't't The Board agreed that it would be best to hold the public hearing at this time and leave eta. r; the record open for testimony relating to the missing pages. ;; Chairman Poster then asked the Board members if there were any ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Ski Stanaway noted that he had worked with some of the t� -;, / engineering en ineerin consultants or the applicant; however,.he stated that he had not discussed ' the project with any of them and he would not be biased. Chairman Poster then asked ' for the staff presentation. Mr,Galante entered several exhibits into the record,Exhibits 19 through 27,regarding .4` traffic,parking problems,wetlands,loss of Open space, noise pollution,security, setbacks and the visual impacts, He also entered exhibit 28, a survey by Stindowner ' Protection Services, that demonstrates that crime has not been a big problem for Oswego Towne Square. ' , ' Mr. Galante briefly discussed the background on the proposal. He stated that there was concern about the effect of further development on the wetlands, Mr. Galante noted that the applicant had demonstrated in the plans trait storm water runoff and parking lot •.4 , water runoff would travel through a biofiitrationt ;t stem before it n*aches the wetlands, 0 He stated that the proposal could meet the applicable criteria and standards and ' a recommended approval with conditions. 2. , DR13 M. ites Si29/91 Page 3 tip 7r,' t ej. O. APPlital 0 eiugattoltelieAkoitege 9733t discussed the history of the project. He displayed photortplts of the center , t '+fore it was purchased in�1988 by Dirtcher Frank and of the center today. He stated that Butcher Frank had taken tide failing center and turned it into a very successful neighborhood center. He explained that the zoning established o11 the center allowed ttp that6r�k�en th000 eRcento�r commercial+m themb £ w�it�;a u used b�the applicant. He stated purchased , � sq. ft. that were developed, Mr, Lewis noted that by adding the approved daycare facility and the proposed 9,000 sq. ft, medical/retail structure would increase the total square footage to 131,000 sq. ft, Mr.Lew',discussed the proposal for a 9,000 sq.IL medical/retail building. lie explained the lOcation,architectural design,color scheme,landscaping,and screening. Mr,Lewis then discussed the proposal for a minor partition and'va lance to the access Standard. He stated that the applicant wanted to create two internal lots within the 13.3 acre site. He explained that the tenants of the daycare facilityy ind the proposed 9,000 sq, ft. medical/retail building were interested in purchasing t ,e sites Individually instead of leasing them. Mr.Lewis noted that the variance was necessary because the two proposed lots would not have street frontage. He stated that the necessary easements would be provided to the two new dots. Mr.Lewis pointed out that maintenance responsibility for landscaping would remain with the applicant to insure continuity in the center. Mr.Lewis mentioned the security issue raised by the opponents, He referred the Board to Exhibit 28 which noted that security had been a problem in the past when the center was mostly vacant. He stated that the report concluded that since the center has been about 97% occupied and security w,aj increased there have been fewer reported disturbances, The Board questioned Mr. Lewis about the design of the building, whether it was bunkered into the bank,whether there would be windows along the Monroe frontage, possible loading areas,and lighting on the building. Mr. Lewis stated that the building was bunkered into the bank, there would be no windows along the back of the building because it would be used as storage area by the tenants, all loading would be done through the front of the building and lighting would depend on the tenant usage, The Board questioned Mr,Lewis about the siting of the building envelope. Mr,Lewis explained that they had looked at other alternatives and this was the most logical place within the 13,3 acre site. The Board asked Mr,Lewis about reducing the number of parking spaces in order to site the building someplace else, Mr.Lewis explained that lie did not feel it would be feasible to locate a buildingp site.within the parking