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