Loading...
Approved Minutes - 1992-09-09 .y o C I o LAKE \. S YY �'r 1DEPTC. IF LE PLANNING } • DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES � �tl . , CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEIYIBER 9, I992 I. CALL TO ORDER The Development Review Board meeting of September 9x 1992 was called to order by Chairman Stanaway at 7;30 p.m. IT, ROLL CALL Board members present were Ms, Striven, Mr, Foster, Mr, Sievert, Mr. Stanaway and Ms. Remy, Mr. Bloomer and Mr. Falconi were excused, Also present were Robert Galante, Senior Planner; Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Planner; Cindy Phillips, Deputy City Attorney; and Barbara Anderson, Senior Secretary, III, APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. 40 IV PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS None; V, PUBLIC HEARING PI) 2.92/PAIR request by Land Development Consultants for approval of a 55-lot single family residents tl Manned development and two `? variances, including a variance to LOC 44,390 "Length of Cut-de-sacs and Dead- End Streets" and a variance to LODS 4.020(2)(a) "Development within Wetlands", The site is located south of Childs Road and north of Dogwood Drive between Sycamore Street and Canal Road(Tax Lots 100 and 101 of Ta3c Map 2 lE 19AD and Tax Lots 400, 500, 600, 700, 800 and 900 of Tax Map 2 117 20BC). Staff coordinator is )F, (' Pishvaie, Development Review Planner, Mr, Pishvaie noted that there was a request for continuance from the applicant. He recommended that the Board discuss continuance before considering MI, Ms. Phillips mentioned that Exhibits 57-62 were presented before the Board, She. noted that Exhibit 62 was a request by the applicant for continuance, and that the request wits for September 21, 1992, Ms, Phillips pointed out that September 21st 41) was not a good date to continue the hearing to because there would be a } DRB Minutes 09.09 92 Page 1 of 5 O iink conflicting meeting (City of Rivergrove) for several of the opponents on that lup evening. She' recommended that the Board consider scheduling the hearing for September 23, 1992, Ms. Phillips pointed out that the applicant had also r giiested,that the opponents submit all written testimony prior td the hearing. She advised the Board not to limit testimony from the opponents to written testimony only,. Chairman Stanaway explained to the audience that there was a request by the applicant to have written issues submitted to the City by September 16, 1992, Chairman Stanaway noted that by doing so it would also help the Board to sort through the issues. t of Order Audience: Askee,for the public, hearing to be heard at this time, Ms. Phillips explained that the audience did not have the right to demand that the hearing be held, She stated that it was the applicant's responsibility for burden of proof and thereby, the applicant was in control of the timing for the hearing, The Board pointed out that,according to Exhibit 57, a resident of the Rivergrove gib area had requested continuance of the hearing, as well, Mr. Foster moved to contintue PD 2.92/VAR 6.92(a-b1 to September 23, 1992 at 7:00 o.m, and requested that the public enter written testimony by September 16, 1992 if possible. Mr. Sievert seconded motion and it passed with Ms. Stiven, Mr. Poster, Mr, Stanaway, Mr. Sievert and NI', Remy, I _ Yi w M.F w r`/ w w i. M • I+YM N: M w Y -M Y 'Y M - 4 - M w'M w M M-- w b w. Y DR 15-92, a request by Architects Barrentine Bates Lee for approval to construct a 14,350 square foot office building. The site is located west of Lana Drive, adjacent to Mercantile Village (Tax Lots 8200, 9400, 9500, 9600 of Tax Map 2 lE 8CE)., Staff coordinator is Ilamid P'islt aie, Develoument Review PlanM Contin,; ed from August 17. 1992. Chairman Stanaway explained the hearings procedures and timelines for testimony. He asked Board members if there were any ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest, Mr. Sievert asked to be excused because he was not present at the previous public hearing. Chairman Stanaway excused him and then asked for the staff presentation, Mr. Pishvaie discussed the previous hearing, stating that the hearing had been ail continued in order to allow the applicant to address two issues relating to storm DRB Minutes 09.09.92 Page 2 of 5 z Mk drainage runoff" and building design. He noted that the two issues had been If addressed and referred the Board to Exhibits 28 - 30, specifically Exhibit 30, the memorandum from Andy ltarris. Mr. Pishvaie stated that with the two issues resolved, staff was recommending approval of the project with the conditions outlined in the August 27, 1992 staff memorandum. A Pplica nt Bill Allred, Hallmark Inns;& ;1teeorts Inc,,48. $,dv .xd..,P.O. Box 325.100._,P r 721 mentioned that Dr.Barnett bad stated that he not received notice of the previous hearing. Mr. Allred pointed out Oiat Dr. Barnett was buying the property on contract and that the County had Dt Danchock listed as the legal owner. Llc noted that Dr,lDanchock had been sent notice of the hearing J.,ang Bo , hi rr i e la n 2 ', Lake Oswego. 97034 discussed the design modifications made to the structure along Lana Drive, noting that additional landscaping bad been added in "three locations in order to soften the building facade. He explained that the first area had been added in the southeast corner of the site to buffer the sidewalk; second, the northwest corner of the parking lot; and thirdly,the most significant,was a planter indented along the east face of the building, Mr. Bates presented a rendering iat (Exhibit 31) to the Board to further illustrate the design modifications made. Mr. Bates explained that the drainage swale along the south property line had been 1} eliminated and moved along the west property line, 1-le stated that by moving the swale there was an opportunity to add additional landscaping along the sidewalk area. ,Mr. Bates indicated that the landdscaping atea along the sidewalk made the project more pedestrian friendly. i The Board asked.,about the planter indent on the building, Mr. Bates explained that the building was reduced by 100 sq. ft. and a planter was inserted instead, Mr. Bates noted," that 20o sq. ft. of additional landscaping was added by readjusting the parking and handicap area and moving the drainage swine. The, Board asked if the number