Loading...
Approved Minutes - 1991-11-18 Li p y o � 0 h v M E O E O ri PLATING DEPT. FILES f DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES t�^ a _t. VI vIv _ +s r1 ,- n CITY' OF LAKE OS +"( O DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES NOvEMBER 18,Il991 ,, ,. U rypfi&ii ) w ,, 5 m I. CALLTO ORDER , , U The Development Review Board meeting of November 1801991 wai cried to order by Chairman Foster at 7;30 p,m, ti. IL ROLL CALL Board members present were Mr.Stanaway,Mr.,Foster,Mr Greaves and Mr.Starr, Ms.Remy,Mr. Sievert and Mr.Bloomer were excused. Also present were Robert Galante, Senior Planner;Hamid Pishvaie,Development Review Planner;Cindy. p Phillips,Assistant City Attorney and Barbara Anderson,Senior Sectary. t` III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Due to the lack of an eligible quorum the.Jwiat 1 1 Minutes(Sec were rescheduled for the next reg lai eeting IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS None, V. PUBLIC HEARING DR 11-91,a requestby DC Group for approval to develop a 20 unit special use housing project(elderly housing). The site is located south of Lakeview Blvd. and east of Pi gton Road(Tax Lot3100 of Tax Map 2 lE 18AC). Staff coordinator is Idiunkt Pishvaie,beveloppaent Review P'ranner, Chairman Foster discussed,,k,v'hcaring procedure and timelines for testimony. He asked the Board members if there were`any ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing „ none,he asked for the staff presentation, {> l Mr.Galante stated that he would be presenting the staff report on behalf of Mr. Pishvaie, He stated that staff was recommending approval with conditions. Mr. Galante discussed the conditions of approval,. „ APPliCent KIIIIIindbriititoilCanitirts. SW Boonen Ferry,Lake Oswego;971135 discussed the proposed 20 unit project(elderly accessible housing). He said that the site was well served by a nearby grocery and drug store. Mr.Daraee stated That the units were;designed for individuals who were self—sufficient and not in need of an assisted care facility. He discussed the marketing study done for the site,stating that HUD estimated that there were over 3,000 Individuals waiting on a list for such housing types in the Lake Oswego and Tigard areas. Mr.Daraee requested that the Board consider 41) that the project was for low income housing and that consideration be given to the roof and siding materials. Be was concerned that Lakeview Blvd.did not have storm drainage capabilities and that the applicant was going to be burdened with a half street 11/18/91 l iitB Minutes Page 1 of 3 , improvement when It may not be necessary, He_requeSted that the Board allow the half f' street improvement to be constructed in conjunction with other projects.that were Y developing in the area, Mr.Dmraee suggested that a nonremonstraunce agreement would �> be sufficient for the time being. Testimony Attie stated that he was concerned about the safety of the residents, He was worried about access to the top floor of the project. He wondered if the floors would be slippery. Mr.Makaee wanted to know ow many employees would care for the residents.} aatiteLD.s 'ego , 74,35 stated that the applicant had attended some of the neighborhood meetings. She indicated that a number of neighbors had made suggestions for the project and the applicant had incorporated these suggestions into the plans. Ms.Ptattcrsan noted that the neighborhood would be in favor of upgrading theT-1 ii. siding. She asked that the sidewalks be installed and that they be contiguous with the shopping area, The Board asked Ms.Patterson her opinion on the street widening, She stated that she felt that the street widening should l,,a installed at this time and extended down to the multifamily apartments in order to tallow the children safe access to school. ,Athena Whitsakero 5354 SW Lakevlovjalvektiloake Osweg0,9703.5.was concerned about privacy She stated that there were multifamily apartments on one side of her home and now the proposed multifamily project would be on the other side, Ms. Whitaker indicated that there was an existing fence along the property line. She a ma ximum the Board to requireaximum height fence to be maintained along the 410 property line. She stated that she was in favor a sidewalk as well, Rebuttal „,, liamiladaarnee indicated that a fence was shown