Loading...
Agenda Packet - 1992-12-07 A-. • . Off';. LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING DEPT. FILES • Development Review Board Agendas 1992 • 1:::°4(0010, 1;7# I Cr __. • a i • • • •r Ip • • r l t„ • Agenda Book y`' N AGENDA .. CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL,380'A►' AVENUE Monday, December 7, 1992 7:00 P.M. • I. CALL TO ORDER 4 II. ROLL CALL "• III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV, PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS rh L V. PUBLIC kIARING I' DR J'�(Mod, 9-92)1HR 5-92, a request by Thompson Vaivoda& Associates, Inc, for design •review approval to remodel and construct an addition to the existing historic county club. The site is located at 20 Iron Mountain Blvd, (Tax Lot 100 of Tax Map 2 1E 4). Staff coordinator is Elic,a.b. ib Jacob,Associate Planner, Continued from November 16, 1.992i* PD 2-90(Mod, 10-921, a request by ACE Partners for an extension of approval for a 4.-lot single family re;idential planned development. The site is located at 1620 Country Club Road (Tax Lot 5300& 5400 of Tax Map 2 lE 4CA). Staff coordinator is Barbara Snioll&Associate Planner,fontinued from November 16, 1992, r DR 13-901I (Remand), a request by OTAK, Inc. for approval to construct a 33,000 sq, ft, retail/office center in four buildings. The proposal is a redesign of a project that has been remanded from Council following an appeal. The site is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Parkview and Westlake Drives (Tax Lot 107 of Tax Map 2 IE 6), Staff coordinator is Robert Galante,Senior "'' Planner, VI. GENERAL PLANNING • VII. OTHER BUSINESS—Findings, Conclusions and Order DR 16-92-982— Blockbuster Video PD 2-92/VAR 6-92(a—b)-983 Land Development Consultants • VIII. ADJOURNMENT • 410 _ _ _ _ ( h . - , • . . . .,. .. ^ .� r'. 1 C^ The Lake Oswego Development Review Board welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Feel free to0 x . . come and go as you please. •'' ' '' ./ ARB Members: Staff: Tom Coffee,Assistant City Manager Skip 5tanaSi v,Chair Robert Galante,Senior Planner • I'do►�:s J.Sievert,Vice-Chair Run Bunch,Senior Planner • James A.Bloomer Robert H.Foster Hamid Pishvaie,Dev,Review Planner r Ginger Remy Catherine Clark,Associate Planner Martha F.Stiven Jane Heisler,Associate Planner Elisabeth Jacob,Associate Planner .• . Barbara;imolak,Associate Planner Michael R.Wheeler,Associate Planner Eric Holmes,Assistant Planner Cindy Phillips,Deputy City Attorney ' .' Barbara Anderson, Senior Secretary ' �. t,..� t 'fix } 0 . . ,.,. . . 7 rI { + T l y ' • • • , • 4. 4. • t • STAFF REPORT :,-. I),, . .::. . CITY OF LAKE '4. PLANNING DIVISION A, T APPLICANT: El •7r Ba r� t',, OTAK, Inc. DR 13-9OII (Remand) t ° � ,,g" , .: PROPERTY OWNER: STAFF: Nick Bunick • Robert Galante LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DAM: Tax Lot 107 of November 25, 1992 Tax Map 2 1E 6 LOCATION: _ DATE OF Hra R r Win; December 7, 1992 4 Northeast corner of the intersection of Parkview and Westlake Drives NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: r' COME PLAN DESIGNATION: �,� Westlake r R-5 ' _ZONING.DESIGNATION: t R-5 I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant proposes to construct a 33,000 sq. center proposal is a redesign of a project that has bee remanded from council following appeal.The . II. APPLICABLEREGULATIONS A, City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: Impact Management Policies General PoAcy I, II, III r Distinctive Natural Area Policies General Policy I • w. Weak Foundation Soil Policies ` ". General PolicyI IV ✓ • DR 13-901I (Remand) Page l of 6 e • • , l 1 r x' x ' r Social Resource Policies General Policy I, V fit, ,. Commercial Land Use Policies General Policy III, V fi Commercial Land Use Policies Specific District Policy VI Kruse-North Commercial District Transportation Land Use Policies „ r General Policy IV B. City of Lake Oswego Devek uleu,t,Code: LOC 49.090 Applicability of Development Standards LOC 49.145 Major Development ' LOC 49.300-49.335 Major Development Procedures LOC 49.615 Criteria for Approval a ' C. ity of .