of parking spaces had been reduced by rearranging the parking. Mr. Bates replied no. The Board questioned".alas applicant about the depth of the wall at the east end of the building. Mr. Bates noted that the street was misaligned and that there was a 2 1/2' offset on one end of the building, on the corner of Collins Way. Neitbe In, Supporttior Opposition Tint Harrington,4 61.Collins Way,Lake Qswego,97 338 stated that he thought 40 there was several issues still not addressed. He stated that it was his perception DRB Minutes 09-09-92 page 3 of 0 a , a Ask at the previous meeting that it was the ;staffs opinion that the building was too 1p big. Mr. Galante stated that some of the issues about design were raised because the sortie appeared to be too great, He indicated that the scale and massing of a building can be reduced by installing additional landscaping. He pointed out that the scale of the parking area and the building had been reduced by installing a landscaped area between where the asphalt met the sidewalk. He also stated that the integrated planter reduced the scale and proportions of the building, Tim Harrington stated that he appreciated that the applicant had been available to the eighborhood and made attempts to consider the neighborhood concerns. He was concerned that the applicant was estimating beyond their growth potential. He was concerned about the loss of liveability within the City and his neighborhood, Mr. Harrington discussed the character of the neighborhood, the view of Mt. Hood and the aesthetic beauty of the area. He requested that the building size be reduced in order to reduce the impact to the neighborhood. He stated that the compromise of 1C10 sci.; ft. was not enough and that a further reduction in size should occur, Mr. Harrington asked the Board to consider the livability of the neighbors. Deliberation 410 The Board acknowledged Exhibit 30 and found that the drainage issues had been resolved between the applicant and the City. The Board noted that they appreciated the applicant's willingness to work with the City to resolve the issues in a timely manner. The Hoard found that the reduction of the building by 100 sq. ft, was adequate to soften the building faeadc, to reduce the appearance of massing and scale, to create a pedestrian friendly environment and to better encouraged pedestrian traffic, Ms. Remy moved for approval of DR 1b-92, Mr»Foster seconded the motion and it passed with approval with Ms. Stiven, Mr. Foster, Mr, Stanaway and Ms, Remy all voting yes; VI. GENERAL PLANNING VII. OTHER BUSINESS I None. 1)Rl3 Minutes 09.09-92 Page4of ii VIII, ADJOURNMENT ,, There being no further business before the Develo?ment Review Boards Chairman , Stanaway adjourned the meeting at 8:45'p,m, Respectfully Submitted, n ' Barbara Anderson Senior Secretary 0 \. ', V 0 J ,r ►RI3 Minutes 09.09»92 Page 5 of 5 0 i 0 Cl cam---� ` r n C1 1 44 l IJ tis • • • Il, u o ,c fj . CITY Or LAKE OSWEGO 410 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING September 2I, 199� 0 I. CALL TO OI3DBIt , The Development Review Board meeting of September 21.,1992 was called to order by Acting Chairman Foster at approximately 7:30 p.m, II. ROLL CALL Board members present were Ms. Remy,Ms.Stiven,Mr,Poster and Mr. Palconi were present. Mr.Bloomer,Mr,'Stanaway and Mr Sievert were excused. Staff members present included Robert Galante,Senior Planner;Cynthia Phillips, Deputy City Attorney;and Barbara Anderson,Senior Secretary. III. APPROVAL OP MINUTES Ms,Remy moved to approve the Se ' Ms.Stiven ANL seconded the motion and it passed with Ms.Stiven,Mr.Poster and Ms. Reilly voting in favor. Mr.Palconi abstained. IV. PETITIONS AND COMIVIUNICATIoNS-none V. 1'IIBLIC NEARING' kop+� b a request by the Holly Orchard Neighborhood Association to consider street name changes for ORCHARD DDRlV1L J'PEIFEI RT ,,P` EEIFER COURT,PPEIFEI2 WAY AND DAN11 1,WAY be changes, The proposed names are as follows: Shetland Pony Drive,Pfeifer Drive,Rathbun Stone Court,Pasture View Court and Pfeifer Drive (respectively). The property is located along the above mentioned streets,otherwise described as Tax Lots 5300,5400,5500,5600,5700,5800,5900, 6000 and 6100 of Tax Map 2 1E3 5CC qnd Tax Lots`6600,6700,6800,6900,7000,7100,7200, 7300,7400,7500 7600,7700,7800,7900,8000, 8100,8200,8300, 8400, 8500,8600,8700,8800,8900, 9000,9100,9200,9300,9400,9500 9600,9700,9800,9900,10000, 10100,10200 and 10300 of Tax Map 21E 5CD), Dp.E 21 2Minutes 9f /9 ,. Page 1 of 4 Acting Chairman Poster asked if there was any ex parte contact of bias from the n;> 11111, Board in regard to this application. Hearing none,he asked for the staff presentation. Mr,Galante gave a brief presentation and stated that staff recommends that the streets remain named as they are, Mr.Galante said that the majority of the property owners in the area do not want the name changed, Igstimo y Wilma Mc, 41,00 Coltsffoot Lane,'hake Oswego, OR 970$5,stated that the Neighborhood Association would be in support of this name change, However, to change them to all the same name would be a potential hazard. Ms.McNulty submitted to the Board a letter addressed to Mr, Pishvaie dated July 6 1992 from the Holly Orchard Neighborhood Association in opposition to the chosen names. Ms. McNulty stated that they had concern with emergency vehicles having difficulty finding an address with the street names being the same. »avid 17arslamo,14584 I feifer Way, Lake.Oswego,stated that he did not want to see the names changed again,as it is a costly and timely process to notify everyone of a name or address change. Mr. Dardano stated that 11 of the 14 di people in the neighborhood do not want the streets changed, Mr.Dardano asked the Board to review that the post office,police and fire departments did not have a problem with the names remaining as they were. Julie SQLin Q stated that she did not see a problem with the streets remaining the same. She stated that they are not on a map, therefore people come to the area with directions, Ms.Sohn referred to , Carman Drive changing direction and still remainin6;the same Carman Drive, Ms, Sohn stated that she resents the fact of people out of the t4.'eighborhood trying to change the name of the streets in her neighborhood. Darkara.Maxwell,4.03 Colts Eoot10 s !, go li i y° liara3 stated that their hoard was not in support of the street name changes in Pfeifer Farms division. Ms.Maxwell stated that their Board had decided not to pursue these name changes after Mr.Dardano attended their meeting. Ms,Maxwell stated that the names being suggested were only suggestions from their Board. DIZI3 9/21/92 Minutes • Page 2of4 ink , � ,011,. 