on site plan, He noted that the fence „ may be in need of repair or replacement and that the applicant"would be willing to replace the fence if necessary, Mr Datace mentioned that tt sidewalk would be installed at the property line and continue to the Pilkingtoh intersection, Re pointed out that the applicant would like to construct the sidewalk at this time and postpone the street widening to some date in the future. Mt Demme noted that thcte was an elevator that would take the residents to the to floor. He reiterated the fact that the units would be for individuals who were self—sufficient and not in need of an assisted care facility, Mr,Daraee stated that the applicant had chose the T 111 siding because the area was a mixed use area next to an IP zone. Psilliatettion i After receiving testimony from the a f+itcant and citizens the Hoard found that there were no plans to improve Lakeview lvd, in the near future. The recommended street improvements on this road will be the only improvement in this area. The Board i found that it was more appropriate to require the applicant to sign a nonremonstraance agreement for future street improvement of this mad. However, the Board found that a 5 property line sidewalk should be provided by this development in order to satisfy the requirements of LOC 48,549(1)(1)(i)and LODS 5.020(1)—(2): fillThe Board found that Exhibit 11 illustrated the existing fence along the east property line. The applicant testified that depending on the condition of this fence,it wil either 11/18/91 D12B Minutes Page 2 of 3 a 9' to be repaired or replaced in order to provide adequate buffering to the existing single family residence to the east. The Board found that the applicant should construct a drywell for storm Water drainage with the capabilities to connect to the possible future street improvement. Final a drainage plans should be submitted,including surface water management and disposal methods,for review and approval of the City Engineer,per City standards, The Board agreed that the applicant should replace the T-111 sidingvith horizontal siding shown as accents on Exhibit 6. The siding shall be of cedar or other acceptable materials, to the staff satisfaction, The Board found that the applicant should modify the roofing materials to create more texture and shadow-lines,to the staff satisfaction, Mr.Greaves moved for approval of IDI 1.1.91, Mr.Sta iaway seconded the motion and it passed with Mr.Stanaway,Mr.Greaves,Mr.Foster and Mr. Starr all voting yes. VI. GENERAL PLANNING VII. OTHER BUSINESS,Findings,Conclusions and Order ;1 Due to the lack of an eligible quorum the DR 5 M,11tS 24-91-918,Findings, i Conclusions and Order were set over to the next regularly scheduled meeting. 0 Due to the lack of an eligible quorum the DR 10-91-919,Findings,Conclusions and Order were set()vex.to the next:regularly scheduled meeting. VIII, ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Development Review Board,Chairman Foster adjourned the meeting at$ 3S p.m. Respectfully Submitted , Barbara Anderson Senior Secretary 0 11/1$/91 17RB Minutes Fage 5 of J 1, 4 !, Y e ., °. ., .d d` r•..• F ''' t *i..s�#f �f '. �* • * t i ' „t 0 4_ 1 3( '° i ; w s- . N •` p ( + hW'37 * "t' ri�" ,,, i he r,� r �d w * rr t 4 y . r t rt O `d u t 'y.t' "}'�W '71 Syr , `�i. y.7#(y,.a , .`,,r•'°y, , , „,rn' ^ I'y;.(s.,..„ , y,�,'l, r ,�y f l y`� is �{. ; �' 'tt r �,wrq. f�Pu ^y�" 4 ' "�,T'r' .�* x, s*"yam+ d �,, fl' �sf� '�' -'. . ! ' i' yt* . �,�'Ar, r r 8 ; 4.>r a ', i�"'_ �; . f"1, Mx ': e f '',r r' firiq"�. ty,r+ .,}. ,),., y 1 ::y.- * .Q4L ;i. 'ru i, Ibr g� y a x t { p j�,!' In,. q * 'C $ "y , x.„'u '4.,1. .., ' t r1. 11x t,, ,"W. Ti xx k ., ', a r lift t ,yy. s'',;- y 1..yi "�` �4r�a" ftir r 'a- 44 t, `i R 4� ,1 tw r { y #', # .,. a 4 t$4 "'(' n ,4 7z } " Y t ;, 11t fk L r ., .M n,, •t k :'t-.,{ ..s,10' ,,, i,* i,'".}+ 'y _ "14'0 {,'; y ,, • • t# fy, �',IP 1 s fa „c 4 - ', c '; e' f'Pk'A 5"i ', t^v «,a•E*, ",,, ,,,+ fi 7, Sri f ,'r ": �-' * 4,ecY r' ra , li �, ,*fX m ,,i ,, 4 pj ,-T{ r, +a #*t rir,,,PL° ,11 {., W , � 0,',,,,, e, ,f,,. b7 ,, fi fX '�T ,U�.' l li4 ..la 9 t ,( t *}' ,p 9ia1.' Mal' ps h '�"Y 9'`'A '� ' n p YI � A �. o : ✓ cr y -11 1 o • 0 I., n u r. t r i ' a ,y n p a 41 _ _ _ to.1, .1 ,. i/` it " r - a 4h Wui a 44 ‘M. 4 ., „ a° , a it.