Agenda Packet - 1986-08-04♦ �s
6 '
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
COUNCIL CHMIBERS, CITY HALL, 351 FIRST STREET
:; August 4, 1986
r'•
7:30 P.M.
1 ITEM MEETING FORMAT
I. Staff Report
' •.:i I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL 2, Correspondence
3, Applicant's Presentation
' '.' 4, I III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
w 'x ' '�; May 19, 1986 4. Public Testimony from others In
June 2, 1986 support of application „
: 5. •
Public testimony from those In y
fi , June , 1986
July 21, 1986 opposition of the application
6. Comments or questions from
IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS Interested persons who neither are 'I
proponents nor oppone.:ts 4'
*:
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7, Rebuttal Testimony from applicant
p
A. VAR 26-86-07/VAR 27-86-07. A 8. Questions from Development Review .
continuation of a request by Norris S Carol Board "*I
Webb for a variance to the required 25' rear 9. Closing of public hearing
yard setback to allow an addition located at 10. Board discussion/action i
1330 Hoodview Ln. Additionally, the owners
are requesting a variance to the regulations Tho time limits established to the
restricting expansion of nonconforming uses Development Code will be applied to
as the existing structure is a nonconforming the applicant's presentation and all
structure fTL 2800 of '(M 2 IE 4AC), those giving testimony. (See reverse
I side of agenda for specific time t,
8, VAR 05-86-02/VAR 30-86-07/VAR 31-86-07/ limits.)
VAR 32-86-07/VAR 33-86-07/VAR 35-86-07/VAR �' 1
36-86-07. A continuation of a request by Questions from the ORB may be asked of < ,,
Robert & Liz Yates. The requests Involve those testifying before the Board or
variances from nonconforming structure, yard of any other Individual, whenever the :,.'. .4
setbacks, lot coverage, lake setback K spa- Board deems It necessary. Y'k. s
dial street setback requirements & reduction
` of yard areas below minimum requirements for iK
the site located at 1337 Lake Front Rd. Ap- y,
proval of those variances would aila the ex- w ..
pension of an existing nonconforming rosldoh-
'F:N fiat structure fTL 800 of TM 2 IE IOCA). ..
hy+
• C. DR 15-86-05/VAR 16-86-05. Reconsideration
of a request by HON Architects acting as agents
for the Southland Corp. for approval to remodel 44;.: .,t)
the exterior of a 7-II Store/Dental Office & to ` ' !
,,, revise the parking area for the bldg. located '•�
a+ 505 'Al Ave. fTL 7200 of TM 2 It 3DC). Al-
i ` though landscaping & parking will bo Increased, ^
a variance Is necessary to the 15% required
• landscaping & to the required parking. The
Board will reopen the hearing (under the au- ". t '
thority of LOC 49.610(3)(k, I)) to take addi- %;
w
tional testimony &evidence regarding the
"
,
•�.� !fil�' applicant's plans to cut the existing flower-
•,
lA ing cherry tree on the site.
4 .!,,
4 2696 ♦'
, ` .
r•
v
t °' . t,L 3S , •ey :' - f ' , ., Y
d v rtt' a 4 b •' a1 C.dx11 Cu'V j ,'._,',' , ',r'J. � �b d:'�•Y"x'i-''F M`. 1M
,, ..,,,,.w i.„ ~, ,r401 �" , ,,,,,V4,. .! , .; , C♦y ,..., i r, r 5`1j ,,7 I�Py ', ,...41
S.
AGENDA/DEVELCPMENT REVIEW BOARD
August 4, 1986
* Page 2 A'
D. DR 04-86-02/VAR 05-86-04. A request by af,
American Lube Co./Greenhill Assoc. for ap-
proval to construct an 011 Can Henry's auto
service center located at 780 N. State St. d� "
'. (IL's 1600 & 1700 of TM 2 IC 3DA). A vari-
ance to the vision clearance requiremenTs
1 j (LOC 48.530) Is also requested to allow t{'
access to State St.
a
E. PD 07-86-06/VAR 29-86-07/VAR 37-86-07/ r"
VAR 38-86-07. A request by Dr. Gholam Malekl
(property owner) & OTAK, Inc. (agents for
owner) for approval of a 22-lot planned devel-
.'' opment & approval of a variance to the 25' .
street frontage requirement for 4 lots; a vari- r>
` ante to t'.e Site Circulation-Private Sts. Std. AIK
requiring a maximum cross-slope of 5% on any
driveable area; and, a variance to the 50'
radius requirement for a cul-de-sac. The
site Is located N. of Jefferson Pkwy., E. of
Portland Comm. College & W. of Cervantes Rd.