4O Oxchard,Drlv_e, Lake Oswego,stated that he was in 1111 opposition to changing the names, He stated that similar street names in the coxnnrtunity is a practice that has been previously done. Mr,Shenniesh stated that mail makes it to his house even if the wrong address is on it Mr.Shetrniesh stated that the fire and police departments do not have a problem with this. Mr. Shemiesh said that it would cause more confusion to change than to leave it as It is. Mr.Shemiesh urged the Board to vote in opposition. jitn_RighaxdaggAmaDrchanuari stated that after they moved in to the area they received a large packet of information chronicling what had happened in the process. Mr.Richardson stated that changing an address is very confusing. Mr.Richardson stated that the same people who had initially started were now the ones in opposition and therefore the issue shouldn't even be being discussed. . eraa Btrect,Portiand,Trion Crgetc tilt sta.ted that lie recognized that his interest in Pfeifer Parins is different than those that live there now or will in the future. He stated that it took many years to approve this neighborhood. Mr. Lewis stated that this should have been taken care of long before now. Mr. Lewis stated that he was not contacted by the Holly Orchard Neighborhood;Association for comment. He stated that this will have a large impact on him as the builder due to a lot of di advertising and brochures distributed through the community and to change it now would be verycostly. Mr.Lewis asked the Board to denythe street name change; Delibc'at1on The Board agreed that there was no argument in support of changing the names and;therefore,supported the staff's decision to keep the names as they are. The Board concurred with the findings of the staff in denying the street names to be changed. Ms. Stiven moved to v • A. i ,, Ms, Remy seconded the motion and it passed with Ms.Stivenn,Mr.Poster,Ms.Remy and Mr.Palconi voting in favor. VI. GENERAL PLANNING The Board discussed the new procedures regarding timing of testimony and when to allow reconsideration of a decsion. IDRI3 9/21/92 Minutes Page of 4 VII. OTHER BUSINESS -none VIII ADJOURNMENT With no further business to conie before the Board,Acting Chairman Foster adjourned the meeting at appro><i nately 9:00 PR)3 9/21/92 Minute 4, Page 4 of 4 ry f`! 7 ors n I1.1 J U p" C .. ) I 1, _ A:p1?1(1 4rU U CM( OF LAKE OSWECIO DEVELC:iPlVf4NT REVIEW BOARDJMII�UTPS SOPIliMfIER 23, 199211 I. CALI. TO ORDER The Development Review Board meeting of September 23 1992 was called to order by Chairman Stanaway at 7:00 p.m. IL ROLL CALL Board members present were Mr.131oomer,Mr,Poster,Mr,Stanawny,Mrs,Sievert, Ms. Remy and Mr, Palconi Ms, Stivcn was excused, Mao present Mere Tom Coffee,Planning Director;Harald Pishvale,Development Review Planner; Cindy Phillips, Deputy City Attorney, and Barbara Anderson, Senior Secretary, xll APPROVAL OP MIMl,E" . s None IV, PETI'11ONS AND COMMUNICATIONS Mr, Palconi announced that beginning October 19, 1992 he would be the Transportation Engineer for the City of Lake Oswego,, therefore, he would be resigning from the Board,effective immedlatcly V. PUBLICI4EARINCi Chairman Stanaway discussed the hettrings procedures ttnd time-lines for -_-- testimony, lie announced that because Of the number of persons present, time limits would be strictly enforced to 5 minutes for individuals, 10 minutes for groups and 20 minutes for the applicant A member of the audience asked about the ability to cede ones time to another member of the audience, Ms. Phillips noted that time limits, according to City Code, wore to be limited to 10 mutates for groups, She indicated that if a person wished to cede his or her time, than,`they needed to physically be present in the audience. }Iowcvcr keeping in mind that 10 minutes for a group would be allowed, Chairman Stat away acknowledged that the Board was aware of the importance and sensitivity of the issues and ask the audience for respect and sensitivity frool all persons. DRU Mimics 09.2342 Page 1 of 14 1, (' • Chairman Stanaway mentioned that the Lake Grove Postmaster had contacted the City and requested that an annoucr.ement be made regarding the flyers being passed out in the Bryant Woods neighborhood. He noted that these flyers should not be placed in the mail boxes because it was a federal offense to place anything beside U.S. Mail inside the mailboxes. Chairman Stanaway announced that the Development Review Board would suspend the public hearing atkj11:00 p.m, He indicated that the hearing would then be continued to 7:O0 par., October 5, 1992. P1) 2--92/VAR'_6-92(a-b), a request by Land Development Consultants for approval of a 55-lot single family residential plane 1 development and two variances,including a variance to LOC 44.390 "Length of Cal-de-sacs and Dead- F""'"treets"and a variance to LOTS 4,020(2)(a)"Development within Wetlands". dim is located south of`Childs Road and north of Dogwood Drive between Sycamore Street and Canal Road (Tax Lots 100 & 101 of Tax Map 2 lB 19AD and Tax Lots 400, 500, 600, 700, 800 and 900 of Tax Map 2 l;E 2OBC). Staff coordination is Iltainid Pishvale,i)evelopment Review F,iattneart(onlintted from September 9,;1992, Gt Chairman Stanaway asked if there were any ex parte contacts, biases or conflicts of interest. He noted that he had received a couple of questions from the public regarding procedures. He indicated that those questions were referred to the City staff and that there was no discussion regarding the hearing. Chairman Stanaway then requested the staff presentation. Mr.Pishvaic discussed the additional exhibits presented before the Board(Exhibits 82-84). He pointed out that since the September 9, 1992 public hearing there had been several exhibits presented. He indicated that the additional exhibits had been available to die public and incorporated into the staff report that had been handed out at City Hall, Mr. Pishvaie noted that everyone should have exhibits through 82. Mr. Pishvaic presented the staff report, discussing the