\ } 0a �.. lip 0 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO zr DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES „,\ Special Meeting U December 9, 1991 I. CALL TO ORDER The special Development Review Board meeting of December 9, 1991 was called to order by Ginger Remy, Acting Chair at 6:15 p.m. IL ROLL CALL Board members present were Mr. Bloomer, Mr, Starr, Ms, Remy, Mr, Sievert and 61 Mr. Greaves. Mr. Stanaway a „1 Mr.Foster were absent. Also present were Robert Galante, Senior Planner; and Barbara Anderson, Senior Secretary. III, APPROVAL OF MINUTES The February 20. 1991 lviinptes-(Second Vote) were postponed to the next regularly scheduled meeting due to the lack of a quorum eligible to vote, 411111 Mr. Greaves moved for approval of the March 19, 1991 Minutes (Second Vote). Mr. Sievert seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Sievert, Mr. Greaves, Ms. Remy and Mr. Bloomer all voting yes. Mr. Starr abstained, ,;'' IV, PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS ,,. None, V. PUBLIC HEARING None, it • VI. GENERAL PLANNING = None, VII. OTHER BUSINESS • Flndings, unluasluns and Order Mr. -Sievert moved for approval of p►, $-91-908, Findings, conclusaloos and, Q. trAttLAqs.itlisLisilt. Mr, Bloomer seconded the motion and it passed with Mr, Ell 12/9/91 DRB Minutes Page 1 of 2 U lj i Sievert. Ms. I,emy, Mr. Starr and Mr. Bloomer alp voting yes. Mr. Greaves 0 abstained, M .Starr moved for approval of '.; rk . F 4 OEder f ,�,Qt,. MIN 1Itooinerseconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Sievert, Ms. Remy,Mr. Starr and Mr. Bloomer all voting yes. Mr. ()moves.,abstained. Mr.Sievert moved for approval of U - I D 2 - ipridirigs,.Conclusi n n r nd �:lylr: Starr seconded and the motion passed with Mr. Sievert, Mr. Starr and Mr. Bloomer all voting yes. Mr. Grooves and. Ms. Remy abstained ,, Mr. Sievert moved for approyi�Il of DIES - 1. FiConclusionsn Order Mr. Greaves seconded the motion and it passed with Mr.,Sievert, Mr. - Greaves, Ms. Remy and Mr. Bloomer all voting yes. Mr. Starr abstained, The �► 11. i- 21 F n in , n l 1 i nand r were postponed to the next regularly scheduled meeting due to the lack of a quorum eligible to vote. Mr. Sievert moved for approval of tilt DR 13.99- '1S. Findings, Conclusions and Qrler,(First Voted Mr.Starr seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Sievert, �" (..> Ms, Remy and Mr. Starr all voting yes, Mr. Greaves and Mr. Bloomer abstained, 0 '... VIII. AD,3UURRNM1ENT ��� 4 There being no further business before the Development Review Board►,Acth ig Chair Remy adjourned the meeting at 6 30 p.m• ,' Respect 11 S tbmltto d" 5. 14, •t Barbara Anderson Senior Secretary a.,$uvr9I D MNI2 9.MIn N ill 1 /)1f:3R1.B Minutes 1'sgefx n I> (, c f) n k 0 U O o U a ,; , n a i7 , ,0 0 t 0 ' O t . ) (l� ll 0 ) '.I.) Q o r c> s.. a i II 0 i -C.1 ,, , l', U I! ' n el t; CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES 40 RAFT DECRMIiE 161991 0 0 I. CALL TO ORDER The Development Review Board meeting of December 16,1991 was called to order by Chairman Foster at 7 3O p.m. " ,., °'' II. ROLL CALL Board members present were Mr.Starr,Mr.Poster,Mr.Greaves and Mr. Stanaway. Mr.Bloomer,Ms.Remy and Mr. Sievert were excused. Also present were Robert Galante,Senior Planner;Hamid Pishvaie,Development Review Planner; Michael Wheeler, Associate Planner;and Cindy Phillips, Assistant City Attorney►, III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Due to the lack of an eligible quorum the 1'ebruary,20, 1991 Minutps (Setrond''Votel were rescheduled for the next regular meeting, Due to the lack of an eligible quorum the,must,5,,1991Mintitsta were rescheduled for the next regular meeting, }, I Due to the lack of an eligible quorum the December,%%11991 Minutes were rescheduled for the next regular meeting. I IV PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS None. V. PUBLIC HEARING AP'91.7kAP 91-8,requests by Dill Warner(AP 9d �- )p rct Calvin &'Rosemary Wood (AP 91-8)for two appeals of the City Manager's ec bn to approve the creation of two parcels from a 24,320 sq.ft,parcel(SD 54-90 . Thai a ellants request denial of p qq the minor partition by a hearing body. A procedural error during a public hearingon October7 1991 requires a rehearing of this case to correct the error. The site is ocated �r at 1141 "C" Avenue(Tax Lot 3500 of Tax Map 2 it 3CB), Staff coordinator is Michi e) It Wheeietr 4ficnclute,Plrintrer, ,; Chairman Foster discussed the hearing procedure and timelines for testimony, He asked the Board members if there were any ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none,he asked for the staff presentation. J Mr.Wheeler explained that this was a rehearing of an earlier case due to a procedural '' error. He noted that this case was to be heard"de nov►o'', Ne indicated that the record remained unch` nged from when it was presented before,with the exception of a few exhibits that were submitted during the previous public hearing. Mr.