Loading...
Approved Minutes - 1991-07-01 B f� f Cf 1 LAKE OS W'EGc$I PLANNINGDEPT..EILIE Cr DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES ti a CITY OF LA U OS` VEGO 0 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES c Q 0 JULYI,199 „ . } ti i1 irti 1 1 t tit N 1I, CALL TO ORDER , < ,� .... The Development Review Board meeting of July 1, 1991 was called to order by Ms; Remy, Acting Chairman at'7;30 p.m, It, ROLL CALL <> Board members present were Mr..Bloomer,Mr,Starr,Nis Remy,Mr,Greaves and Mr, Sievert, Mr. Stanaway and Mr,Foster were excused. Also present were Robert Galante, Senior Planner;Humid Pish vaie,Development Review Planner,Michael Wheeler, Associate Planner,Barbara Smolak,Associate Planner, Cindy Phillips, Deputy City Attorney; and Barbara Anderson,Senior Secretary, VII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Greaves moved for pppr tva es (Se onti .Vote). Mr.Starr seconded the motion and it passed'with Mr.Greaves,Ms. Remy and Mr. Starr all voting yes, Mr, Sievert and Mr.Bloomer abstained. Mr. Greaves moved for ;s W"sconsi Ynto. Mr. Starr seconded tite motion and it passed with Mr,Greaves,Ms, Remy and Mr.: illStarr all voting yes, Mr.`Sievert and Mr Bloomer abstained, Mr. roster moved for tss., 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, '' < ,f> III, PETITIONS AND:CC:MMUNICATIONS None IV. PUBLIC` AR.INC r . ' , till of SD 53-90`!,a request by Compass Corp. for approval of the creation at thrze parcels from a 1.2 acre cite. The parcrLL;s are proposed to be 13,870, 17,030 and 21,540 sq, ft. in size. Also,the applicant is proposing 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 Knaus Road(Tax Lot 1300 of Tax Map 2 l R 4DB). Staff coordinator is Michnellt.Wheeler,Associat .arumer. Mr.Wheeler explained that the applicant had requested continuance of�,..8... J,until the Agust ,�1991 meeting Mr. reeves pointed out that he had not been resent at p the previous hearing and stated that he would recuse himself from the vote in order to avoid future confusion of the record. Mr. Wheeler noted that staff was goingg to prepare hartthosemembers who were not present at theprevious 1 n g in order to allow m opportunity8any tapes and materials for thel3aard p embers an o rorttrtrit to becornc,eligible for futurehearings on the matter. 410 BitU Minutes 7/1/91 Pagel ofS Mr. Starr moved for continuance of SP 8-91 to August S, 1991n, Mr. Sievert 0 seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Sievert,Mr.Bloomer,Mr. Starr and Ms. Remy all voting yes, Mr,Greavcs abstained, PR 1-91\SD 7-91\VAR 10-91,a request by Birtcher Frank Properties to develop a free standing,9,000 sq,ft.retail\nedical building on the south side of the shopping center parcel, Two new lots will be created for proposed development requi n 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 the intersection of Monroe Parkway and Boones Ferry Road(Tax Lots 101 &200 of Tax Map 2 lE MA), Staff coordinator )) is Robert Galante,Senior Planner. Continued 20. 1j t,i. Chairman Remy asked if there were any ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Mr. Greaves mentioned that he had not participated in the first hearing and would recuse himself on this agenda item. Hearing of no further contacts,Chanman Remy asked for the staff presentation, Mr. Galante discussed the events of the May 20, 1991 public hearing on the matter, He stated that the first,issue related to an updated traffic study. He noted that the report that was currently in the record showed that existing intersections would function at an acceptable level of service at full development,including the newly proposed s rture, Relatingto the issue of the 40' setback Mr.Galante stated thath t there was in fact a 40 setback measured from the curbline along Monroe Parkway and there was also an. overlapping 5' common property strip along the right—of—way, Mr, Galante discussed the issue about whether previous re Cit y v s C y decisions illustrated ti 4110 limitation on the size of the shopping center, He explained that the Zoning Code established a cap for the center at 163,000 sq.ft, Mr. Galante stated that the issue relating to excess parking was discussed in the May 10, 1991 staff report and in the applicant's narrative,Exhibit 3 of the staff report. He stated that according to the formula described in the Development Standards the site currently exceeds the required minimum parking spaces, . Regarding the issue of regional draw in the Neighborhood/Commercial zone, Mr,gg ti:,, Galante referred the Board to the definitions in the Comprehensive Plan. He explained that the Plan defined a radius area from which to draw patrons, Mr,Galante stated that in e I history � the of the center there was considerable discussion on they types of uses for the center. He noted that at that time nobody really considered the fact that there might be factory outlet stores, Relating to the size of the building and whether it intrudes into the 40 ft. setback,Mr. Galante stated that the building as originally designed would in fact intrude into the setback. Mr. Galante summarized by saying that staff believed that there was adequate evidence in the record to support the current proposal with some design modifications and with, the conditions that were originally recommended, provided that the applicant adhere.to 1 the 40' setback. He added that the applicant was prepared to show the 13oard building modifications that would respect the 40' setback, t DRB Minutes 7/1/91 Page 2 of S. i I li AIliglaillt W. tt 97935 stated that in the May 20, 1991 hearing he may have indicated that there was only one sign band on the north side of the building. He told the Board that was an error and that there would be two sign bands: one on the north side and one on the Ottst side, Mr.Lewis mentioned the May 1988 traffic study,stating that it had been updated with projections for the current proposal. Be stated that since the last hearing,.,their traffic consultant had taken an actual traffic count based on today's traffic volumes. no pointed out that the results of the most recent-traffic count show that trip generations in actuality have come down from the projections in the initial application. Regarding the 40' setback issue,Mr.Lewis acknowledged that be too had discovered that the 40' setbackapplied to the site He stated that the building was modified with a 20 ft. offset to create a building that is only 40 ft.deep versus the p'evious 60 ft. deep. Mr,Lewis pointed out that the back of the building would have tt break that would soften the building appearance architecturally, He added that this would also give the front of the building more character and offset the height of the roof structure. Mr.Lewis discussed the visual impact as it related to the adjacent apartments,stating that actual surveyed elevations were prepared. Mr.Lewis pointed out that some views of the roof would remain, but in general the sight lines showed that the adjacent views would be screened by landscaping or look down into the parking lot. The Board questioned Mr.Lewis about the landscaping plan. They were concerned about the type of trees (deciduous or evergreen) and the siz e.ze. 1VIr.Lewis stated tiiiii F there would be a mix of trees both deciduous and evergreen and that he was not sure Of the size, He pointed out that some of the shrubs would be small in order to better deal with surveillance issues. Mr. Galante suggested,that the Board require the applicant to meet the caliper of trees as recommended by the American Nurserymen's Standards,, Pr4PotieJlti ► was in support of the proposal. 