current request and the previous approval that had expired. He noted the natural resources on the site as illustrated in Exhibits 7 and 12. He pointed out that there were some limitations to removal of soil and vegetation etation of the site because the site was within the g restricted ,iapanese Beetle quarantine area, Mr. Pishvaic discussed the 55-lot proposal and indicated that the lot sizes were proposed to range from 8,0,00 sq. ft, to 16,200 sq. ft. He mentioned that the development was dependent on two variances because 'f site limitations. He indicated that the first variance request was for a '„xiance to the Wetland Development Standard. ,.y DB8 Minutes 09-23-92 Page 2 of 14 Aidk Mr. Pishvaie noted that proposed Canal Road improvements at the intersection of Childs Road would cross an essential wetland, He stated that in addition, the required pedestrian pathway along Childs Road would also impact a small amount of the essential wetland. Mr. Pishvaln pointed`out that the total wetland area that would be impacted Was less than half art acre. He stated that the applicant was proposing to mitigate and enhance 1.26 acres of wetland in the adjacent Bryant Woods Park. c Mr. Pishvaie explained that the City staff, the Oregon bepartrnent of Fish and Wildlife and the Division of State Lands had all reviewed the issue of mitigation for the site, ' He pointed out that it was the,recommendation,from those two agencies which resulted in the decision to mitigate for the loss of wetlands in the Bryant Woods Park. Mr. Pishvaie mentioned that the City had approved a variance to the Wetland Standard for Windfield Estates, which was a variance that allowed an extension of the public sanitary sewer line to be constructed through the Waluga wetland area. Mr, Pishvaie discussed the applicant's need for the variance. He indicated that the site was bounded by Sycamore and Dogwood Streets within the City of Rivergrove, and that the City of Rivergrove and Clackamas County do not want improvements at this time. He indicated that therefore, the only access available to the site was from canal Road and Childs Road. Mr. Pishvaie noted that both AL of these roads have essential wetlands along the frontage of the existing roads. 4111 He reiterated that any improved access to the site would require crossing of the wetland. Mr. Pishvaie stated that the Division of State Lands and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife both recommended that access not be taken from Childs Road and should rather be taken from Canal Road» Mr, Pishvaie stated that the second variance was to the Subdivision Standard which requires that the proposed cul-de-sac be as short as practical, but in no event longer than 1,000 ft. He noted that the proposed cut-de-sac was approximately 2,600 ft, in length;therefore a variance was necessary, He pointed out that several alternatives for access were analyzed and this access alternative was the preferrerlchoice by the majority of governmental agencies involved. Mr, Pishvaie indicated that the other jurisdictions did not want direct access onto their streets from the proposed development. He noted that the applicant was proposing an emergency access in the central area of the subdivision that would connect to Dogwood and would be barricaded so that only emergency service providers could use the access. Mr. Pishvaie discussed the density of the project, noting that 7,1 acres of land was proposed to be dedicated for the park. He indicated density was restricted on 7 acres by the Planning Commission, He stated that the proposed density (Exhibits $ and 19) on the un-encumbered land area was 49 lots or about 72% of the c' 401 allowable density of the site. He mentioned that lots were proposed to be reduced DRB Minutes 09-23-92 Page 3 of 14 to a mit imunit of 8,000 sq. ft.in some areas instead'of`the 10,000 sq.ft.minimum lip required in the zone. He referred<the Board to a breakdown of the iota and sizes on page 10 of the staff report. Mr. Pishvaie pointed out that the setbacks would be varied to accommodate the size of the lots. He stated that lot coverage was proposed to be averaged over the entire site instead of on a sot»by»lot basis (Exhibit 19). Mr. Pishvale noted that only t5 lots were proposed to exceed the 30% limitation and that the maximum was 35% lot coverage for those lots, Mr,Pishvaie noted that the project did not contain any stream corridors; however Oswego Canal runs along the east side'of the site. -.,Be mentioned that staff had urged the applicant to realign Canal Road. Mr. Pishvale stated that the applicant agreed to realign the road and provide a 25 ft. buffer zone that would be replanted, mitigated and returned to its natural`state. Mr. Pshvaie discussed the Park and Open Space Standard, which requires all developments to dedicate 20% open space. lie indicated that the proposal would pmvide 45,2% or 13.69 acres of open space and park land, lie !toted that staff finds this ratio acceptable, Regarding the Weak Foundation Soils and Utility Standards,; Mr. Pishvale indicated that there was some concern from citizens about the potential for liquefaction and seismic activity. He noted that the applicant had addressed the 40 issue in Exhibits 31, 32, 60 and 61. He pointed out a letter from a consulting engineer to the Rivergrove Water District, who concurred With the applicant's. consultant and recommended that no specific measures arc to be taken to address those issues. Mr. Pishvale stated that the proposed pathway along Childs Road was required by the City. He indicated that in addition to the pathway the applicant would be required to provide 3 ft. gravel shoulders along Childs Road for added safety. Mr. Pisllvaic mentioned that them was concern raised by the opponents regarding the issue of proposed roadways being below the 100-year floodplain elevation. He noted that the intersection of Childs Road and Canal Road was below the 100µ year, floodplain elevation and that the Fitt Marshal was not concerned as long att the roads were no more than 18" below the 100-year floodplain elevation. Mr. Pishvaie stated that staff finds that the application complies with the applicable regulations and therefore recommends approval with 49 conditions. He noted that Condition E.3,"on page 23 should be corrected to read. ...drainage facilities along the south property