\x/heeler stated that staff recommended approval of the minor partition with conditions. 411 12/16/91 DRB minutes , , Pagel of 8 o ~, ..alt 410 T Tt�re ► Fifth representing Mr. &Mrs.Smith,the applicants in the partition request, He explained that the Smiths could not physically live in the existing house on the a c el. p Mr. Sercombe discussed the procedural error that occurred at the previous hearing. He noted that two neighbors who had previously signed a petition against the partition had changed their minds. Mr. Sercornbe presented a letter from Mr. &Mrs.Keys,which rescinded their signature from the petition. He noted that Exhibit 41 was a letter from the other neighbors rescinding their signatures,as well, Mr, Sercombe discussed tt,e proposal, Be. referred the Board to Exhibit 4,the tree survey;Exhibit 11,an insurance report on one of the trees;Exhibit 13,a tree report on the health of the ties on the property;Exhibit 17,a statement about vicinity properties' and Exhibit 25,which shows what the neighborhood was like in terms of the size and shape of lots. He indicated that these were the important exhibits in the ease, Mr. Sercornbe noted that the partition did not seek any variances to the Code. He stated that the proposal complied with all applicable criteria. He discussed how the proposal impilemented several policies within the comprehensive Plan. Mr.Sercombe stated that the proposal was consistent with the neighborhood. He referred the Board to Exhibit 25,which shows the neighborhood in the area. Be discussed the character of the neighborhood, Mr. Sercombe stated that over half of the lots within 300' feet were the,same size or smaller than the proposed partition lots, Mr, Sercombe discussed the merits of the two appeals. He stated that the issue of setting a precedent for flag lots should not be considered because the Comprehensive 41111 Plan allowed for flag lots. He noted that each flag lot should be judged on its own merits whether its the first flag lot in the neighborhood or the 20th flag lot in the neighborhood. Mr.Sercombe stated that trees should not be an issue because onlyfour trees were proposed to be removed. He stilted that the concern that the proposal as inconsistent with the neighborhood was not supported by evidence in the record. In fact,Mr. Sercombe referred the Board to evidence in the record which clearly shows that the proposed lots are within the average lot range for the neighborhood, Mr. Sercombe stated that the concern that site conditions preclude the partition could.not be justified. He mentioned that there was no inconsistency with the Plan density policies, Mr. Sercombe mentioned the irregular lot line coni"i uration, He pointed out that there are no Plan policies which prohibit an irregular lot line. Mr,Scrcombe stated that the irregular lot line configuration was proposed in order to allow the applicants to preserve the existing dwelling, to allow the new garage to front directly onto the driveway and to e i s case*which wwasdenied by' the B card b a e of an lli ne Dimension grove f trees. e�i d ��ep s between the ai proposal and the configuration. is Cecil Murr r stated for the record that he wished to relinquish his time to Mr. Warner. ,11.0se z,„011ittida '► '' ' 0,91034 stated that the neighborhood wits distinct and discussed the typical character of the surrounding rt homes. She referred the Board to Exhibits 28-35 for examples of typical homes in the 41) neighborhood. Ms.Wood pointed out that there were no existing flag lots within the neighborhood. She discussed the Social Resources Policy,Growth Management Policy, Impact Management Policy and Residential Land Use Policy of the Comprehensive 12/1091 D1113 Minutes Page 2of8 , Plan. Ms.Wood