,,, " (Block 58, Mt. Park, Mutt. Co. lax Map 4224). ►'; "`
VI. GENERAL PLANNING
I VII. OTHER BUSINESS - Finding., Conclusions and Order f?s.;°
- PD 04.86-01/VAR 04-86-04/VAR 05-86-06 (Farr Dev.) ?,�
- VAR 21/VAF 22/VAR 23-86-06 (Roger Martin)
& SD 6-0.'VAR 3-83 (Mod.-86) _
- VAR J0-861.06 (Eric Randolph)
- PD 05-86-01 (beHaas & Associates) ,' t
- DR 05-86-03 (Fu Ming Yang.
- SD 34-79 (Mod.-86) (John Condon) " .
'I - SD 28-76 (Mod.-86) (Carlson Costar* Homes)
'•, - DR 03-86-02/VAR 03-86-05 (Speer bay.) ,
Y, VIII. ADJOURNMENT
° ..., , •• The Lake Oswego Development Review Board welcomes your interest In these agenda Items, Feel free to come
and go as you please. 1
Board Members! Richard Eslltk, Chairman Staff: Topaz Faulkner, Director
Robert Blackmore Robert Galante, Cwt. Rev. Planner
Kenneth Z►nsll Lorl Mastrantonlo, Dev. Rev. Planner t'
° ' "` 4 ''
Curtis Finch Renee bowlin, Assistant Planner
Vern Martindale, Vice Chairman Marian Stuiken, Secretary ''."
.r
Anthony Wright
, i y
4,,,
• `
289? '
i
APPLICANT: Otak, Inc FILE NO. PD 07-86-06
VAR 29-86-07 �`''
VAR 37-86-07 '
VAR 38-86-07
OWNER: Dr. Gholam naleki DATE: July 25, 1986
LOCATION: North of Jefferson ParkWay, I •14 ,
east of Portland Community
College and west of Cervantes
Road
f'' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Block 58, Mt. Park, Multhomah County Tax Map 4224
e NEIGHBORHOOD: Mt. Park
+4 REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting approval of a 22-lot planned '
development. In addition, the applicant is requesting approval of a 1.t.;,
variance to the 25 ' street frontage requirement for four lots
� . r (VAR 29-86-07) and a variance to the Site Circulation-Private Street
Standard requiring a maximum cross-slope of 5% on any driveable area ;?
(VAR 37-86-07). The applicant is proposing an 8% cross-slope for
of the bulb the portionproposed cul-de-sac. The applicant is also +• `
requesting a variance to the Site CurcUlation-Private Street
r• Standard which requires a 50' radius for a cul-de-sac (VAR 38-86-07) .
CRITERIA
Zoning and Development Ordinance
''. LOC 48.120-48,155 R-0 '
LOC 48.470-48.490 Planned Development Overlay
LUC 49.145 Major Development
LOC 49.300-49.330 Major Development Procedures
LOC 49.610 Quasi-Judicial Evidentiary Hearing ,' �*•
Procedures
LOC 49.6r --49.620 Criteria for Approval '
Applicable Development Standards
, . Street Lights Drainage for Major Development
i ,' Transit Utilities
Parking Hillside Protection/Erosion Control
Park and Open Space Access
Landscaping, Street Site Circulation-Private Streets/
Trees, Screening Driveways
Buffering ' .
Ip q.,i. ,0 r '''Pt
..
• 1 '
2353
r
.
Staff Report PD 07-86-06 (Lill Park)
VAR 29-86-07/ VAR 37-86-07/VAR 38-86-07
July 25, 1986
Page 2
Comprehensive Plan
APPLICATION COMPLETENESS
The applicant (in accordance With LOC 49.315 has submitted a
complete application.
zif^
PREVIOUS ACTION
On December 17, 1979, the Design REview Board approved a 35-unit
condominium project on this site subject to five conditions.
•
y�', ' BOARD ACTION E '
The Development Review Board is charged With the review of thismajor
ion in a
l
applicationoandnt reviewlistgoverned bya49.300-49a320edring.listed in the „^ r}.)
' z •
Criteria portion of this report; and, the hearing procedures are
governed by LOC 49.610-49.620. Any decision of the Board is final >� `
b:.. unless appealed to City Counil; however, LOC 49.125 allow minor +r .
modifications to be reviewed and approved by the staff. The
) criteria by which the project should be judged are listed in the
Criteria section of this report.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The site is designated R-0 by the Comprehensive Plan and zoned R-0.