line to serve the upland area, including Dogwood Drive and properties south of Lots 16, 17 .,," Mr. Pishvaie die''Isseci the recommendations by the Natural Resources Cotnmtssion. Hetttwted that they were very good and that the Board could accept HRfl Minutes 09.23.92 Page 4 of 14 them with exception to the recommendation that the City choose the contractor for the mitigation work. The Board questioned staff about fences. Mr. Pishvaie noted that no fences were proposed. He Indicated that he had a discussion with the applicant and that the applicant suggested that either no fences be allowed along the wetland area or fences along that area be limited to 3 feet in height and be chain-link with vinyl- clad in either black„brown ar green colors. Applicant illi m 44 rInllenrniakPortlaritt, 97219 representing the applicant discussed some of the background on the site. He indicated that the entire site was designated R-10 and discussed the process of inventorying;the site which contains a combination of resources. He indicated that the resources were determined to be the floodplain, wetland,groves of trees and the wildlife corridor to the river. Mr. Cox noted that while doing the site inventory it was discovered that a reg-legged frog habitat existed. He indicated that all of these resources would be protected. Mr. Cox noted that currently the park(Bryant Woods Park) was approximately 18 acres and with the dedication it would be increased to 32 acres. Mr. Cox discussed the team of technical experts that developed the proposal. He indicated that several studies were done on the area and the best and 410 most reasonable plan was chosen. Pawl Sedortult Land Development Consultants.233E Washington.Hillsboro, 971224 showed slides of the site demonstrating the character of the site and the proposed setbacks. Mr. Sedoruk discussed how the wetland would be mitigated to better facilitate the storm water and impervious surface runoff. He discussed the tree preservation plan and indicated that 17% of the site would have the trees removed for necessary improvements. He noted that the trees on individual lots would be protected and only removed upon request for building, permits, Mr. Sedoruk discussed the cut and fill that was necessary within the floodplain area. He indicated that the proposal had meet the P.E.M.A. requirements for development within the floodplain. He stated that Canal Road would be moved 10 - 15' because of a slump in topography. Rvxm Q'Brien. Land Development Consultants. 233. SE Washinet¢n filll'horo, 97123 discussed the different criteria used by the design team to come up with the plan. He indicated that location of essential and nonessential wetlands and storm water treatment, floodplain issues (flood-fringe), tree grove, wildlife corridor, road location and circulation pattern for the entire area and number of homes in the area, He noted that these criteria resulted in the conclusion that only portion of the site was suitable for development, Mr. O'Brien indicated that the minimum lot size average is 11,000 sq. ft. fli DAB Minutes 09-23-92 Page 5 of 14 Fp; William Cox concluded by stating that the proposed project was a balancing of the resources of the,,site based on the combined work of the public and private sectors, Ile noted that it was an approach to meeting the environmental and housing goals of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan and Oregon's land use planning system, The Board questioned the applicant about the emergency access connection to Dogwood. Mr, Sedoruk indicated for the Board that the access would"T' and be blocked with bollards so that only emergency service providers could use the access. The Board asked why it was necessary to restrict access to emergency service providers only, Mr, Pishvaie indicated that the intersection involved two jurisdictions and that the City of itiivergrove didn't want vehicular access from the development to access their streets. He indicated that whether or not the access was made available for the public would depend upon the cooperation between the two jurisdictions in the futures The Board questioned the applicant on how,the number of lots was developed and how they arrived at the minimum lot size. Mr. Sedoruk stated that the housing resource was identified, the suet layout was applied, significant trees were identified and large lots created to allow for lot coverage that would still provide adequate setbacks to protect the trees, The Board asked the applicant why it was necessary to alter side yard setbacks to 110 minimum of 5' in some instances, Mr. Sedoruk indicated that it was necessary to allow an increase in rear yard setbacks along the wetlands, +r The Board inquired about the movement of wildlife in the wildlife corridor. n n i if R. 1 yslieke Qsweeo,97035 indicated that the animals do not travel this route because they are blocked on Dogwood, He stated that Childs Road and Sycamore were barriers and that there was an existing corridor along the canal. He noted that the important corridor was through the wetland area. He noted that he had collected red-legged frogs which were not endangered but were on a sensitive-watch list by the State of Oregon, The Board inquired about fencing and whether or not the wetland area needed fencing. Mr. Van Staveren stated that it depends on how the buffer is constructed. He noted that a 25' setback buffer was the standard in Oregon; however to be adequate it should be augmented by plantings of Hawthorne to keep the humanintrusion to the minimum, The Board asked whether or not small, animals would be able to get into the wetland if fencing was used. Mr. O'Brien stated that fencing would be along the 40 `t perimeter of the development. Mr. Van Staveren indicated that in his opinion it 1)11B Minutes 09-23-92 Page 6 of 1 Grp was more important to keep a barrier up around the wetlands to keep domestic gip animals out of the wetland. He pointed out to the Board,that the. Natural Resources Commission had identified the wetland as a wildlife corridor and that it would be preserved in a 25' buffer zone that will protect the animals. 