referred"the Board to Exhibit 23,which was the denial of a previous proposal for a minor partition in the neig hborhood,ghborhood, She stated that the reasons for denial of the case referred to in Exhibit 23 were still valid today(i,e,,maintaining stabilityof older neighborhoods and obstruction of the existing character of neighborhood). Ms.Wood discussed the zon0 ing,stating that the only way that the proposal could meet the minimum lot size and setbacks was to manipulate the lot line configuration. She referred the Board to Exhibit 36,which was a denial based on an irregular lot line configuration, Ms.Wood asked the Board to deny the proposal based on those same issues noted in Exhibit 36. Weston bilt stated for the record i that he wished to relinquish his time to Bill Warner, Tim 4 nson 1050 Bsayberry sad,sake O weg i g7034 stated'fo;c the record that he i wished to relinquish his time to Bill Warner. Bill Warner,1068 Bayberry Road,Lake Oswego,97034 stated that he objected to the proposal because it does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan,nor does it meet the specific minimum requirements of the Zoning Code, He pointed out that there were no flag lots within the neighborhood and that the 1977 denial of a proposed flag lot had set a precedent for denial of flag lots within the neighborhood. Mr. Warner discussed the manipulation of the lot line in order to meet the letter of the law, He stated that the intent of the Comprehensive Plan was not being met by allowing this manipulation. He discussed the Residential Land Use Policy, Mr.Warner was concerned about tree cutting. He suggested that an arborist report be submitted before any of the trees were removed. Mr Warner argued that the trees proposed for removal because they were unhealthy and unsafe were in fact healthy and normal; however, a little pruning could 0 be done. lie referred the Board to his Txlublt A,stating that it was not new evidence, it was merely a tracing of Exhibit 4 of the staff report. He asked the Board to note the south building line of the proposed garage. Mr.Warner indicated that the existing garage was constructed of brick and only 50 feet from the property line,which is 30% less than the minimum requirement, therefore, the lot would not conform to the Code. He discussed the definition of front building line under LOC 48,210, } 111 r Se rcombe rc e M , ambe explained the meaningof LOC 2 0 Ci3, building p4 � frontline which discussed the lot width for the dwellig structure and not ancillary structures, He indicated that.Mr.Warner's Exhibit A measured the front building line of the garage ' not the dwelling structure. He stated that the width measured at the front line of the proposed structure exceeded 65 feet. Mr. Sercombe pointed out that the site abuts "C" Avenue which establishes the character of the neighborhood. He indicated that the majority of the opponents lived on Bayberry Road not "C" Avenue and that the neighborhood characteristic along Bayberry Road was different than that of"C"Avenue, Mr. Sercombe discussed the issues of setting a precedent by allowing a flag lot and the precedent of denying flag lots for minor partitions in the neighborhood. He reiterated the fact that each case must be judged on its own merits. He indicated that change had come to the neighborhood and would continue to come in the future, Mr. Sercombe pointed out that if the proposal met the applicable criteria it should then be approved. 410 Mr.Sercombe indicated that thews would be a substantial tree rove on the proposed lot that would insure and enhance privacy between adjoining neighbors, He mentioned that 12/16/91.DRB Minutes Page 3 of 8 c, -- , 3 I' ( F one of the tams was diseased and needed to be removed. Mr. Sercombe noted that the 0 0 tree had caused physical damage to structures and would no long be insured. The Board questioned Mr.Wheeler about Exhibit A submitted by Mr,Warner. Mr. , Wheeler indicated that the exhibit was entered into the record as Exhibit 45; Mr. Wheeler explained how a flag lot was defined and how the building line was defined, He discussed the lot dimensions,explaining how each was°defined Deliberation , The Board accepted Exhibit 45 into,the record, but did not agree with Mr.Warner in his suggestion of how to determine lot width. The Board found that the Zoning Ordinance