The site, Which is vacant and contains 3.51 acres, slopes down from
northeast to southeast. Vegetation consisting of alder seedlings,
•
blackberry, snowberry, bracken fern and native grasses occupies the
majority of the site. There are groupings of Douglas Fir trees
adjacent to the the north and south property lines, as well as along y, `' '
Cervantes Road in the southwest corner of the property. A
� topographical tree location survey and site analysis map have been ` y
submitted (Exhibit 3).
Many of the trees will be cut as they are located within the street •
right-of-Way and within the building envelopes. However, a number
of trees, especially along Jefferson Parkway, will be preserved as
they are located outside of the proposed building envelopes
(Exhibits 3 and 6).
The Slope Analysis Map (Exhibit g) illustrates that some areas of J
the site include slopes from 20-30% (north, northeast, southwest and
'''i south portions, generall ) ; 30-50% (north central portion,
generally); and, over 50% (north-central and southwest portions, . , `.
generally). u" ;'y
Staff Report PD 07-86-06 (Lili Park)
VAR 29-86-07/ VAR 37-86-07/VAR 38-86-07
r,A ' July 25, 1986
'''s Page 3 '
As indicated in the Comprehensive Plan, a potential for landslide ,',
hazard exists on the site. A soils report addressing the landslide
hazard shall be submitted prior to final plat approval. ti
Up to 35 units are allowed on this site within Phase V-B of the
Mountain Park PUD as per LOC 49.020(2).
, '4 There is an existing 8" waterline and an 8" sewerline in Jefferson
".. Parkway which can be extended to serve the site.
The proposed on-site storm drainage system will connect to an
existing, 15" storm line in Jefferson Parkway,
Cervantes is designated as a local street and is built to City
standards. Jefferson Parkway is designated as a collector street 1*!". - '0 '
t, 3f.0? and is built to City standards.
1, s PROPOSAL
'W The applicant is proposing a 22-lot residential planned development
with lots ranging from 4890 to 8685 square feet (Exhibit 6) .
The proposed setbacks vary and are not dimensioned on the
preliminary plat (Exhibit 6). Generally, the proposed front yard
setback is 20; however the lots utilizing the private driveway have „ `
0-10' front yard setbacks. The proposed rear yard for the lots t`. ';
abutting Jefferson Parkway is 20' . The proposed rear yard is 10' in "' W
general for the other lots. The required setback for all yaLds in
the R-0 zone is 10' .
Eighteen (Lots 1-3, 5-8, 10-19 and 21) out of the 22 lots are
proposed with no setback along at least one property line. Lots 8 &
15 have building envelopes abutting a utility easement. Except for ..
the driveway area, the setback abutting the private driveway of lot ,0.
21 should be at least 5' . As proposed about 30' of the northwest
property line of lot 21 abutts the private driveway and has a U' '
+' setback. Lots 12-15 and 22 haVe at least a 20' setback adjacent to , Y ,'yf1
the existing path along the west property line, however lot 11 does
not. Staff recommends at least a 5' setback from the west property ` to
line of lot 11.
ZONING CODE REQUIREMENTS AND ANALYSIS t+,^
Use of the Planned Development Overlay is allowed in any zone
" 4 provided the overall site density is not exceeded. As described
earlier in this report, this proposal is in conformance with the ".,
overall density requirements.
• 'Y
s r
f n.
Staff Report PD 07-86-06 (Lili Park)
VAR 29-86-07/ VAR 37-86-07/VAR 38-86-07
July 25, 1986
Page 4
Under the Planned Development Overlay, setbacks and lot width/depth
requirements can vary from the underlying zone requirements. In
addition, lot areas can be smaller than the minimum required. There
is no minimum lot size for in the R-0 Zone.
Conformance with the lot coverage requirement of 60% will be
reviewed at the building permit stage.
,
ANALYSIS OF CODE REQUIREMENTS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The building design standard does not apply to major development ! '
involving single family detached units as proposed. The site does
not contain any significant historical resources, distinctive
natural areas, stream corridors, wetlands, or weak foundation r+ ni •
soils. The site is designated in the Comprehesive Plan as having
potential landslide hazard over the entire site.
STREET LIGHTS
Street lights are to be provided in conformace With the street light
standard. Final street light locations and ac.'ompanying photometric
1 information are to be submitted according to the specifications of ' „, `
the City Engineer. The applicant has not submitted a drawing
illustrating the type of light fixture and Wattage proposed. Staff ` 1
has recommended that the applicant provide this information at the
hearing.