area because it would disrupt the flow of parking and movement of cars within the site. The Board noted that the building somewhat turned its back to the neighborhood. Mr, Lewis stated that if the building was turned it would cause major work to the,site in the form of excavation,stair wells and removal of existing landscaping. The Board pointed out the design of the lower level did not provide any relief to the sense of scale or area, Mr.Lewis replied that could be handled by introducing combinations of green and blue to provide some relief from other colors and landscaping could be modified to allow softening. The Board mentioned that the roof would be dominant, Mr.Lewis referred ill) the Board to the landscaping plan and stated it could be modified to provide more screening,he mentioned the elevation of the building and the apartments across the street. Diitl Minutes 5/ 0/91 Pup dof0 a p The Board questioned Mr.Lewis about signage. Mr.Lewis pointed out that signage q would match the existing signage within the shopping center. He noted that signage II would be submitted to staff for review and approval. The Board asked which elevations would have signage. Mr.Lewis stated that signage would only be on the front face of the building and the west side facing Booties Ferry Road« Opponents Jim Fen€more,President Mt.Park Home Owner's Assocla, 012 Mt..teffer, Terrace, Lake Oswego,971)35 discussed the hearings in 1979 a d 1983 on the Mountain Park Towne Center. He explained that at that time a compromise was reached for square footage not to exceed 116,500 sq. ft. He explained that presently there were 116,000 sq, ft. He noted that by including the daycare facility the square footage would total 121,500 sq. ft., He stated that the Mt. Park Home Owner's' Association had agreed to the daycare proposal only because they thought it was a necessary and useful project. Mr.Fenimore requested the Board to include the findings and records for the 1979 and 1983 hearings. He discussed the regional draw issue, landscaping, and other changes to the center that the Mt.Park Home Owner's :, Association has supported in the past. Bob Ericsson anai Executive M er,Mt ' lation,112 Mt. ti stated that the home owner's association was also opposed to the minor partition and variance request in addition to the 9,000 sq. ft. structure. Hestatedi'that the criteria for a variance had notbeen demonstrated e t emonstrated and that the minor partition was not necessary to prevent hardship. He was concerned about the 40 impact on the center by having three separate owners within one complex resulting in the loss of centralized control over future remodeling, painting, signage and continuity in the aesthetic appeal of the shopping center, Mr. Ericsson also asked for the records on DR 25-79 and DR 1-83 to be included in the current record for DR 1-91/SD 7- 91/VAR 10-91. He also discussed the history of the site and the compromise that was reached between City Council, Mt.Park and the developer. Mr. Ericsson pointed out that the center has never been fully leased and that the proposed structure is not '` warranted. He discussed the regional draw to the center. He stated that the neighborhood was polled and 90% were in opposition to the new proposal. Mr. Ericsson discussed theAsiting of the building and noted that it would have a devastating impact on the neighborhood,cause traffic problems and add to noise pollution. Mr. Ericsson discussed the setback,stating that DR 1-83 increased the setback along Monroe Parkway to 40'. He pointed out that the new proposed structure would only be setback 29' and violate the previous approval. Mr.Ericsson discussed screening and buffering of the metal roof,' He disputed the traffic information, stating that the applicant was relying on a 1988 traffic study which only calculated the fact that the center was only half full. He urged the Board to deny the proposal. ridge Townliouse Home Owner's Association stated that he was in support of the testimony given by the Mt«Park Home Owner's Association especially regarding the mgional draw issue, traffic problems, noise problems,pollution and visual impact, He pointed out that although the center exceeds the minimum required parking spaces as described by