�kP Oswego Development Standards: 2.005-2.040 Building Design .,•° ' 4.005 -4.040 Wetlands 5.005 -5,040 Street.Lights 6.005-6.040 Transit System 7.005-7.040 Parking &Loading Standards ► ' 8.005 -8.040 Park and Open Space 9.005 -9.040 Landscaping 10.005 - 10.040 Fences ".. • `` 11.005 -- 11.040 " Drainage Standard for Major Development > 13.005 - 13.040 Weak Foundation Soils 14.005-- 14.040 Utility Standard 16.005 - 16.040 Hillside Protection and Erosion Control • 18.005 - 18.040 Access Standard • 19.005 - 19.040 Site Circulation-Private Streets/Driveways 20.005 -20.040 Site Circulation-Bikeways and Walkways • D. S ,Y of Lak�Osw�bo Tr rating Or_ d_inanCQ: p. ' • • LOC 55.010-55,130 III. FINDINGS A. Background: pp broughtby result This application is remanded by Council to the Development Review Board as the of an appeal the Westlake Homeowner's Association of a previous decision of • the Board to approve the construction of a 35,000 sq, ft. retail/office center in five buildings at a site located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Parkview and Westlake Drives (Tax Lot 107 of Tax Map 21 E 6). . to DR 13-9011 (Remand) 4 Page 2 of 6 33 , .• The remand is for the specific purpose of reviewing the revised plans for conformance ' with the Council remand order(Exhibit 190). To the extent that the new plan relates y differently to the criteria applicable to the proposal the Board must also find that the application continues to comply with the criteria in effect when the original application was made. .' 6 The applicant has provided September 28, 1992 and October 30, 1992 letters (Exhibit 192 and 196) addressing the Council remand order and an October 30, 1992 narrative addressing the applicable criteria. This report will only address those areas where the ; , applicant has not sufficiently satisfied the applicable criteria. It should.be noted that staff recommended approval of the original application and that the application was approved by the Board. The City Council has now asked staff and the Board to impose stricter requirements in the review of this proposal (see Exhibit 190, page 10). The council found that "the proposed design is too large in total square footage, is too close to adjacent residential development, is not sensitive enough to or sufficiently buffered from adjacent residential development, is not compatible in design with the surrounding single family uses, and is directed too much toward automobile access and usage at the expense of pedestrian and bicycle usage." Council also stated that, "The r final design should not encourage uses that woulr' .,nd to draw outside traffic" and that "such traffic should be secondary and subordinate to the neighborhood focus of the development," „ In the remand order, Council listed nine guidelines to provide direction to the applicant in satisfying their concerns. As stated previously the applicant has addressed each of the >.. nine guidelines. B. summary of Proposal/Analysis: 'I The applicant now proposes to construct a 33,000 sq, ft. commercial center within three one—story buildings and one two—story building. The new proposal is an improvement , over the old proposal in the following areas: ± 1. Building setbacks to residential lots have been maintained at 25' (except for a portion of building D). 2. Pedestrian and bicycle access has been improved, 3, Anditional landscape buffer materials (native conifers) have been added. 4, One story structures abut residential lots (except for a portion of building D), 5, Building mechanical equipment is not visible. 6. Refuse enclosures have been moved away from residential lot lines. 7, Building area has been reduced by 2,000 sq, ft, and parking by 10 spaces. • In the following ways the proposal is not an improvement over the original proposal: 1. Very lIt h' 19~,iscaping exists in the front (parking lot side) of the buildings. ti f 0 2, The scale and proportions of the buildings are not sufficiently broken up by existing trees or proposed landscaping. Building "C" is particularly long, almost barracks like, DR 13-90II(Remand) Of Page 3 of 6 1 • • �. 