1.1e stated that the appl cant had turned the center into a real contribution to , the Mt.Park area and the City, DinistuntiS ge_To yttliottses stated that the Board has heard nothing but opposition to the project. She urged them to listen to the community and deny the proposal. S2 i.e1lUvp MafiaJ Jerrer w stated that there was a discrepancy in the wily the 40' setback was measured. lie restated the position of the home owner's association as detailed in the letters of.May 20th,tune 17th and dune 25th, i F 41, The Board asked Mr.Ericsson why the Mt. Park Rome Owner's Association did not object to the proposal for the daycare center, Mr.Ericsson explained that the applicant had not been up-front about the amount of development that he wished to Construct on the she. Mr. Lewis noted that the home owner's association found the daycare proposal to be a worthwhile and needed addition to the center. iZB Minutes 7/1I9 Page 3 of 8 disputed the reliability of the 40 traffic count, She stated that the center was underutilized and that the neighborhood did not peed another building or retail site. Charles, d of)ire tors,38 Cultdolea Courto Eilke Oswego,97035 stated that he was in agreement with the Mt,.park Home Owner's Association's testimony. He urged the Board to deny the proposal. Rebuttal Mr,Lewis mentioned that there had been much discussion regarding the 40' setback, the 40'right-of--way and the 5' strip of common property, He stated that he believed that the modified proposal addressed the 40' setback to the best Of his knowledge. Mr, Lewis pointed out that in the event that some other issue coshes up regarding the setback, being a responsible developer,they would fully comply with that. The Board questioned Mr.Lewis about the traffic count. Mr, Lewis asked the Board to direct the questions to his traffic consultant,Andrew Mortinson, Mr,Martinson explained the traffic count and analysis. He stated that he had found that with the change in land uses as proposed, that half as much of the previous trips estimated would actually occur. Mr.Martinson clarified that trip generations would not be less than existing today;,however, future traffic conditions would be less than previously stated, The Board questioned Mr, Galante about the size of the center and the 1983 approval l that limited size. Mr. Galante explained that the 1983 approval did not limit the size of tiothe center,rather the when the Zoning Code was adopted it limited the size of the center to 163,000 sq.ft. The Board asked Mr.Galante about factory outlet stores. Mr.Galante pointed,out that the Zoning Code did not make a distinction between factory outlet stores and others, He noted that the Code only made a distinction about the size of the store,the use of the „ store(retail clothing sales,food merchandise,etc.) nellibertitiort The Board did not agree with the staff recommendation and found that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria necessary to approve the access variance, The Board found that oilier alternatives were possible and determined that the request wits no the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of the property, The Board found that the partition request could not be approved because it was contingent oe approval of the variance. The Bond found that the applicant had not detatortstrated that the proposed structure was complementary to adjacent structures of good design. The applicant had submitted Exhibits 60, 61,62 and 63 to attempt to demonstrate compliance with the Building Design Standard(2.005). However,the Board agreed with the testimony from the Mt. Park Home Owner's Association resented by ttobert triesson (Exhibit 57) and found that the applicants had not met the Building Design Standard. The Board found that the proposed building was not complementary to adjacent buildings because it was too close to the adjacent apartments would provide the apartments a primary View of the large roof structure,would reduce the size of the grassy knoll Providing entry to the center and would"turn its back on the community" by turning the retail front toward the 41 existing buildings and by blocking the view in towards the center. 011B Minutes i'f i/9t Page 4:4)f$ if /, ii n 7 0 0 Mr. Sievert moved for denial of SD 7-91/V 34-9t Mr.Starr motion and it passed with Mr. Sievert*Mr. Starr,Ms. Remyand Mr.Bloomerr all voting yes. Mr.Greaves abstained, tr Mr.Bloomer moved for denialDR f 1911 91. Mr.Starr wended d the motion and it passed with Mr.Starr,Ms.Remy and Mr, Bloomer all voting yes. Mr.Sievert voted no and Mr Greaves abstained. r+T---i ..�...' .++:wavr—...+.ai�fwaw«.!w'•••.�.r'+gt.e> ----:mow--Wr+n*-9 tas—_Fwrap.r---+.wi PR 2-91, a request by Robert Gray Partners,Inc. (Russell Leach,Architect)for approval to construct an 822 sq. ft, office addition and a 4500 sq, ft detached stora,gc facility on the site. This request is an expansion of the existing tire service center. The site is located at 17171 SW Boones Ferry Road(Tax Lots 3800, 37()2 and 3703 of Tax Map 2 1E 18BA), Staff coordinator is Barbara Solol k,Assoclnt1lnnner► Chairman Remy asked the Board members if there were any ex parte contacts or conflict of interest, Hearing none,she asked for the staff presentation. Ms, Smolak ppresented Exhibit 7, a letter by the applicant,to the Board. She stated that the letter addressed the recommended conditions of approval. Ms,Smolak discussed the background on the site and the proposed modification as outlined In the staff report. She concluded by stating that the proposal could meet all applicable criteria and •recommended approval with conditions. jussdlt Le.u h stated that he was in agit ement with the staff report with the exception 411 of Condition#3. He stated that the applicant.would submit a landscape plan that included additional conifers, Mr.Leach mentioned that the site was underdeveloped for the zoning and that the siting of the proposed building would allow future expansion of the site.,He noted that by moving the building more excavation would be required.,Mr. Leach discussed the existing building and landscaping. He asked to keep the proposed addition in its current location and add m,,,",, ,E ndscaping. P.xollorents ,er,L stated that it wol►ld be important to keep the proposed building in its current site because it all wv4d for easy access to back in and unload the big trucks and trailers. ji agribttathat Based on the testimony of the applicant, the Board determined that Condition of Approval#3 should be.deleted. The applicant demonstrated to the Board's satisfaction that the 4500 sq. ft. warehouse,As shown on the site and landscape plan (Exhibit 3), provided the optimum accessibility and most reasonable placement of the building now and in the event of any future expansion. The Board found that the existing cherry trees could be affected by construction of the warehouse; therefore, the Board concluded that a condition should be established requiring the applicant to provide information to stairs satisfaction that the existing cherry trees are in good condition and healthy prior to final occupancy. D111) Minutes 7/1/91 Pogo Sof8 0 Mr,Greaves moved for approval of DR 2--91. Mr,Starr seconded the motion and it passed with Mr.Sievert,Mr,Greaves,Ms. Remy,Mr.Starr and Mr. Bloomer all voting yes. ' Pfk2-91,a request by Tri—Lee Homes,Inc. for approval of a blot single family planned development. The site is located at 4157 Sunset Drive(Tax Lots 5900 and 6000 of Tax Map 2 1E 8C13), Staff coordinator is 1:laml4 Pisltvale,Dcy. p jeview Planner. This Item was ariginally_lteats1 A.pri1.14192 .trod postpoTiellio ddress the open space s Chairman Remy asked the Board members if there were any ex parte contacts or conflict of interest. 