and Development Code contain provisions and definitions sufficient to conclude that the proposal complies with the lot width requirement of the 12,-=10 zone, These provisions include LOC 48 210(1),48.015(60),48.015(35),48,525,48.025(1) and 48.025(3). The Board determined that the lot width,is measured at the building line, which is a line coinciding with the front setback line, The Board found that the lot width of 119 feet for Parcel 2,exceeded the required minimum of 65 feet. i The Board found that the proposed partition did not set a precedent because the proposed parcel areas are consistent with the residential density designated for the site in the Comprehensive Plan and on the Zoning Map. The Board found that the proposed partition complied with the Plans s Residential Density Policies (pages 74--76,General Policy I and General'Policy III, Specific Policy 1). The Board found that these policies allow the proposed partition because the allowance is not determined by whether the proposed partition is the first for the neighborhood. 0 The Board further found that because the uses and lot sizes proposed were similar to those in the neighborhood and did not increase the density beyond that allowed,the stability of the neighborhood is not in jeopardy as a result of the proposal, The Board foun that the applicant's evidence that of the 44 lots in the immediate vicinity of the sub,;(ict parcel,22 lots were the same area or smaller than the proposed parcels proved that the proposal would not introduce smaller lot sizes into the neighborhood. The Board found that the applicant's evidence proved that,of the 44 lots in the immediate vicinity of the subject parcel,only 15 could bepartitioned to meet minimum lot size requirements. The Board found that of these 15 loti only a few could,be partitioned because of the location of an existing residence on each lot, i The Board found that Conditions No.7, 10, 11 and as recommended wore adequate to protect trees located on the site as illustrated in the tree survey (Exhibit1,4). The Board found that the applicant proposed to remove only those trees necessary to build a house on,Parcel 1. These include two Douglas—firs,one small Birch and one small Hawthorne. The Board considered the applicant's evidence that one of the Douglas—firs _, needs to be:memoved for safety reasons, necessitating the removal of a second Douglas— Or whose root system is linked to the first, The Boativ1 also considered the applicant's i ►idence that,including the trees already removed to relocate the driveway and garage, nearly 70%of the trees which are five inches or greater its diameter will be retained. The Board found that in order for the proposal to comply with the Comprehensive Plan's Distinctive Natural Area Policies (pages 32-35,General Policy I,Specific Policy 2),the consultation of an arborist was necessary to evaluate the health of six Douglas- firs, including those proposed for removal,and to suggest measures intended to protect and preserve those trees not affected by the construction of a dwelling on Parcel 1. 41) The Board found that the Zonin,Ordinance and Development Code neither encourage nor discourage the creation of"Flag lots" but noted that a specific provision [LOC 12/16/91 DRE Minutes Page 4 of 8 t'S o ri eee r. - , 2 ) of tee Zoning Ordinance allows their use in land development, Theprovision 0 discusses the front yard requirement for flag lots. The Board also found that the Comprehensive Plan reconizes the need for flag lots,when they are consis ent with the , i density of the Plan,in its policies romotin affordable housing, chievin 'densities within the Plan area,and encouraging compact urban growth. ' The Board considered the op onents'conc'rn about the shape of the propoeed parcels. The Board found that regulations and Compreh nsivc Plan policies a plicabble to minor partitions do not include criteria regarding shape, The Board found tlratthe shape of the proposed parcels was the result of complianceevith all minimum ordinanWl requirements. 4 The Board found that the shape of the proposed parcels was,a function of the applicant's me t to ret existing-dwelling on Parcel"intent n sin the ,�at its' l anon, present M Mr.Graves moved for a _ , . Mr.�;Foster seconded the motion and t passed with Mr. Sttmaway,Mr,Greaves and lvir. Foster,all voting yes, Mr. Starr voted no. M1-,ter..,-.....w...r►..