3. At least 20 more trees are proposed are proposed to be cut. 4. Only one trash enclosure is shown in plans and it is located at the entrance to the sit . •' „ 5. Parking spaces are shown closer to the driveway throats and will cause circulation °4 ' conflicts. • • t 6. The new plan does not illustrate wetland mitigation or a storm water quality sewage as • shown in the original plans. Additional, more detailed concerns are addressed below: a. : At the time of City Council review of the appeal, the Council reviewed mgXimuni "projected" density numbers of 1,527 residential units and 35,000 sq. ft, of commercial use. These numbers were presented by staff from evidence in the record • and provided a basis for council to determine that about 85 percent of the total possible residential units would be constructed when Westlake was completed. Council found that the commercial center should be reduced in size and directed to the applicant to look at the "projected" verses "actual build—out" as a guideline in reducing the size of the center from the maximum 35,000 sq. ft, limit that could be allowed. The applicant has indicated that the "projected" density number that Council should have looked at was 1,222 which is the number projected in a portion of the original application for the Westlake PUD that was not in evidence for the Council's review • Based on this projection, no reduction in square footage would be required because • the actual build—out of Westlake is projected to be about 1,234 units. The applicant apparently argues with the Council's direction found in the remand order(Exhibit 190) which was not appealed to LUBA, The council direction is to reduce the size of the project: "The Council further notes testimony that amendment to the Westlake PUD, as R • well as the approved phases as constructed, have decreased the actual density as well as the remaining maximum allowable density below that originally planned. „ ,• This fact, combined with the need to make the project more compatible with the • single family development,justifies downsizing the project." • Staff does not take exception to the "projections" advanced by the applicant. It • certainly would have been possible for Council to have looked at what was "projected" in the original PUD application materials verses projected build—out, However, that evidence was not in the record and Council chose to look at the information provided by staff which documented what the projected build—out could have been based on the final PUD approvals. This formula was intended as a guide to insure some substantial reduction in size. While the applicant argues that no reduction is necessary, the proposal has been reduced by 2,000 sq, ft., about 40 percent of the reduction anticipated by council, • DR 13-9011 (Remand) • Page 4 of 6 K iµ- b. Tees In the original application 49 of 103 trees were proposed to be saved. The current modification show only 29 of 99 trees to be saved (4 trees not on plan?). This change , ` ;; conflicts with the direction of Council found in their remand order(page 12). The order states "any redesign should maintain the current design balance between tree preservation and development." 1 The Building Design Standard at 2.020(2a) and the Tree Cutting Ordinance at 55.080 list criteria which affects tree preservation. The applicant has addressed these criteria (see Exhibit 195); Staff recommends that the building should have been designed to } relate to specific trees on the site. The existing trees on the site should be preserved in a manner that will break up the scale and proportion of the long commercial structures; However, only one tree is proposed to be saved in the parking lot. It should be noted that grading around that tree wilt r*,.11.iire a substaltial cut, causing the 4 loss of the tree. In addition, very few trees are proposed to be planted in front(the } ; interior of the site) of the buildings, most are proposed around the periphery of the .