'Hearing none,she asked for the staff presentation. Mr.Pishvaie discussed the previous public-hearing on the matter, tie stated that at the April 1, 1991 hearing the Board determined that the applicant had not provided an 'r adequate amount of open space. He pointed out that in response to the Board's concerns the applicant had provided Exhibits 11.13 which demonstrate 20%open space land, Mr,Pishvaie mentioned that the open space area was relocated and now contained the majority of large trees on the site. He noted that by moving the open space tracts around the lot depth would now need to be reduced from 100 feet to 96 feet, Mr. Pishvaie said that the drainage swale would now be in the open space tract, He explained that the original plan called for five or six of the proposed lots to be in compliance with the Solar Access Ordinance, however,due to the reconfiguration of open space the applicant now needed to be exempt from the standards, Mr.Pishvaie, mentioned that staff concurred with the exemption of the Solar Access Standards and'' recommended approval with conditions. Applicant t ss Layv,rence, 15080 S.porsytt,Qx gut City,97045 stated that he wrs in , agreement with the supplemental staff report and the recommended conditions of approval. „ cliberpticp After reviewing the revised site plan (Exhibit 11), the Board found it was necessary to `; screen the site from the existing commercial develu',ntent to the north, Therefore, a fence was required to be constrlacted along the north property line in order to prevent potential trespassing through the site to Sunset Drive, Mr. Bloomer moved for approval of P ?Z-L Mr.Starr seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Sievert,Ms.Remy,Mr. Starr and Mr,Bloomer all voting yes. Mr, Greaves abstained. V GENERAL PLANNIN+ Sly 38-90/VAli 22--90.Wanda I.Witmer Request to Rescind Mr.Wheeler explained to the Board that Mrs.Wirnmer had requested the Development Review Board to rescind the approval of the 2-lot partition and variance [SD 38- 90/VAR 22..90). He explained the circumstances of the case and recommended that the approval be expunged from the record, ,i DRpt Minutes 711t91 Page 6 of 8 , 'r. Greaves moved for the rescission of SD 38-90/VAR 22-94. Mr.Starr econded the motion and it passed with Mr, Sievert,Mr.Greaves,Ms.,Remy,Mr. Starr and Mr.Bloomer all voting yes. if Riverview Estates -Cottonwood Tree Mr.Pishvaie discussed the location of the subdivision, the history on the project and the current status.c'He noted that there was a specific condition of approval that required the design of Canal Road to be such that it would preserve the Cottonwood tree either in an island or median, Mr,Pishvaie pointed out that at that dine there was no evidence as to the condition of the tree, He mentioned that the applicant had hired an arborist to evaluate the tree. The arborist found the tree to be in poor condition and poor health, Mr, Pishvaie stated that staff requested a more extensive report and analysis which required the arborist to climb the tree. 'He then said that the second report and analysis came back with the finding that the tree was rotten in the top and had a potential for failure. Mr alante further discussed the June 12, 1991 report from the arborist, He referred the Board to the finding that"the tree has a sufficiently serious potential for failure in all or part and should not be retained'if the area is to be developed.'" Mr.Galante pointed out that the tree sits along an existing gravel mad. He explained that,during the previous week it rained and staff was worried about the potential for failure; therefore, staff recommended that the tree be pruned in order to alleviate some of the hazard, Mr, Galante noted that upon pruning of the1ttree, it was discovered that the tree was rotted 110 substantially more than previously determined by the arborist report, He stated that he visited the site with Kay Kinyon,the City Parks Maintenance Supervisor, Mr.Galante stated that the applicant has requested a permit based upon the emergency provision in the Tree Cutting Ordinance and that after review it was determined that the permit should be issued. The Board questioned staff about severely pruning the tree and allowing it to come back, Mr. Galante replied that;?he arborist reports indicate that the tree is in a state of decline and would not have`the ability to collie back, He further noted that the report stated that there was no arboriculturally acceptable way of making the tree safe. VII, OTHER BUSINESS—Findings,Conclusions and Order Ms. Remy moved for 4 .ems ansi Order, Mr. Starr seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Remy, Mr,Starr and Mr, Bloomer all voting yes, Mr. Sievert and.Mr,Greaves abstained, Ms. Remy moved for lip thldhaxrdadual$2116 and Order. Mr.Starr seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Remy,Mr, Starr and Mr. Bloomer all voting yes. Mr.Sievert and Mr, Greaves abstained, 0 , ORB'IViinutes 7/1/91 ,; Page 7 of 8 o ' G 0 VIII, ADJOURNMENT Them being no further business before the Development Review Board,Chairman Remy adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p,rn. Respectfutliy Submitted, Barbara Anderson Senior Secretary r , i1 DRI3 Minutes /1h1 Page 8of$ - :^o'gG•• ws.:\ p ,� '±�,s,F"^^41�,";e�• -,..A, °gs"p{'-' `I ".m4Tm'FF,._ se�' w�"wT"."",�"'�,'.:1" T'1o'IP"'°*" s�c�.,- It sJ C5 7" a � , 0 U C/ 77 G 7 0 ;/.. :) r t' 1 1 �) 1 ..h I 0 b CI fl II IJ 4' I 11 4 - '1 4. t. 0 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO WDEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER } The Development Review Board meeting of July 15,1991 was called to order by Chairman Foster at 7;30 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Board members present were Mr.Bloomer,Mr.Starr,Mr.Foster,Mr.Greaves,Mr. M.5 Stailaway and Mr.Sievert, Ms.Remy was excused. Also present were Robert Galante, ,,I. i Sei;tor Planner,Hamid Pishvaie,Development lieview Planner, Michael'Wheeler, .-Y Associate Planner,Barbara Smolak,Associate Planner. Cindy Phillips,Deputy City ' Attorn7; and Barbara Anderson,Senior Secretary. 4i II1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES None IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS A request by staff to reopen the public hearing on PD 9-90 to review additional information on the wetland issue only. Mr.Galante discussed the previous approval on the project.,;Ile pointed out that (II) following the hearing it was+liscoverett that there was a small wetland site on the property and a wetland site off of the property that would be affected by the development, Mr.Galante requested the Board to reopen the public hearing in order to create a complete public record on the matter, with testimony limited to the wetland issue only. Ile mentioned that public notice was provided and that a hearing could be held, Mr.Greaves pointed out that he was not pmsent for the original hearing; therefore,he would abstain from the vote. Mr.Stuna a moved reopen w to v to PD 9•- withtestimonyi y9U t _ limited to the wetland issue. Mr.Starr seconded the motion and it passed with Mr,Sievert,Mr. Stanaway, Mr.Foster,Mr. Starr.and Mr.Bloomer all voting yes. Mr.Greaves abstained. A request by the applicant to reopen the public bearing on DR 1-91. Mr.Galante mentioned that there was a request by Mason Frank,to reopen the hearing on the(DR 1-91)the Oswego Towne Square Shopping Center. Tie explained that the findings had not yet been signed by the Board and that the applicant was requesting to have the hearing reopened in order to work with the neighborhood and present a better case to the Board. 410 IDRR Minutes 7/15/91 Page 1 of 12 (P ` J The Board indicated that they would not be in favor of reopening the hearing; however, if the applicant wished to proceed with reopening the hearing notice would need to be 0 given to the opponents,as well,before the BoaW could make a determination ostthd matter. V, PUBLIC HEARING ' ;PR 1, ,a request by Green Street Architecture for approval to construct a 35,000 square foot mixed use center comprised of the following uses; a) 11,000 square foot retail use; b) ;1,7,800 square foot office use; and" c) d 200 square foot retail/office use, , The site is located in the northeast of the intersection of'Westlake Drive and Parkview Drive north of ICruse Wa, ,otherwise described as Tax Lot 107 of Tax Map 2 1B 6. Staff coordinator is Chairman Poster asked the Board members if there were any ex pparte contacts or conflicts of interest. Mr,Greaves indicated that Greenstreet Architecture was a client of his law firm and reeused himself from the hearing. Mr.Galante explained that the applicant had submitted a letter nesting continuance of the application in order to aresolve some issues raised in the staff report. He suggested that the hearing be opened,testimony be given to resolve some of the conflicts raised by evidence in the record:and then the Board could continue the hearing to allow staff to review all of the evidence and testimony. APpliant , speaking on 11110 behalf of the applicant,stated that if a continuance was granted possibly some of the issues could be narrowed for the hearing. He also suggested that if some proposed conditions were outlined by staff then perhaps there would be a starting point for discussion by the applicant and the citizens. \. Chairman Foster asked Mr.'Ramis if he had additional material to present to staff in order to narrow some of the issues. Mr.ltamis stated that he would present all additional material by the weeks end which would allow staff time to review the material and form the proposed conditions bythe next hearingdate. Mr,Galante pointed out that there would need to be a continuance of the hearing to August 19, 1991,in order to allow staff and the public time to review the additional material. Mr.ltamis agreed to the continuance of August 19th, rain*of Order, ji requesteg .. '0k asked for the q� of continuance be entered into the"record as clearly being a request by the ttnpticant and contrary to staff's recommendation. She asked that it also be noted that c,, this was the second request for continuinlee at the eleventh hour. Mr. Stare moved for 49 to Attaat 194.1144, `ttirr.Sievert :.{ seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Sievert,Mr.Stanaway,Mr.Poster,Mr. Starr and Mr.Bloomer all voting yes. Mr.Greaves abstained. ...M....M.,—..,...sir r..-w—. ....—...rw tii...x M.rw..M...A+.* ...r`.vM..M.W..ti........4.'10..0.0.0.M.I.,t..i OW./MR,w 411 Dltll Minutes 7/15/91 Page 2 of.12 t , e„...,) I ,, ELLEASEMM Agenda items OR S-91 and DR 91 l!be considered simultaneously, 0 , , uest by David M.Norris for t►pproval of v building permit and tree cutting permit.' n order to construct a single family dwel ing on 41 153 �.ft.parcel _' which has been.identified in the Comprehensive Plan being a part of a Distinctive Natural Area(No. 28;Specimen firs�»,'4W,of Goodall oad). The site is located at 1625 Country Club Road[Tax Lot 3700( ortion)of Tax,diap 2 11/04CAi. Staff coordinator is Michael R r DR 6-91,a rectuest by David NI,Norris for approval of a building permit and tree cutting permit in order to construct a single famil�'dwe gon�9,267 sq. ft.parcel which has been identified in the Comprehensive�lan as being part of a Distinctive Natural Area(No.28;Specimen firs—W.of Ci dal'l Road). The she is located at 14161 Goodall Road[Tax Lot 3700( rtion)of Tax Map 21104CA1. Staff coordinator is michag , i 1ll Chairman Foster asked Board members if there were any ex panto contacts or conflicts of interest. Mr. Starr noted that he was a member of the Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association; however,he felt ;hat he would rat be biased in his review of the matter. 1 i� >1 Ms.Phillips questioned Mr Starr about ex p�arte contacts and conflicts of interest, Mr, Starr stated for the record that he had no ex park contacts or conflicts of interest with respect to the applications. 1 ,. Chairman Foster explained the hearing procedures and timelines. lie then asked for 410 staff presentation, Mr.Wheeler discussed the creation of theparcels,topo a h the natural features the drainage corridor/conservation easement nd the NA des designation for DR -91 (Parcel 3). He explained previous actions such as the nine:;Ition,zone change and minor partition. Mr,Wheeler explained that on May 21, 19A the City Council directed staff touire all major and minor development applications involving distinctive natural areas to he referred to either the Planning Commission or the Development Review Board and to include reference of the DNA in the public notice. Mr.Wheeler noted a correction to be applied to both DR 5-91 and DR 6-91 staff re ort. He said that resenting Applicable Criteria,Section II. A.of the staff report, pp Distinctive Natural Area,Douglas fir Groves; Number 20 should read"Douglas--fir Groves; Number 28". Mr.Wheeler explained the proposal for DR 591 (Parcel 3)and DR 6-91 (Parcel 2). s> He discussed the applicable criteria and analysis as outlined in the staff reports. Mr, Wheeler noted that them were other trees on the site that were not depicted in the tree survey;however,he pointed out that these trees were within the stream corridor and would be protected by the conservation easement. Mr.Wheeler mentioned the additional exhibits which .were presented to the Board. lie concluded that the tree cutting permit and the building permit for both parcels could be approved and discussed the recommended conditions for approval. The Board questioned staff about access to the parcels. Mr,Wheeler explained that Parcel 3 would take access through a shared driveway from Count.Club Road. Parcel 2 would take access from the north edge of the property from;Go+rall Road, 411 butt Mirtutew 7/15/91 Pate 3 of 1 • Dnyid Roy,Nlords L02.4,read Exhibit 6 Erato tine record, ,Daytd Mark Nor Eja‘, ,confirmed that there were two trees(6"maple and 10"maple)on lot three that were marked on the tree survey;however they were not numbered and aceidently left off of the,arborist's list Mr.Wheeler asked for clarification on the two trees omitted from the list. Marl Norris indicated that they"were within the area of the proposed clerk Mark Norris mentioned that the arborist's report indlcated,the possible instability of a few additional trees. Be requested that the Board allow those trees,if necessary,to be removed without having to come before the Board for further approval. The Board questioned Mark Norris about Exhibit S,_in DR S--9l t Mork Norris explained that:originally the plans called for a larger deck,it was later discovered that the deck would encroach two feet into the setback area and now the deck has be n reduced in.size. The Board questioned staff about the new sewer requirements. Mr Wheeler pointed out a memorandum from Wayne Halverson,Development Coordinator, The Board questioned staff about the Utility Standard. Mr Wheeler explained that this was the Board's first review of a building permit and that the Utilbty Standard had been reviewed in the minor partition application. Be further explained that the conditions of approval for the minoryaitition were to be considered and satisfied either subsequent to , ,r.. the building permit or in conjunction with the building permit. i 4r/Wheeler summarized the memorandum stating that additional onghteering consideration should be made before approving either sewer alternative. Mark Norris argued that the City has had ample opportunity and time to review the sewer alternatives. He referred the Board to Exhibits 21,22,23 and 24, He stated that the issue of the alternative sewer was raised before the Board because there has been a dispute between the City Engineer and Norris'engineer. Mr.Norris explained that the City Engineer has agreed to go along with the decision by the Bead as to which sewer alternative to use. Mr.Galante pointed out that the provision of utilities was addressed in the original approval (Exhibit 32) and that if the Board felt the need to review the Utility Standard as it affects the DNA there was authority within the Code to do so, The Board noted that the matter had come before them as directed by City Council,to review bu di permits and tree cutting permits involving DNA's; however,the Board agreed that they should only review the permits with respect to the effects on the DNA. The Board'questioned Mr.Norris about the alternative sewer proposal,they asked him to explain how the alternative sower method would protect the DNA more, Mark Norris pointed out that it would not necessarily protect the DNA more;however,it would alleviate the enormous expense of boring under Country Club Road to connect with the City sewer. Mrt Norris explained that the alternative sewer method included a 2"pipe that would not require back filling,would not require deep trenches and would have the ability and flexibility to go around obstacles. DRB Minuter '415/91 Page 4 of lE21 '..9 L a R 1110 explained t e original decision on how to service Parcel 3, He doted that the decision of `where and how"to locate the sewer was not thoroughly researched. Mr.Rathbun stated that it was later discovered that water lines were located where the sewer was intended. Therefore,it became an issue that the sewer would need to be located 10 feet closer to the site He pointed out that because of the topography of the site the finished p sewer would literally be above ground,. Mr.Rathbun stated that the alternative