0 The Board inquired as to whether or not the applicant would be willing to place deed restrictions on the site to prevent fences from blocking animals from accessing the wetlands. Mr► O'Brien indicated that the applicant would have no problem with a condition like that, The Board asked about a condition limiting,fill area on the roads to be no less than 1 8" below the floodplain. Mr. Cox indicated that the applicant would have no problem with that, Mr. Cox informed the Board that the soils consultant was available for any questions regarding the type of soil in the buffer area. The Board noted that the information was in the record and that no more explanation was necessary at this time. The Board inquired about deed restrictions on use of'fertilizers and various plant materials that would harm the wetlands. The applicant indicated that they would be willing to add that to the deed restrictions. II) The Board asked whether or not the applicant had an opportunity to review the NRC's recommendations. Mr. Cox indicated that they had not reviewed the recommendations and would like an opportunity to address them in writing. Don Qakley, Oakley,Engineering,discussed the NRC's memorandum, stating that he was concerned about the comparison of curb_and gutter streets to streets without curb and gutters draining to road side swales.. He stated that the less pavement, the less runoff, He indicated through road side swales there is the benefit of gaining some'filtration of contaminants through sedimentation, slowing the flows and through vegetative uptake of the plant materials. Mr. Oakley felt that the curbs do not add to impervious area, they are not an issues, they direct water to a catch basin. He noted that whether the swales are adjacent to the sides of the roads or located in one area, there are some advantages to collecting the water and routing them to one' treatment area. Mr. Oakley mentioned that by having road side swales the street section would need to be enlarged and the swales would need to be 1 1/2 to 2 ft. deep, He pointed out that swales need to be mowed and are more difficult and more maintenance for the City rather than the catch-basin solution. The Board asked Mr.Oakley about surface and sub-surface water and its direction generally on site (runoff from lawns relating to rainfall). Mr. Oakley stated that 411 sonic sites drain into the streets and that water would be collected and directed DRB Minutes 09-23.92 Page 7 of 1 into the water quality swale. He noted that other lots(Lots 32- 45 and Lots 1-7) UP would drain directly into the wetland area. Mr. Oakley indicated that those lots have three different categories of land use: the paved driveway section`would be directed back to the street section. the impervious roof area of the house which would discharge into ground water surface water; and vegetated areas around the house that would drain into the wetlands, He pointed out that there was a 2 ` buffer between these lots and the wetland and additional setbacks up to 35' for filtration overland flow. ,' The Board inquired about the Fire Department's approval of the 2 600 ft cul-de-" SAC, Mr. Sedoruk indicated that the Fire Deportment had approved the cul-de-sac proposal. Mr. ?ishvaie pointed out that the introduction of the emergcnc ►access was in response to concerns raised by the Fire Department. There being no further questions from the Board, Chairman Stanaway then asked for testimony fr.nn those in favor of the proposal. Hearing none,he then asked for testimony from those opposed to the proposal. Qt?pon9nit ,loon Batten.„League of VWomeu, Voters of Clackamas Contitv., 18 8 syv Longfelle , ,ttke Qswego.,97035 on behalf of the league read Exhibit 86 into the record. 411) '1 i _ li _an i 1 r t,, 4 D entered the F.E.MVI,A. floodplain elevation of 120' (Exhibit 87). She indicated that the City of Rivergrove was concerned about the floodplain elevation benchmark being different between the two cities. She was opposed to the emergency exit and concerned that the exit would not be used in the event of a flood. Ms. Scheans stated that Sycamore was 2-3' lower than the floodplain elevation. She mentioned that in the winter time water comes to the top of Sycamore. She noted that the County stated that the residents did not have to allow that exit. Ms. Scheans referred the Board to Exhibits 45 and 47. She was also concerned about the impact on large trees in the area and setbacks. She indicated that she would prefer it if residents from the proposal did not use Sycamore and Dogwood because they do not meet County Code. Ms. Scheans asked to keep the record open for 10 days because the City of Rivergrove was meeting with ni n, 4 ► k 7 read Exhibit 88 into the record. r . 1 read Exhibit 81 into the record. DI1,13 Minutes 09.23.92 page 8 of 14 G Leopard Stark. 5050 Chi submitted two letters into the record(Exhibits 64;and 80). He waS concerned about the livability of the neighborhood, preservation of wildlife, preservation of the wetlands and floodplain, Mr. Stark was against the emergency access to Dogwood. lie was concerned that access to Childs was very dangerous. He asked that the utility easements be.dedicated. $teve Studer, 19412 Olso k was Concerned about the protection of the wetlands and wildlife corridor. Richprd Lavine.410 (Ad Gate Itoad.1 a1ie,9swego.()j ,97035 read excerpts form Exhibit 84,noting his concern about the urban service boundary,the liability of the City to educate the additional children from the proposed development and the impacts of Measure 5. He was also concerned about Exhibit :19, the project schedule, he noted an error, Mr, Lavine referred the Board to Exhibits 3 and 1'1 arguing that theme could be fewer houses than what the applicant has proposed.He stated that none of the required variance criteria had been met by Exhibit 21. He referred the Board to Exhibit 53,a petition in support of the proposal,pointing out that most of those persons either did not live in the immediate area or were in fact realtors. Laura! VVallace•j)ixon, representing the "hied N9igitbnrh 4 A sociationl, Alk 1963Q River R to y rive.Lae Psyvego, PR 9/03f stated that the neighborhood IMP was opposed to the proposal and the variances requests. She noted that there were no alternatives to improve Childs Road without impacting the wetlands, She indicated that the lot sizes were not consistent with the zoning nor were the setbacks, Ms.Dixon was concerned about the averaging of the lot coverage, the length of the cul-de-sac and the proposed emergency access. She noted that the Childs Neighborhood Association was concerned about the impact to the neighborhood, the impact to the schools and the wetlands. She requested denial, hid Mee rmi x hill , R d >u k we 7 3 submitted Exhibit 94,an article from National Geographic,,titled"Disappearing Wetlands", She read excerpts from the article into the record. She noted that it was important and difficult for wetland restoration to be successful. ry lyeinberg. 