the Code,on any given day the parking lot is already full. He was concerned about parking on the roadway in the future if the additional 9,000 sq. ft. structure was approved. Mr. Clark discussed the security problems in the center. He disputed the information in Exhibit 28, saying that 0 on several occasions he has had to phone the police because of disruptions in the center. Mr. Clark was also concerned about the mechanical equipment on the roof relating to screening and buffering of noise. DRIB Minutes 5/20/91 ,, Page 5 of 8 0 Fritz Hayes, hairs` an, +"orest light tt ,q N hborhood Assoc atian,980 Atwater, ' Lake Oswego 97034 was concerned about traffic and additional parking needs. Jan Bruchner,74 Greenridge,Lake Oswego,97035 stated that she was concerned about the visual impact, screening and buffering,public safesy, zoning,the previous compromise in 1983 and impact to the wetlands and animal'habitat, Charles Beek,Chairman,Condelea Board of Directors,38 Condolea Court,L kg Oswego,97035 stated that he was in support of previous testimony. Mr.Beek was particularly concerned about the regional draw issues. Lew Thompson,Chairman,Mt.Park Architectural Cammitt,e,,Ztg, Oswego,97035 mentioned the previous compromise and approval in 1983, He was concerned about the size of the center, traffic, the right—of—way, setbacks, the 5' strip of common property along Monroe Parkway and the neighborhood character, Viee, c►,.9703,5 was ctincerned about the impact of additional square footage. Mary,Stasook,96 Greenridge Court,Lake Oswego,97035 stated that she agreed with previous testimony and was opposed to the proposal, John rurda,28 Aquinas,Lake Oswego,97035 stated that he agreed previous testimony and was opposed to the proposal. He also noted that the Mt.Park community could divert their consumerism to other shopping areas within the City if they were forced to have the additional 9,000 sq.ft structure added to the center. IMF Dan.Fessin,29 Bloch Terrace,Lake Oswego,97035 pointed out that most of the neighborhood was opposed to the proposal, He too wa angry that the developer was proposing more square footage when there had been a compromise in 1983 to limit the size of the center, He also mentioned the regional draw and the types of people that are being brought into the neighborhood. Pauline Goldste•in,80 Tanglewaod Arive, Lake Oswego.97035 stated that she agreed with previous testimony. She was concerned with the visual impact, added traffic, loss of open space and size of the center, was opposed to the proposal. He stated that he did not feel the applicant was a neighborhood retailer, rather a developer who would cut and run, Erances O'Brien,P.O. Box 12.Lake Oswea ,970.3 stated that she was opposed to the proposal. She was concerned about security issues and impact to the wetland, John Pullen,Secretary,Mt. Park Safety Cmnmtttec,18 Byitten Court,Lak Oswego 97035 stated that he supported the traffic issues raised, He was concerned about the missing pages within the staff report. Mr.Pullen commented on the location of the misting bike path and sidewalk,stating that it would have to be moved if the proposal was allowed, ge C.ctfit LLnk S ego,97035 was in support of previous 410 testimony regarding opposition. He emphasized that the crime issues and noise problems were of particular concern. ORB Minutes 5/20/91 Page 6 of ake Oswego,9743S,stated that he was opposed 411 to the development and in agreement with previous testimony. Norma Beek,$$Condolea.;Court,rake Oswego.97ti35 was acerned-about public safety and security issues. i iake ikimeeo;n/ S was concerned that the City did not need another retail space, She discussed the fact that the center sat empty for years. The Board asked staff to discuss the regional draw issue. Mr. Galante stated that the Zoning Code allowed for a Neighborhood Commercial zone,which lists a radius from which to draw patrons from. He explained that the Zoning Code did not define outlet stores,rather it determines regional draw on the basis of square footage. He suggested that it may be appropriate for the Planning Commission to review factory outlet stores. The Board discussed the missing pages,the lack of a current traffic study,previous agreements between the City, the developer and