sewer method was chose after researching several different methods in order to avoid an enormous expense and liability,_ The Board questioned Mr.Rathbun about the effects on the DNA, Mr,Rathbun explained that the alternative sewer method would require a trench that was approximate'y 18 to 24 inches in depth and width and have the ability to meander around the tees, He pointed out that this small trench would require much smaller equipment than a normal sewer line. Mr.Rathbun stated that the trench would only disrupt the understory vegetation and thus minimize the impact to the I)NA. The Board asked Mr.Rathbun,if the proposed sewer alternative went through the stream corridor,how often the sewer line would need repair and how long it would last. Mr.Rathbun responded that the proposed sewer line did go through the stream corridor and that life expectancy was 15 years or so. He stated that them would be low repair and maintenance requirements. Mr.Rathbun further pointed out that the maintenance would be a responsibility of the owner,not the City, Mar, orie i rl m i 2h9'1 Cutest Teal,LLgse,LakeitSVegQ,97034,speaking 41) on behalf of the Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association. Ms,Kirschbaum submitted Exhibit 61 into the record, She summarized the concerns of the letter regarding buildability,previous zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations,proposed building envelopes,protection of trees and tree canopy,true cutting criteria,protection of the strewn corridor,setbacks,erosion control,flooding,pathways and piecemeal planning. The Board questioned Ms,Kirschbaum about the sewer line regarding the stream corridor and the DNA.i Ms.Kirrschbaum stated that the pump station would be in the creek, She referred th6 Board to Exhibit 61 and discussed erosion, etrrie Leslie,13301 Knatts, . Oswego,97034 stated that the site should be maintained as a park and not be built on. He was concerned about the I)NA designation, the arborlst s report,the sewer,access and piecemeal planning, kconsider the report by the neighborhood association(Exhibit 611)) Htheo waods con cernedl y that because of budget constraints caused by Measurre-5,the City would not be able to enforce or protect the site if development was allowed. Fritz Ilayea,980:kiwaterBoad,Lake Oswego,_97034 was concerned about pathways,the alternative sewer method,buildability,easements for Lot 2 and the lack, of drainage plans and grading plans. Mr.Hayes concurred with the points raised in Exhibit 61, 40 DR]) Minutes 7/15/91 Page$of 12 1 D- concurred with testimony from Ms.Kirschbaum. 410 JoI DuClos,.'4 t is Ro��p a®sw ap moo. concurred with testimony from Ms. Kirschbaum, <> Tony Oliver,94 water Roasi Lake Oswego,97034 was concerned about protection of the stream corrridor,sediment into the creek,erosion,increased flow in the 0 stream,iot coverage,tree removal and lack.af confidence in the arborist's report, 0 was opposed to an x building on the sites.; She was concerned about tree cutting,protection of the wildlife habitat,stream corridor setbacks and future landslide potential. l reah 11 stated that he has been a resident there for 37 years. He was concerned about tree protection,tree removal and the loss of trout in the creek. `=lj'aren Inge s,12831 Alto Park Road,Lane"Oswego,!70 ziA concurred with testimony from Ms.Kirschbaum, She was also concerned about the setback from the stream corridor. Ms,Ingels expressed a desire to have the City purchase the site for a future park. IZ agreed with previous testimony. He was also concerned about traffic at the intersection.of Goodall and Country Club Roads, i 00 ]till Powers,13675 Johnson Terrace,Lake Oswego,97034 was concerned about the j DNA,noise,carbon dioxide and the proposed sewer and pump. lieithet_Qpondlimin_hint Ruth Pennine kg Qswega,,97034 speaking on 'behalf of the Friends of Tryon Creek State Park stated that they were concerned about Iron Creek,erosion,silt,phosphates,lack of wildlife in the area and in the stream,and stream Relaultal Mark Nartlg stated that the proposal complied with all applicable criteria. He mentioned that grading plans would be provided at the required time, Mr.Norris pointed out that the 1975 survey did not designate the area as a wetland. Ile explained that the red spots on the trees did not Indicate tree cutting; the trees were onlymarked that way for a topographicalserve y. Mr. Norris stated that all setbacks woul be complied with, He noted that the soils analysis was reviewed in the application for a minor partition. Mr.Norris rebutted that the pump for the alternative sewer would be located near the house and nowhere near the stream corridor and that there would be no need to disturb the creek to service it, Mr.Norris discussed the small size of the house and building envelopes. Mr,Norris pointed out that several of the issues should have been addressed during the appeal period for the minor partition and had nothing to do with the tree cutting permit or the building permit, i e Lake Oswego stated that he was hired to address the trees, He cited that he was hired to address three questions: 1) 0 D►RR13 Minutes 7/15/91 i.'`,,,.. 'age S of 1 0 Which of the trees cannot be preserved because of the buildings? 2)Which of the trees, though not in the building footprint must be taken out due to proximity of the buildings? 0 and 3)Which of the trees,can be preserved with little or no risk from the construction? Mr,Owen stated that his report Only addresses these three issues and is not written in favor or against the applicant. file apologized for an error regarding trees 32 and 33 (6.. and 10"maple)which were left off the l st and map. The Board asked Mr.Norris about the future plans for Lot 1. Roy Norris indicated that the property wa3 divided with the intention of providing three lots: one lot for himself and his wife when he retired,one lot for his son and the other lot for his daughter. Mr. Norris further explained that the City had granted approval of the minor partition and he was two weeks from building permit approval when all of a sudden he was notified that there would need to be a hearing for the building permit and tree cutting permit approval. Mr.Norris reiterated his opinion that this was an unusual practice and procedure for such permits,in fact the first time ever. Mr.Norris stated that it was unfair and that he had never been notified by the City Council when they were reviewing the matter, The Board questioned Mr.Rathbun about item 3 in Exhibit 34. Mr.Rathbun stated that a private utility easement across Lot 2 would be provided to allow access for maintenance, The Board asked about erosion, Mr, Rathbun explained that there would be trenching,compacting and erosion control to City standards, The Board questioned Mr.Norris about the tree cutting criteria. Mark Norris pointed out that he and the arborist had addressed the criteria, Mr.Owen stated that he was not charged to address the tree cutting criteria, Mr.Owen stated that normally criteria 1 through$of the tree cutting ordinance are worked through as a condition of thepermit. 410 Mr.Owen discussed the impact on the neighborhood,the stability of the remaining trees and ability to construct the sewer line within the stream corridor. Mark Norris pointed out that Mr,Galante and Mr.Owen had worked out the questions that would aced to be answered for the Board, He expressed his willingness to work with the City,the arborist and to satisfy all conditions of approval. The Board questioned Mr.Norris about total floor area for Lot 3, Mark Norris replied that the bottom floor was 921 and the total footprint was 1355. Mr Norris pointed out that them would be no grading and that the foundations would be stepped. Deliberation issucsiascussodt 1. The fact that grading would not be a problem. 2. The need for conditions regarding the drainage plan. 3. The fact that the stream corridor setback was adequate, 4. Whether the sewer alternative through the stream corridor could work and the a: impact to the stream corridor. The need for a plan to replace disturbed vegetation. 5. Whether the applicant adequately addressed the fourth and fifth tree cutting Ailk criteria. DRB Minute 7/15191 Page 7 of 12 , C) .. 