TRANSIT
ar
This standard is met as the sidewalk proposed through the site will
connect to the existing pathway north and West of the side down to
the bus stop at Jefferson Parkway (Exhibit 10) . iY
PARKING
Two onsite parking spaces (excluding the garage) can be accomodated
on each lot, thus meeting this standard. •' ' ,"
•
PARK AND OPEN SPACE :,
, This standard is met as tte Mountain Park PUD open space requirement
was fulfilled when the PUD was approved years ago.
LANDSCAPING, STREET TREES, SCREENING, BUFFERING
A Street Tree Plan has not been submitted. staff recommends Lhat
the applicant submit a Street Tree Plan illustrating the size, type
and location of the street trees. •
•
;jr
h•
2901
,' a
' `_ "'Yl e�} �1� in C PP �. '� Y• � �+ + +, + Y �r �6'+ :.� ...1, a .J' 4M �I
Staff Report PD 07-86-U6 (Lili Park)
+' VAR 29-86-07/ VAR 37-86-07/VAR 38-86-07
July 25, 1986 � '
0' —'> Page 5
,', y
FENCES
No fences are proposed as part of this project.
DRAINAGE
The applicant has submitted drainage calculations regarding the
'"' detention system; however, the applicant has not indicated the size
of the proposed storm drainage improvements except for the detention
chamber. In addition, plans do not illustrate the location of the
a,-, catchbasin at the bottom of the cul-de-sac. Staff is concerned with
,. I the potential overflow of the catchbasin. Therefore,
erfor , staf •
information
recommends that the applicant submit the appropriate
addressing this concern prior to approval of the construction
{,f drawings.
. UTILITIES
Adequate utilities are available and can be extended to serve the
site. Aside from providing additional drainage information
compliance, this standard has been demonstrated.
„
Staff recommends that the easement between lots 4 and 5 be moved to
save the 30" fir tree. This has been discussed with the applicant
who concurs that this can be accomodated,
HILLSIDE PROTECTION/EROSION CONTROL �'^'
'; .
' The applicants although indicating that cut and fill slopes will be •
constructed and haybales llU)� has to pnotect all providedxanting and newly erosion control Wi
constructed inlets (Exhibit ,'
plan. .
' ; The applicant must submit an Erosion Control Plan illustrating l plat .
compliance with
standard
andprior
foundationpdrainage mustroVal of the fbeaprovided ,,
In addition, positive
to each lot prior to approval of the construction plans. It is !
unclear whether lot 12 will drain to Malek Court as indicated.
ACCESS
4 > e
?'• Access to all of the lots having frontage on Jefferson Parkway
except lot 1, will be from Malek Court, Lot 1 will take access from ra`.,-
Cervantes Road. Although noted on the preliminary plat,
recommends that lots having
frontage along Jefferson Park be ,
prohibited from taking access from Jefferson Parkway and that it be !ri
,a so noted on the final platy i
i
I'`
k•T
Staff Report PD 07-86-06 (Lili Park)
VAR 29-86-07/ VAR 37-86-07/VAR 38-86-07
July 25, 1986
` ' Page 6
r.
Malek Court is proposed to be a 28 foot public street, ending in an M '
{'" 80 foot diameter cul-de-sac. Because of the proposed grades, staff
will require vertical curb and gutter instead of mountable curb as '
proposed. Also, mountable curbs should not be used due to potential
public safety and maintenance problems.
A variance request has been submitted to allow an 8% cross-slope for �S;
the cul-de-sac (VAR 37-86-07) . Staff supports this request, since
an 8% cross-slope will not adversely effect the motorist and keeping
a 5% cross-slope would cause more extensive cutting and filling on A
the site. -.
The preliminary plat illustrates Malek Court flared out at its
intersection with Cervantes. This is necessary in order to meet the em
1 150' sight distance requirement for a motorist turning from
{ Cervantes into Malek Court.
The applicant has requested a variance to the 50' radius required
for a cul-de-sac (VAR 38-86-07). The applicant is proposing a 40' ` ,
radius. This request along with the other variance requests is
described in the applicant's letter dated July 25, 1986, Exhibit '
1 11. Staff supports this request as requiring a 50' radius would
result in extensive cutting and filling. In addition, this variance
and a request to modify the standard to allow a 40' cul-de-sac
radius is supported by the Fire Marshall.
Lots 10, 11 16 and 22 will not have 25' of useable frontage along a
public street, therefore a variance to the access standard has been
requested (VAR 29-86-07). As described by the applicant, due to the s ,;
physical contraints of the site, especially steep slopes, this
variance is the minimum necessary to have reasonable use of this �' Y r
property.