the citizens regarding size of the center,right-of-way and setbacks, The Board agreed that the hearing should be continued to allow staff to address some of the issues and to include the 1979 and 1983 records. Mr.Starr moved for coati urtnce of lilt t-911$1D 7M-91!VATt 1 91 to Tune 17, 1991k Ms.Remy seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Sievert,Mr. Stanaway, Mr,Foster,M.r. Starr,Ms.Remy and Mr..Bloomer all voting yes. PI2 --9 , a request by OTAK,Inc. for approval of 6-lot single ftmily residential planned development(Casebeer Heights).. The site is located at 4118 S.W.Glacier Lily Street(Tax Lots 11900& 11901 of Tax Map 2 lE 5CA). Staff coordinator is llamid Piie,pevelopment Review Planner. Due to the lateness of the hour Ms.Remy moved for , lone.3, 1991 agenda. Mr.Starr seconded the motion and it passed with Mr, Sievert, Mr. Stanaway,Mr. Foster,Ms. Remy,Mr. Starr and Mr. Bloomer all voting yes, V. GENERAL PLANNING VI, OTHER BUSINESS-Findings,Conclusions and Order Due to the fact that there was a potential for new evidence on a wetland within the site, Mr. Foster moved for a tveilp,rr royal o the i l90 p'mdingso. , lu►nistu and_Onhlt. Mr. Starr seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Sievert, Mr. , Stanaway, Mr. Foster,Ms.Remy, Mr. Starr and Mr. Bloomer all voting yes. Mr. Starr moved for approval of . Cottciusions:and Order. Ms. Remy seconded the motion and it passed with Mr, Sievert,Mr. Stanawny,Ms.Remy and Mr. Starr all voting yes, Mr.Foster and Mr. Bloomer abstained. 411 ORB Minutes 5/20/91 r Page 7of8 VII. APMOVAL OF MINUTES 410Mr. Foster moved for,approyal of theDecember 4, 1989.1' irtutt .4 tanilJ Vote), Mr. Starr seconded the motion and it passed with Mr.Foster,Ms Remy and Mr,Starr all voting yes, Mr,Sievert,Mr, Stanaway and Mr, Bloomer abstained. _, Mr.Foster moved for approyaL,af theil.er_embcr r$, 1989 Mintttes (Second Vote), Mr. Starr seconded the motion and it passed with Mr,Foster,Ms.Remy and Mr,Starr II all voting yes, Mr.Sievert,Mr. Stanaway and Mr. Bloomer absttditted. Mr. Foster moved for approval of the January 15, 19901V1inrates (First Vote), Ms, Remy seconded the motion and it passed with Mr.Foster,Ms. Remy and Mr. Starr all voting yes, Mr, Sievert, Mr. Stanaway and Mr.Bloomer abstained, Mr. Stanaway moved for approval of heAugust 28. 199(1 Minrites„ Mr.Bloomer seconded the motion and it passed with Mr, Sievert,Mr. Stanaway, Mr. Starr and Mr.. Bloomer all voting yes. Ms.Remy and Mr.Foster abstained, Mr. Foster moved for approval of_the September 5,1990 Minutes,, Mr.Sievert seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Sievert,Mr.Foster,Mr. Starr and Mr, Bloomer all voting yes, Ms. Remy and Mr. Stanaway abstained. Due to the lack of a quorum the November 20,1989 andNoyeniber.28,1282.1ffinutes were postponed to the June 3, 1991 meeting, Vltl. ADJOURNMENT e? 110 There being no further business before the Development Review Board,Chairman Foster adjourned the meeting at 11:25 p,ni. Respectfully Submitted, 41/t41414/41) Barbara Anderson Senior Secretary 4111 ORB Minutes 5/20/91 Page 8ofB y _ 4 I r .. 44., 4 >� ''4 s , , is yt i 4' W .y! w t " 4 d w ,./* `i a t; W x 4 ;x it y */. a ' ' a4 y iakz, 'S.4`. r -''ea NN a Y " ' s*^ .� p it '!„ 4 r Y p x ,J x� t 4 ' e o}, . i, �, " r !, *r ,4 '�`�4i tx , - ,, ,,,,, . dt e R':N. 4^Pf ! r f , ' ti, iv A"�,y` p w ;' tr rrl',.%, - 9«$,,- i. 44�e iii•,k i. '� „..„„ t4x. ''r ." ,' NE , 4,e� 1,. < xp• m r y , ky} y•t I , w Na • .; .i'a • „' � ti x'r.< . ,y t, e y t Spy *, &"ki w d T1. ,d i". ,kM ` • c) ,t 4 �' 1,4 a ds. i q , k.. ' I. k r V 4`�4p ( 4,p 3 Y,, P ,4 ' t ( ;, 1 1, Y.,.,r, . xM 1 3."r ,.t `�,i,",� ',Y' / „y A M1,, f4 ., , q�" 'a * �, 4 `iotpp a '4 it6,..,-, `qa�,r 4r,i a " {p "a #x, , µ1;. € ^ ,{? x€gt~•y Ai', =1,to. 1 y ' .p ; 4 ..ki."1°` +�' ,; 1,,! i 1,".:IY #, .t '4'y" .-t, p A ' s�'$ "' "-t� tyya 4 �., N d;rM t f' _. ,A 4 s yt4i tfi. 4 1 .,, •a* . a -'�>(,.1'" ',i„' - ' 4 .}j$'' ,,'f E`1 '-i d ,-„,4 _..4t(r+`. .''.;• M "` a7 r� 4'q ..,,# ' I. M :`,f F, , �0 'V is ;«4 ,„, , gip): $� r` 4u, w*� .'.x ly' ail ' t v }' w_ , % ��m. rx ,,,, ., , . TM.�" 4, *`w fig' h �f'.y A l 1 t b t , ."y';' *. 4 4 tr' w ,, '°x t e te a. 'e el^ 1: s. n h1 > ih 0 b. ci Q I* 6 , ' 0 !1, ('} p - i. - t f 0 j 0' ,t