61 Whether to require a tree cutting and protection plan, 7, The fact that the soils report was adequate, • 8. The lack of ability on behalf of the City to make the site rotas park. 9. The fact that the Code does not mandate that a DNA be preserved completely intact 10. The fact that the pathway was not an issue for the Board. 11, The fact that the traffic and noise impacts would be diminimous for two small residences. 12, The fact that the houses were smaller than the average for Lake Oswego. Mr.Greaves moved for conitimiu<9 f t t 'lived PR;6491 to August 19,E 1991 In order to allow the npplicaut to address the tree cutting crrte lu4 Mr.Stanaway seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Sievert,Mr, Stanaway,Mrs(Greaves,Mr. Poster,Mr. Starr and Mr.Bloomer all voting yes. 1 RILL-91,a request byOTAK,Inc,for approval pp to construct improvements for the Lake Oswego Municipal Glf Coure clubhouse and parldng lot, The site is located at 17525 SW Stafford Road(Tax Lots 101;600; 190, 100 of Tax Map �21B 16; 16A; 16AC . Staff coordinator is tier, Due to the lateness askedthe Board if thempresentation,taff 0 Chairman Foster hour BCoard rsof w were aaived ny ex partettacts or conflicts of interest. Bearing none,he asked the applicant to proceed. M ricank discussed the previous conditional use approval. Mr.Tahran discussed the proposal and applicable criteria. Proponents Verb White stated that the expansion was needed and would be a great improvement. Deltherfitilat Based on the testimony of the applicant and the Italy 3, 1991 staff report the Board concluded that the proposal could be made to comply with all applicable criteria by the Imposition of conditions, Mr.Starr moved for 4 'prilvat of DR 3—,91. Mr. Greaves seconded the motion and it passed with Mr.Sievert,Mr, Stanaway,Mr,Greaves,Mr. Foster,Mr. Starr and Mr. Bloomer all voting yes. 4111) DRB Minutes 7/15/91 Page 8 of 12 DR 491,a request by Richard G.Reese for approval add a kitchen area bay window and a new deck to an existing house within a stream corridor buffer zone. The site is 5 located at 2535 S.,Glenmorrie Drive(Tax Lot 600 of Tax Map 21B 141;3B). Staff coo + nator is Z(obert 1. ri Chairman Poster asked the Board members if there were any ex parte contacts or conflict of interest. Hearing none,she asked for the staff presentation. Mr.Galante discussed the proposal,site conditions and applicable criteria. He concluded that the proposal complied with the applicable criteria and recommended ,,approval. Applicata Bkhard Rom,2535 SX,Tig 31 stated that stream would,not'be affected by the proposal. He explained that the deck was configured so that it would follow the existing contour of the house and enlarged on the west side for an eaatingRarea. Mr.Reese noted that future plans would be to add a matching wing on the east side. stated that the addition would blend well with the historical structum, He noted that the deck would not encroach on the stream. Jei beration Based upon testimony of the applicant and proponent and the Silly 3, 1991 staff report the Board concluded that the proposal complied with all applicable criteria. 0 Mr.Greaves moved for ripproyal of)R 4-914 Mr.Bloomer seconded the motion and it passed with Mr.Sievert,Mr,Stanaway,Mr.Greaves,Mr,Poster,Mr.Starr and Mr.Bloomer all voting yes. D -99t a request by Pacific Northwest Group for A 105—lot single family subdivision to be processed as a planned development. The site is located on the west side of Highway 43 at Marylhurst(Tax Lot 300 of Tax Map 2 1B 14). Staff Coordinator is �d Pishvale, Chairman Foster announced that the Deve)opment Review Board would reopen the public hearing on pi)9.90 to reconsider its decision of April 15, 1991. He stated that this action was necessary to review the additional information concerning wetlands on the site. Chairman Foster informed the audience that public testimony would be limited to the wetland issue only. Chairman Poster asked for a poll of Board members to determine who would be eligible to reconsider the matter. Mr.Greaves noted that he had not attended the previous hearing, Chairman Foster determined that all other Bond members present were eligible to vote. Mr.Pishvaie discussed the previous hearing. He explained that following the hearingIt 410 was determined that there may be wetlands on the site. Mr.Pishvaie and Andy Hairs DRB Minutes'7/15/91 Page 9 of 12 of the Public Works Department inspected the site with the Applicant and his wetland consultant. Mr.Pishvaie explained that two wetlands wen)identified on the site lie 0 referred the Boardto Exhibits 7 and 48 which identified wetlands area"A'and"'B" (SRI report,page ), Mr.Pishvaie noted that the wetland area"A" was in the vicinity of Lots 47,48 and a small portion of Brookhurst Drive. He pointed out that wetland area""B"was in the area of the proposed detention facility, Mr.Pishvaic summarized the wetland report(Exhibit 48)and concluded that area A;�was determined to be nonessential and area"B"was determined td be an essential wetland. lie discussed the Wetland Standard and how it related to essential and nonessential wetlands. Mr. Pishvaie noted that the applicant was proposing to fill the nonessential wetland in order wetland.to accommodate the project and to mitigate the Impacts by enhancing the;cstlential Mr.Pishvaie referred the Board to Exhibit 50,a letter from Ms, Ames» He mentioned that the letter referred to a long list of wildlife that has been observed during the last fifteen years in the area, Be suggested that the applicant's consultant may wish to address the letter. Mr.Pishvaie concluded that the new material had adequatelyaddressed the Wetland Standard, He again recommended approval for the proposal with revised conditions of approval. ra ARIPlitant Randy Tyler,Pacific Iklortinyestarnup introduced Stan Geiger,his wetland consultant and Frank Josselson,his attorney. Mr,Tyler discussed the qualifications of his wetland consultant. He then talked about the nmitib,ation plan. 411) Stan.. lger Wetland Consults discussed the essential and nonessential wetland areas, He explained the mitigation plan and talked about how itwould also enhance the corridor affect on the Willamette, Mr,Geiger discussed the letter from Mq.Ames,he stated that the nonessential wetland,that was being impacted,did not have the wetland values that would justify it being considered an essential wetland. The Board asked if the wetland on the east side of Highway 43 connected to the river. Mr.Geiger explained that it was connected to the river through a culvert under the , gravel mad. Mr.Tyler discussed the design of the mitigation plan, He noted that the plan had been I reviewed by City staff,DEQ and the Division of State,Lands. Mr.Tyler mentioned that response from all agencies had been very positive about the mitigation plan. lie explained that the find mitigation plan was not finalized as of yet and asked the Board for flexibility on the plan. The Board questioned Mr.Tyler about area"A"and reconfiguring the open.space. Mr Tyler admitted that he had looked at several options for the wetland;however,in terms of site circulation and emergency vehicle access there did not seem to be a way to save the nonessential wetland. Mr.Tyler also noted that the area was not determined to be a wetland in the first place because it was over wn with blackberry vines,which is an upland species and the area was completely dry at that time, lie explained that area"A" was a seasonal wetland and has very low resource value. Mr.Tyler reiterated the mitigation value that would be added to the east side wetland,stating that it would have 10 to 20 times die aquatic and wildlife capability. ORB Minutes 7/1519.1 Page 10 of 12 i mentioned that she had ppreviously submitted a letter to the Development Review Board, She stated that she felt that no consideration had been liven to the extent of wildlife in the area, particularly the unusual birds,wildlife and plant life for the Willamette Valley, Ms, Ames discussed her past experience with wetland area"A"and asked the Board to ree,ensider the value of wetland area„A+`. She recommended that the Board consider havin a"wildlife