-{...'w...r.- --.....--,-I...-a...n. .„-w. ,—..--.,-A...'...M..r.M.4.w.. ..A.. PD 4-91\SD 1'&91,a request by Century 21 Properties,Inc.for approval of a 47.1ot single family planned development and a lot line adjustment The site is located between the railroad right-of-way and Washington Court,east of Tracy Avenue Lind west of Denny Court (Tax Lots 100,200, 300,(pin)500,2500 and Rail Road Right-of- Way of Tax Map 211E 13BB), Thisproject was continued from the October 21, 1991 public hearing. Staff coordinator is,Unmidt�,`V t'Planner I, Mr.Galante noted that this hearing item had been continued from October 7, 1991 and • that only three Board members were eligible to participate, He indicated that there was not public testimony at the previous hearing and that the applicant was willing to start thehearing process rom the beginning. Mr.Galante explained that the applicant had F , hh costs of redesigned the site plan to allow some additional lots in order to mitigate t e installing a signal at the intersection of Boones Ferry and Washington Court. Chairman Foster discussed the hearing procedure and timelines for testimon . He asked the Board members if there were any ex parts contacts or conflicts o£ aierostt Hearing none,he asked for the staff pr40 esentation, Mr,Pishvaie noted that Exhibit 31,a letter by Rob Bauer,had been submitted. Be indicated that the original staff report had been included in the record. Mr.Pishvaie stated that the September 27, 1991 staff report discussed most of the issues that were associated with the development, He noted that the biggest issue was the need for traffic improvements at the intersection of Boones Perry Road.and Washington Court, Mr.Pishvaie stated that the December 6, 1991 staff report provides additional information regarding the changes to the site plan. He noted that the overall site design had not changed. Mr.Pishvaie indicated that the original site design requested several modifications to setbacks;however, he pointed out that-the new site design did away with the need to modify the setbacks. Mr►Pishvare stated that the new site plan increased the density from 42 lots to 47 lots,which was well within the ullowcd density of 69 lots. He indicated that there was 23.1% open space on the site. Mr.Pishvaie noted that them were some specimen trees and steep banks on the site that the applicant 410 was proposing to preserve in conservation easements. Mr.Pishvalc mentioned that the inclusion of the proposed conservation casements would bring the total open space to , 31.4%. He concluded that staff recommended approval with conditions, 12/16/91 DRB Minutes Page 5 of 8 u , 0 (` Applicant St, ''Pfelfer,900 SW Fifth,Poland stated Mr.Pishvaie had adequately discussed 0 , , the changes to the site design. He indicated that he was in concurrence with the staff recommendations. Mr.Pfeifer noted that the best comparison between the tw . site► designs was illustrated on Exhibits 8 and 27. He' referred the Board to,page 6 of:..ile December 6, 1991 staff report. Mr.Pfeifer was concerned about Conditions B.15 and 1) 1. He stated that there may be some timing problems„with the signal because of ODOT, Mr.Pfeifer wanted to be assured that the project would not be held up because of the timing on the signal. Mr.Pfeifer mentioned Exhibit 31,stating that Mr. Bauer was requesting that road..be improved from the project site to the intersection of Boones Ferry Road. Mr.Pfeifer referred the Board to]Exhibit 13,which was a letter from the County,recommending a half street improvement along the frontage of the site, ifi Proponent „ Am tviiirtindate, 16965 Denny Court,Lake Oswego,970.35 stated that he was in favor of the proposal. He commented that the proposal would be an appropriate addition to the neighborhood,bring stabilit3 to the neighborhood and help upgrade the neighborhood. Opponents Dave Rrt aell,1687 4 Cortez Cslutrt,,Lnke..S2swcgo,97935 expressed concern that the. applicant had a responsibility to pay for the entire improvement to the intersection of Boones Perry and Washington Court. Mr. Russell stated that he concurred with the letter from Mr.Bauer, He was concerned about traffic on Washington Court and the 90 41, degree turn at the end of Vs as:dington Court onto Roosevelt Ave, Mr,Russell suggested a 5—way