SITE CIRCULATION - PRIVATE STREETS
. r Tracts A & B as proposed will serve lots 10 & 11 and 16 & 22
respectively. If more than two lots are served by these private 12'
Wide paved driveways, then the driveway surface must be 20' in Width,
o 'er SITE CIRCULATION - WALKWAYS/BIKEWAYS
Pw '': A buffer strip of 4' in Width is necessary between the sidewalk on
Ttact A and the driveway for pedestrian safety.
A 5' sidewalk is proposed along the cuJ-de-sac and private driveway „,,,
x' connecting to the existing pathway Wmst of the site. Due to
potential cutting and filling, curb line sidewalks are recommended
by staff. Where practical, property line sidewalks are preferred. i >
The sidewalks Shall meander around all obstacles (iet street �,„
lights, hydrants, mail boxes, etc. ) .
2 O 3 ,. ,
f
r j
Staff Report PD 07-86-06 (Lili Park)
VAR 29-86-07/ VAR 37-86-07/VAR 38-86-07 ,•;i�+
July 25, 1986
'\ Page 7
CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ' � '•,''
As indicated in the Applicant's Narrative (Exhibit 10) the City's
Comprehensive Plan has been approved by LCDC. The request is in
compliance with or can be made to comply with all of the •
implementing ordinances and standards adopted by the city, ' i
i
RECOMMENDATION ..'
' Staff recommends approval of the 22-lot planned development (VAR
29-86-07, VAR 37-86-07, VAR 38-86-07) subject to the following
conditions: {
1. A reproducible of the final plat shall be submitted to the
City which clearly depicts: a) sidewalks; b) utility
easements; and, c) setbacks.
2. The final CC & R's shall be submitted to the City and
approved before final plat approval. t
• 3. The applicant shall submit a Street Tree Plan illustrating
• i''' , the size, type and location of trees for staff review and ` n
+•.n*.' approval prior to approval of the final plat.
I4. That the final construction plans meeeting all codes,
standards and specifications be provided to the satisfaction
-fr, I of the City Engineer. In addition, the easement between
�4 w,l
lots 4 and 5 shall be relocated to preserve the 30" fir tree. i
•.o; 'j;1k.'• 1 5. The applicant shall submit an Erosion Control Plan
illustrating compliance with the Hillside Protection/Erosion
control Standard to the satisfaction of staff prior to
approval of the final plat.
yk 6. That roof and foundation drains be provided to all lots and
shoWn on the construction plans prior to approval.
7. That access be prohibited to Jeffers• n Parkway and it be
noted on the fUal plat prior to recording.
8. That Vertical curb ,end gutter be required instead of
y mountable curb and gut.L:.r
{ya',',.' 9. That the sidewalk along Lot 11 be separated LLIt the Y';
4 , driveway by a landscaped strip of a minimum of 4 feet. , I, , 0.,,.,
�' ,. 10. That the applicant provide a utilities plan along with final
construction plans showing future sidewalks and their
location relative to mailboxes. street lights, hydrants. etc. �,*�.
2004
. NI
•
. 4 YI. I r' / • • ' V ' !A(
+, rx ' h*, .a".w,-•44'e "4-: `''°' n' 0i,,i'. 'lit ,;,`1. 40"4 i'V, tO.j4't 7 r. •-'o'' l Ct6:.' ' J, a i �� ,a0 y. , 4
• `
Staff Report PD 07-86-06 (Lili Park)
VAR 29-86-07/ VAR 37-86-07/VAR 38-86-07 1 1 '•�. J
July 25, 1986
F Page 8
•
11. That the section of 5 foot sidewalk from the cul-de-sac to •
the existing pathway along the westerly boundary be
constructed along with the streets.
• i 12. That final street lighting plans and photometrics be
submitted to the Traffic Engineer prior to the final
approval of the construction plans. •• '
Sw
13. Except for the driveway area to a future garage, the setback
from the property line abutting the private driveway of lot
° 21 shall be 5' . `
EXHIBITS
•IY:
1. Vicinity Map
t'' . • 2. Tax Map
3. Tree and Topographic Map '
4. Site Analysis
5. Slope Analysis - Too Large to Reproduce
6. Preliminary Plat
7. Preliminary Grading Plan
8. Preliminary Utility Plan .
9. Preliminary Profile and Sections of Detention System - 2
sheets.
10. Applicant's Narrative 4
'
•0,1•,.• 11. Letter From Applicant Dated July 25, 1986 •
12. Memorandum From Engineering Department dated July 231, 1986.
0911z
• 1
• •
•
4' N
cs
u A4 2305
{ )tt. .� , r".