specialist look at the site,work with the developers and the pee le in the neighborhood She suggested that further identification artd proposed mitigating factors could make the site much more suitable than to fill it, Ms. Ames submitted photographs of wildlife which were marked as Exhibit 51, ilebdi ' I*.Tyler stated that he was sympatheticao the concerns about wildlife irelating..I. to the wetland area"A". however,the wildlife issue had been addressed during the initial , presentation of the proposal. Mr.Tyler stated that he would be willing to work with wildlife agencies to reintroduce wildlife to the enhanced wetland area"B", The Board questioned Mr.Tyler about the rare species of plant life and wildlife, Mr, Tyler stated that many of those rare species were actually primarily upland species. Mr. Geiger stated that several of the wildlife species were common to the entire area and that there were many seasonal wetland areas throughout the region, Mr.Geiger reiterated the fact that the nonessential wetland had tittle or no value to the wildlife and that the enhanced wetland area"B" would greater serve wildlife in the area. ft. Mr. Tyler mentioned that a wildlife expert had visited the site and analyzed it. Mr. Geiger confirmed that there was a staff member of SRI that had a masters degree in wildlife biology. He explained that this specialist analyzed the habitat features of the site, Mr.Geiger further explained that a number of the large trees would remain on the site and remain in relativelyopen areas,p Mr.Geiger admitted that a number of wildlife species were associated with open fields and would not remain because of the development,not because the nonessential wetland was filled, "rink Jo&sc bill,Per lend pointed out that the applicant was more than doubling the size of the essential wetland. He reiterated that the essential wetland would perform important functions where as the nonessential wetland did not. Mr,Tyler added that he had worked very hard with staff to preserve the most important open spaces, natural features and a majority of the pores on the site, Ile mentioned that close to 1,000 new trees would be added as well as a couple thousand shrubs. W (iolgl After hearing testimony and reviewing the wetland report and mitigation plan,the Board found that the wetland area on the west side of Highway 43 was a nonessential wetland because it did not perform any functions required to be an essential wetland. The area was a seasonal wetland of relatively little resource value, The Board also found that the wetland area on the east side of Highway 43 was an essential wetland according to City standards. The only"development' which would 41) D>li B Minutes' /15/91 Page 11 of 12 take�place within this essential wetland wouldnot represent a Change in use but rather - an enhancement and expansion of the exisdn 'wetland so that it„will have far greater resource value than either the west or east sidewetland areas had previously, 411 .,Mr.Foster moved fortippruval of pp 9-90 rt; Mrs,Starr seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Sievert,Mr. Stanawtty,Mr,Foster,Mir. Starr and Mr. Bloomer all voting yes. Mr.(hceaves abstained. VI. (IBNERA1.,PLANNXNt ci, VII, OT R BUSINESS »Findings}Conclusions an4 Order Mr.Stanaway moved for p n Itns.aq: ,girder(Second Vote) Mr,Starr seconded the motion and;it passed with Mr. ., Stanaway.Mr.Starr and Mr.Bloomer all voting yes. Mr.Sievert,Mr.Foster and Mr. Greaves abstained, Mr.Starr moved for apptoyal P)).3- Y-8113r,,FFi1idp kc+n t i dater . Mr.Bloomer seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Stanaway, Mr.Starr and Mr.Bloomer all votingyes. Mr.Sievert,Mr.Foster and Mr.Greaves abstained, Mr;,Greaves moved for c)/Hl 4--914177,Find I g�sg,Conclusions nttd,Order Mr. Starr Seconded the motion and it passed with Mr.Sievert,Mr. yvoting yes. r.Foster and Mr.Bloomer abstained.ta ,Mr.Cleaves and Mr. Starr all Mr.Groves moved for provnlIR 1—$91►f''indings),Dnic' 1itn ' rde Mr. txi mion.and it passed with Mr.Sievert, .Orcaves Mr. BloomerStarr. and Mrseconded.Starr all111 votingyes. Mr, Stanaway and Mr FosteMrr abstaitte 41) Mr.Starr moved for cseconded — tlg�3tt tt .n .tend ()rot, (First Yote), Mr.Sievert the motion and it passed with Mr. Sievert,,Mr. Bloomer and Mr. Starr all voting yes. Mr. Stanaway,Mr.Greaves and ivir. Poster abstained. Mr. Greaves moved for 11 t d','indf ttg Conclusions nd Order(First Vote.); Mr.Starr seconded the motion and it passed with Mr.Sievert,Mr. Glreaves,Mr.Bloomer and Mr.Starr all voting yes. Mr. Stanaway and Mr.Foster abstained. VIII. AOJOURNMRNT Them being no further business before the Development Review Board,Chairtnttn Foster adjourned the meeting at 12:20 n.m. Respectfully Submitted 244C/1"6/•(/1 . Barbara Anderson Senior Secretary 411 . DB11 Minutes 7/1Sl91 ., Page 12 of 12, - :^o'gG•• ws.:\ p ,� '±�,s,F"^^41�,";e�• -,..A, °gs"p{'-' `I ".m4Tm'FF,._ se�' w�"wT"."",�"'�,'.:1" T'1o'IP"'°*" s�c�.,- It sJ C5 7" a � , 0 U C/ 77 G 7 0 ;/.. :) r t' 1 1 �) 1 ..h I 0 b CI fl II IJ 4' I 11 4 - '1 4. t. 0 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO UltW op DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES' Meeting of July 18, 1991 h CALL TO ORDER Acting Chairman Stananway called the meeting to order at approximately 7:30 p.m. II. ROLL CALL. Board members resent were Mr. Bloomer, Mr, Stanawa Mr, Creaves Ms. p �� Remy and , Sievert,evert, Absent was Mr Foster and Mr, Starr. r III. APPROVAL OP MINUTES - none IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS- none 4 /f V. PUBLIC HEARING DR 7-91, a request by the City of Lake Oswego for approval to widen Melrose Street and reconstruct the ditch/stream adjacent to the street. The site is located along Melrose Street (right-of-way). Chairman Stanaway asked if there was any ex parte contact or bias from the Board in regards to this application, There were none. Mr. Pishvaie stated that this was a proposal from the City Public Works Department and has already been approved by the City Council, Mr. Pishvaie stated that the ditch is considered a stream corridor and essential wetlands were in the area. The existing wetland measures 974 sq, ft. but would be enhanced by this proposal to 1,375 sq, ft. Mr, Pishvaie stated that this proposal had ,,, already been approved by the Division of State Lands and the Army Corp, of Engineers, Mr, Pishvaie stated that staff was recommending approval of the project, DRB Minutes 7/18/91 lip Page t of 6 Appticarit ,,pginepr, stated that the proposed development would enhance'the wetland and Would be a nice addition to the neighborhood, Mr, Baker,stated that there would be a few stilling ponds on the o site which would take care of the silts and therefore improve the quality of the water. )1bOraloll io Ms, Remy moved for approval of DR 7.91, Mr, Grooves seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Stanaway, Mr, Bloomer, Mr. Greaves, Ms, Remy and Mr Sievert voting in favor. $1) 2 -79(Mod. 6-9QQ1HR 5-90 1evl + d), a request by Lula F. Simpson for approval of a modification to a minor partition for a historic landmark site, The site Is located at 1100 Westward Ho Road (Tax Lot 5300 of Tax Map 31 E 10BB), Chairman Stanaway asked if there was any ex parte contact or bias with the40 Board in regards to this application. There was none. Ms. Clark stated that this application was to partition a historic site into two :. parcels and to build part of the house in a slope area exceeding 50°t0. Ms. Clark entered Exhibit #16 a letter dated 7/10 from Hilary MacKenzie supporting the staff recommendation and would like to see the addition of some conditions requiring compatibility and building design; Exhibit #f17 a letter from Patricia Miller dated 7/18 supporting the proposal and designating Harry Hanson as her representative; Exhibit #9 polaroid pictures of the house. Ms, Clark stated that this house was built in 1935 by Richard Sundeleaf in the English Cottage Style typified by the steep gable roof with flush ends and the use of natural building materials. The home was designated historic in 3/90. The applicant received approval of the partition in 1979 but lapsed due to never being recorded and City regulations have