flashing red stop at the intersection of Washington Court and Lake Forest. He mentioned his concerns about the drainage basin at the corner of Washington Court and Cortez Court, he asked for protective fencing around the basin, He asked whether or not the applicant was going to restrict traffic from the railroad right—of—way(i.e., transients,etc.). Mr.Russell stated that he was also concerned about construction noise. Rebuttal Stephen Pfeifer discussed the redesign of the intersection at Washington Court and Boones Ferry. He stated that it would be a joint venture between ODOT,the City and the applicant. Mr.Pfeifer stated that no fence was proposed for the detention pond. terry_palmer .Alpha Engineering,2600 SS Ors Partlnn l discussed the detention pond. He stated that the maximum depth of water would be about 2—21/2 feet during peak storm runoff. Mr.Palmer noted that during most of the year there would be no pond.water in the He maintenancepurposes,a 1 but there would not be a path that to would lead down tothe railroad area. He noted that the bluff along the railroad was about 30—40 feet. The Board questioned Mr.Palmer about the design of open space Tract A. Mr.Palmer indicated that the objective of Tract A was to open the open space area up to Washington Court„and to the neighborhood; therefore the open space was fronted along Washington Court',yet continues to allow access to the development from internal street, 0 12/16/91 ORB Minutes ' Page 5 of 8 o I. Deliheratlo1i r10t'' After receiving testimony from the applicant and citizens; the Board made the following findings: c, r • The applicant's contribution towards the cost of the traffic signal at the intersection Of Booms Ferry Road and Washington Court should include the related design and engineering costs, • The proposed half street improvement on Washington Court is in accordance with the recommendations of the Clackamas County,Departrllent of Transportation and Development, as outlined in Exhibit 18. Mr. Starr moved for aigureals /S1)...1.14.21. Mr.Stanaway seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Stanaway,Mr.Greaves,Mr.Foster and Mr. Starr all a. voting yes, VI. GENERAL PLANNING Discussion on Denial Without Prejudice Mr.Galante referred the Board to the memorandum in the staff packet, He explained that the Planning Commission viewed this,definition as a tool to come before the Board without making substantial changes to the'application, Mr.Galante noted that the Board used this option when it was appropriate to allow an applicant the opportunity to Just gather better evidence and present this evidence without changing the whole illapplrc�ution, Mr, Galante noted that the Planning Commission had expressed a problem with this option in the Code. The Board indicated that the option was rarely used by the Board and that they did not foresee a problem. Mr.Galante indicated that Council was also considering changing the appeal criteria to possibly allow the appeals to be heard as a"de novo"hearing. The Board indicated that it may appropriate for Council to allow new evidence into the record; however,if there were technical issues they should be remanded back to the Development Review Board. The Board noted that allowing new evidence at the Council level may present - problems for staff and increased work loads. VII. OTHER BUSINESS—Findings,Conclusions and Order Mr. Stanaway moved for approval of S '5-91VVAiE 19-9 1DRI2-291-92k(Firs ,;;Vote),Findings,Conclusions and Order. Mr.Starr seconded the motion and it ' passed with Mr.Stanaway,Mr.Foster and Mr Starr all voting yes. Mr.Greaves abstained. Mr. Starr moved for approval of V ,Findings, Conclusions and Order. Mr.Stanaway seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Stanaway,Mr.Foster and Mr. Starr all votinges, Mr,Greaves abstained, a- -- y► y Mr. Greaves moved for approval of DR 11-91-921 (Second Vote),Findings, Conclusions and Order. Mr.Starr seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Stanaway, Mr.Greaves,Mr.Foster and Mr. Starr all voting yes. 12/16/91 DRB Minutes Page 7 of 8 VIII. ADJOURNMENT' " There being no further business before the Development Review.Board,Chairman Foster adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.tm, ' Respectfully Submitted, t� Barbara Anderson `, Senior Secretary ti r, 0 i2/16/91 DRtB Minutes age 8 of 8 6