4 stated that his family was concerned about additional traffic and the potential for increased use of pesticides in the wetlands, ?a ' .rr ► q� 11i af`l rvnttt ' of r !r~' was opposed to the mitigation proposed for the Bryant Woods Park and requested denial of the variance to the Wetland Standard, He indicated that the wildlife would be impacted by the mitigation and development within the park. He was cgnGerncd41) . that there would be disruption of the natural habitat, Mr. George requested that I RB Minutes O9.23.92 Page 9 of 14 if mitigation was allowed then the timing of mitigation should be considered. 111110 Job Cerise 1 3 was concerned about the wildlife and their ability to use the wildlife corridor with so many domestic animals in thearea. He referred to the City"s recommendation about preserving the area as a wildlife corridor and asked how the City could ensure that future development would not impose upon the corridor j t>,ili .Mhotr stated that he was in agreement with the comments by Mr. Gorge regarding mitigation, He requested that the Board deny the proposal. Art McGee 1898 l n was concerned about the drainage of roofs and gutters into the wetlands with the use of chemicals such as moss-control. He argued that the roof and gutter water was not clean as suggested by the applicant, Mr. MGcQee was concerned about the impact to the wetlands because of contaminates. He asked about the concerns of the Lake Corp., and the possibility of them constructing a fence along the canal area. Mr. McGee indicated that it was his opinion the developer was aware of the hardships when he purchased the site and that variances were not substantiated and therefor should be denied. He was concerned about the widening of Childs Road and the unsafe conditions along the arterial, Mr,McGee stated that both side of the street ill were going to need to be developed and that if a road improvement was warranted then it should be a full street improvement and not just a half street improvement. NMelh da Teaser, fiver :ttln. ,Lake Oswego, 74;135 stated that she was in agreement with testimony all ready given by her neighbors. She disputed thra Exhibit 33 was a response front the pirc Marshal. She indicated that it did not allow the length of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Pishvaie agreed that Exhibit 33 was a seismic report. Ho noted that the access issue had been discussed with the lire Marshal and that a response could be had. Janice Ellis n 7 it L y requested that the proposal be denied along with the variances. She stated,that the proposal was not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, She rnentloned the Wetlands Standard, stating that the applicant did not supply an accurate tree cutting/preservation plans. Ms,Ellison asked the Board to examine Exhibits 7 and 11 and note that omission of trees and types of trees was left out of the record. She indicated that Distinctive Natural Areas Policies required that the accurate tree identification and tree location was necessary before the Board could make a decision. Ms,Ellison stated that the hydrologic impact should be examined before the proposal was approved. She indicated that the park was designated as a 40 distinctive natural area and should be preserved as such. She referred the Board BRE Minutes 09-23-92 Page 10 of 1 to Page 11 of the SRI report, arguing that SRI did not worked in "close cooperation"" with the .1)SL and Oregon Department of Fish 84 Wildlife. Ms. n more then a w ' three h. She asked the Ellison indicated that it was nothing � � Board to consider Exhibit ;$8, n letter by the: Audubon Society. Ms. Ellison pointed out that the letter was concerned about the mitigation impact to the habitat disruption. She asked the Board to deny the proposal. She submitted an article Isseeall,Ssienee Tech " SCetlapdsr". (Exhibit 05). Like Seich.Childs_Roadthake,Ostyego92Pli,was concerned that the site was an old gas station and there was contaminated soil, He stated that the EPA indicated that the City could be held liable if the soil was found to be contaminated in the future, He was concerned about the applicant's ability to be a contractor according to the State Contractor's Licensing Board, Michael Carlson,porno Atld discussed the value of the wetlands within this area,stating that the site was a`urttque and valuable habitat of wildlife. He identified the site as being on the Green Space Master Plan, indicating that it was suitable for acquisition according to the Lake Oswego Natural Resources Inventory, Mr. Carlson discussed the species and habitat within the corridor, stating that the site should be preserved as an open space link between the Tualatin River and Bryant Woods Nature Park, Ho stated that the society WAS concerned about the impact to the habitat. He indicated that this was the lead to Aik species extinction. Mr. Carlson stated that the proposed 25' buffer was lip inadequate. He noted that. several governmental agencies, including the Lake Oswego Planning Commission had recommended a 50' buffer zone. Mr. Carlson stated that the society would recommend 100 - 175' buffer zones to adequately protect the area. He indicated that there was confusion in the record about the hydrology of the area and that it should be resolved before any widening of Childs Road. He reiterated that the mitigation plan for Bryant Woods Park was inadequate. He asked that the cn 'M site be preserved AS natural park area. The Board asked Mr. Carlson. about the Cityj's.negotiations to purchase the site, Mr. Carlson indicated that perhaps the applicant should discuss this with the Board, The Board questioned Mr, Carlson about Childs Road being a barrier between the wetland and the park, Mr. Carlson agreed that the road was already a barrier to the wetland habitat; however, he felt it would be more detrimental to remove the road entirely or improve the road, The Board noted that them was the presences of red-legged frog on both sides of Childs Road. 