changed substantially since, Ms. Clark stated that the applicant wants to build a second home for herself on the east side of the property on a ridge with steep drop-offs to the east and the DIB Minutes 7/18/91 Rage 2 of 6 \l C1' south, The applicant proposes to place the new house about 67" away4rom di Westward Ho and behind the historic house with decks that sit out over a rocky low southern drop-off overlooking the leap. Ms, Clark stated that the applicant had worked patiently with the staff for about a year to reach a plan that would meet the slope and setback requirements, the historic standard and to try to meet here own needs as well, Ms, Clark stated that attached to the staff report them wore thtee different house plans to show the evolution of the applicants approach. • Ms. Clark stated that proposal ##6 meets the requirements setbacks, let area and coverage. The rear deok is 16' from the property lime, it is recommended that the rear deck meet the 25'minimum setback. Ms. Clark stated that the Hillside Protection Standards had been of special concern duo to the narrow building site with steep drop-offs and substantial slopes, Ms. Clark stated that Exhibit ##15 demonstrates how the proposal compiles with the slope standards, Ms. Clark stated that where the slopes are between 20% 50°%° a Minimum of 65% must remain free of structures according to the Code, This proposal shows only 6% of the area is affected; these slopes are 94% of Aft structures, Where the land is more than 50% sloped the Code requires findings that a density transfer is not feasible and at least 70% of the site has to be free of structures, This proposal shows 776/0 of the site free of structures, Ms. Clark stated that staff found a density transfer is not feasible on this site,�so a small Intrusion shown into the 50% slope area does seem to be appropriate. Ms. Clark presented the Board with a copy of Ordinance 2000 the Historic Ordinance. Ms. Clark stated that this is the first minor partition she had written under this new ordinance. Ms. Clark discussed how the application meets the historic criteria. Ms. Clark stated that staff had concerns with the design compatibility of the new house, Ms, Clark stated that staff recommended approval with the conditions including a new condition that staff was to review the new structure DPB Minutes 7/18/91 Page 3 of 6 „ Luaju is psort. 1'1® ostW rdII . gooks Oswegay stated that this partition • was approved in 1979 and again in 1988. Ms, Simpson stated that in the past year she had fulfilled all requirements to re-apply, Ms, Simpson discussed Exhibits #14 artd. #11, �� Proponents r s , . _.�...: stated that they live across the ' street from Ms. Simpson and would have any„objection to the proposal. „ t Vernon Qray,stated that he helped Ms, Simpson prepare the final design. Mr, Gray stated that with a minor partition a historic aspect rnouldn't be a consideration, Mr. Gray stated that it would be tough to match the building • materials. Peter., s. 1 Q32 Westward i•la. ake Qswu , stated that he was in opposition to a minor partition on this lut, Mr Peters entered Exhibit #19 a revised letter from his family regarding their opposition to the proposal, Mrs p „• 410 Peters stated that they were originally told a small cottage style house was going to be built, Mr. Peters stated that they were in opposition to the project due to .: ., the suitability of the property for a house and the historical impact on the property; • Mr. Peters entered pictures into th ;ecord which became Exhibit #20, Mr. Peters stated that their home was down slope from the property and they were concerned about run-off, steep slopes, site is hot level, no yard, obstruction , of the view, and the placement of the home to the railroad tracks, Mr. Peters asked that the Board deny the proposal and stated that they were willing to put a deed restriction on the property to ensure that a home never be built on the property, k ' Rebuttal Tiny Bin, stated that she wanted a one-floor home, Ms. Simpson stated that Mr, Peters home had always flooded in the 25 years she had been there, • • DAB Minutes • • 7/18/91 gip Page 4 of 6 I Ms. Simpson stated that the fill was put in for driveway use only and not to be built on, Ms. Simpson stated that the view is approximately 190 degrees. Ms. Simpson stated that the train doesn't affect the current structure and doesn't; bother her, Ms. Simpson stated that if the Board asked for the exterior tod'be changed she would be open to that. Deliberation' The Board was concerned with the floor plan of the proposal. The Board wanted the home to be compatible with the historic structures, ThexBoard stated that they felt the recommendations made by Hilary MacKenzie should be conditions of.approval. The Board asked that the design be brought back before the Development Review Board for decision. Mr. Greaves moved for approval of SD 25.79 in accordance of the deliberations of the Board and with the staff recommendations, also with the conditions suggested by Hilary MacKenzie and that a revised site plan should be submitted to the Development Review Board clearly indicating where the conservation easement and that a conservation easement should Include at a minimum what was shown in the current exhibit plus the two clusters of trees shown on the site plan. Mr. Bloomer seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Sievert, Mr. Stanaway, Mr, Greaves, Ms. Remy and Mr. Bloomer voting in favor. VL. GENERAL HEARING - none VII. OTHER BUSINESS - Findings, Conclusions and. Order Mr Stanaway moved for approval of the Findings, Conclusion and Order of PD 9.90.88, Mr. Bloomer seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Stanaway, Mr Starr, and Mr. Sievert voting In favor. Mr. Grooves and Ms. Remy abstained vote. Mr, Greaves moved for approval of the Findings, Conclusion and Order of DR 3-91, Mr. Sievert seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Sievert, Mr, Starr, Mr. Greaves, Mr. Stanaway and Mr. Bloomer voting in favor, Ms, Remy abstained, ORB Minutes 7/18/91 Page 5 of 6 Mr, Sievert moved for approval of the Findings, Corneiusiona;and Order of doh DR 4-91, Mrr',b- Bioorter seconded the Motion and it paesed with Mr, Sloven, Mr. mily Bloomer) Mr, Starr, and Mr. Greaves voting in favor. Ms. Remy abstained vote, Viii. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the DAB the meeting was adjourned at approximately 9;10 p.m. ()FIB Minutes 7/16/91 40 Page 6 of 6 . tl Ct O l'R r. • • 0 t) ) -a ,A . 0 e1 S 0 CITY OF LAKE OS EGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW UUOA. MINUTES July 22, 19 1 '' , r'' 11 " , , 0 i 40 I. CALL TO ORDER i Il The special Development Review 13ottrd meeting of July 22,1091 wits called to order by Vice-- Chairman Stanaway at 6;06p,m, IL ROLL CALL Board members present were Mr. Bloomer,Mr, Starr,Mr, Greaves,Mr. Stanaway and Mr, Sievert. Mr.Poster and Ms,Re Poster excused, Also present were Robert Galante, Senior Planner; and Kathy Avery, Senior Secretary. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES t, None. IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS None, V. PUBLIC HEARING None, Ai VI. GENERAL PLANNING None. VII. OTHER BUSINESS-»lr'indings,Conclusions and Order Mr.Starr moved for approval of,Ill 2 1-892,I+indin:gs,Con►clitallolua.ansi;siia. Mr. r) Sievert seconded the motion and the second vote carried with Mr, Sievert,Mr, Starr and Mr. Bloomer voting yes. Mr. Stanaway and Mr. Gretaves abstained, Mr.Starr moved for approval of J D 9-9 I-8SO,Eindings,_Us lusi a ami Ltiet• Mr. Stanaway seconded the motion and it carried with Mr.Sievert,Mr,Stantaway,:Mr,Starr and Mr,Bloomer voting yes, Mr. Greaves abstained, Mr.Greaves moved for approval of DR,7-.91$96,Finditigss.S44litclitsiottsitiiii Order. Mr. Sievert seconded the motion and it carried with Mr.Sievert,Mr. Stanaway,Mr.Greaves and Mr.Bloomer voting yes. Mr«Starr abstained, VIII. ADJOURNMENT Them being no further business before the Development Review Board,Vice-Chairman Stancaway adjourned the meeting at 6:16 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Kathyvery 410 Senior Secretary ktua7/2$/91 7/29/91 I)R13 Minutes Page 1 of 1 iX C TM 1.1 it %.. ` to