'The Board discussed increasing the buffer area with Mr. Carlson and the possibility of fencing the wetlands. Mr. Carlson stated that the governmental agencies had recommended the 50' buffer and that a fence would limit the pattern of the wildlife corridor, Michael,0: �iir ', N t'trnl Re urees f o nm stott,1 & 1t tt 411 DRIi Minutes 09.23.92 Page 11 of 14 421, Lake Oswego, 97034 requested an opportunity to read the NRC's report into the liprecord. Chairman Stanaway indicated that the Board had the report and asked Mr. g" O'Brien to summarize some of the NBC's concerns. Michael O'Brien,stated that the NRC has been very involved in the attempts to purchase the site;however,a mutual agreement was not reached with the applicant because the number of potential lots could not be resolved, Mr. O'Brien stated that the NRC was neither in favor nor opposed to development; however, they wanted the Board to have some alternatives to consider. ;Hci indicated that the City's Storm Water Runoff Master Plan stipulated that the Ci'Ey needed to return to the policy of creating swales to filter the water instead of catch basins. He read several of the recommendations into the record from Exhibit 171. He thought that the proposal was too general and needed to be more specif is its to which trees were going to be a removed« The Board inquired as to whether or not the City was currently in negotiations to purchase the property. Mr. Cox indicated that the Board was acting outside the scope of their authority p in ,the value of the property, Mr. O'Brien discussed the NBC's commitment to purchase the site. He indicated that there were no negotiations at this time. The Board questioned Mr. O'Brien about the "essential" and "non-essential" wetland. Mr. O'Brien stated that it was his opinion that the wetlands were all essential, The Board questioned Mr O'Brien about the recommendation to move Canal Road 75' west, Mr.O'Brien irdicated that the trade-off for going through the tree grove would be more beneficial to the wildlife corridor. He stated that die NRC recommended not to improve the road past the subdivision area, He indicated that the NRC tried to make the proposal work. The Board asked Mr O'Brien if the wetland mitigation should occur in. Bryant Woods park or somewhere else. Mr. O'Brien stated that there wash area of the park that was flat and full of reed-canary grass. He indicated that this would be an opportunity to enhance the pond and its wildlife value and have the developer pay for the improvements. Michael.Pones. Cascade Geoaranhicai Society,.,stated that his society had done a substantial amount of research along the area, He discussed his concern about the cultural resource use of the area. He indicated that the area was used extensively by the native americans for hunting and gathering medicines, Mr. Jones stated that no approval should be granted until a thorough ethnographic report, according to National Bulletin No. 38, had been done to evaluate 40 traditional cultural properties. He discussed the valuable resources such as the tree DRl3 Minutest 9-23.92 Page 12 of 14 groves and the wetlands and how die community and region could .benefit from 1111 the study. Mr. tones was concerned about the rrtidgation of the wetland. He indicated that replanting of the natural vegetation needed a minimum of a 5-year program to maintain and ensure survival of the mitigated area, Mr. Jones was concerned about the fence around the wetland area, he suggested a split-cedar fence along the area. Ho mentioned that roads were natural barriers and he recommended that the four-piex night-time barriers and warning signs be installed to protect the wildlife. The Board questioned Mr.Jones about the evidence of cultural significance on the site. Mr Jones indicated that he was working on a book about the Yakima Indian Nation and their representatives identified this area as a traditional Ilse area In the past. He mentioned that petroglyphs had been found on the site, Mr. Jones indicated that there were amendments being considered to the American Indian Religious Freedom Act that would protect wetland areas that were used by the native americans. Mr. Jones disputed evidence by the applicant's consultant in determining that there were no physical signs of cultural use of the site. The Board asked Mr,Jones to trace on the aerial photograph where he had walked the site, Mr. Jones stated that he had inventoried the site in 1981, He informed the Board that the best time to search a site was during the winter time without the foliage, i read Exhibit 94 ;. into the record. She discussed Exhibit 44 in the report, disputing that the , consultant did not perform a substantial study of the site. She indicated that Ms. Darby didn't go far enough back into history. Ms. Holbrook indicated that the site was part of the Grand Rhone Tribe treaty area. She argued that lack of mapping does not mean lack of housing. She presented pictures (Exhibit 95) showing evidence of historic housing on the site, Ms. Holbrook was concerned that the site was medicine ground, She discussed the need to meet the State Wide Planning Goal 5, Mr. Foster moved to c rttlntte tit he rin t er 1 Mr. Sievert seconded the motion and it passed with Mr,Bloomer, Mr, Foster, Mr, Stanaway. Mr. Sievert and Ms, Remy all voting yes. VI GENERAL PLANNING Mr. Galante noted that the Council procedures for reconsideration and public testimony was given to the Board« He suggested that the Board adopt the Council procedures. He suggested that the Board limit testimony to all of the recognized organizations to 10 minutes, He also suggested that the Chair recognize organized groups of five or more, who would then forfeit their time, ''Individuals who are 40 not represented by the association or group position may speak representing their DR1J Minutes 09 23.92 Page 13 of 14 _ L minority posit oti as an individual." Stated that the Board may continue the matter • if the praceeding are,.not concluded at t. .hO0 p m, r,. rah VII. c, OTiR BUSINESS None. "VII. AlC)30131tNMENT There being no further business before the Development Review Hoard,Chairman 'Stanaway adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p,m, Respectfully Submitted, 1trbat t Anderson AdminiLtrative Secretary • DRB Minutes 09-23-92 page 14 of 14