\ site. Staff further recommends that the applicant has not sufficiently addressed LOC 55,080 in that a) It would not be necessary to cut all the trees proposed for removal if the project were further reduced in size and the corresponding parking spaces were eliminated from the lot, b) There is no expert evidence in the record to demonstrate •'a that the extent of cutting proposed will not have a negative impact on adjacent trees, and c) The removal of the majority of trees on the site will have a significant negative impact on the character of the neighborhood, and the proposal to mitigate ',. with additional plantings primarily addresses only the periphery of the site, c. Parking: r A reduction of an additional 3,000 square feet of building would allow the parking • spaces to be eliminated from the parking lot, This change could potentially allow the • project to comply with all applicable criteria and at the same time to maintain a y '~ ! balance between development and tree presentation similar to the original proposal. IV, CONCLUSION The applicants have not adequately reduced the size of the commercial center. As a result the proposal still does not comply with LODS 2,020(1) and now does not comply with LODS 2.020(2a). The proposal also now does not comply LOC 55.080, These criteria must be satisfied in order to comply with the plan policies and guidelines listed in the council remand „ • order. Additional items such as the location of parking spaces, the location of trash enclosures, wetland mitigation and storm water quality improvements should be addressed, as well, V. RECOMMENDATION -Denial • �" 9 ' DR 13-9011 (Remand) . to Page 5 of 6 �` Exhibits.: . 190 Council Remand Order,AP 91-13-954 0 4 '.. fa 4 191 DRB Order,DR 13-90-915 192 Applicant's Letter of September 28, 1992 ti , 193 "Exhibit A," Portion of Original Westlake Application 194 Staff lettering of August 3, 1992 from Robert Galante • , , 195 Applicant's Narrative of October 30, 1992 -", . 196 Applicant's Letter of October 30, 1992 . 197 Westlake Density Chart,Prepared by Staff • 198 Site Plan 199 Grading Plan r ' 200 Utility Plan 201 Lighting Plan 202 Tree Cutting Plan 203 Landscape Plan 204 Elevations (Bldg. A &B) 205 Elevations (Bldg. C) ti 206 Elevations (Bldg.D) 207 Letter from Ray and Laura Sahlberg,November 23, 1992 208 Letter from Erin O'Rourke—Meadors, November 24, 1992 , 1 r` ;� • 0 a:.. . . ,* d , 1 • v. 4•r a 1 1A •� . -\... , , . .a • 410 . .. , . . • . , . DR 13-9011 (Remand) Page 6 of 6 - . . , 1 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL 2 OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO hM1YY'!!' 3 / ti AN APPEAL OF A DECISION ) AP 91-13-954 ' ',,:`�„ ''4 O THE DEVELOPMENT ) (J. Michael Moody, et al) h 'Vs{kc REVIEW BOARD APPROVING THE ) ORDER 5 CONSTRUCTION OF A 35, 000 ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND Ate- ," SQUARE FOOT RETAIL/OFFICE ) , . '19 6 CENTER IN FIVE BUILDINGS ) (DR 13-90-915) . • \--r, 7 J3ITIDIE QE APPE 8 AL , This proceeding comes before the City Council as a result of 9 an appeal by the Westlake Homeowner' s Association (appellant) of 10 a decision of the Development Review Board approving the I 11 application of GreenStreet Architecture (applicant) to construct 12 a 35, 000 square foot retail/office centex in five buildings at a 1 13 ,A site located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Parkview and Westlake Drives (Tax Lot 107 of Tax Map 2 lE 6) . 1414 15 *00. 16 ,UEARING 4,I The Development Review Board held public hearings and r ' aO 17 considered this application at its meetings of July 15, 1991; 1 18 August 19, 1991; and October 7 ,, 1991 . The City Council held a 19 public hearing at its special meeting of April 14, 1992 , and 20 considered this application at its special i;�•�etirig of April 28, -, 21 1992 . "° 22 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS 23 A. City of _.Lake Oswerjo Como eherisive ._Plan: 24 ' Impact Management Polices • 25 tlo.neral Policy I , II , III 26 . . , •• • Pae f EXHIBIT 1 -t 19E- FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER Al? 9L-13-954 (Amended 6/24/92) ` / 0 , ,._ (DR 13-90-91 ,tlicth,i 1 Moody, et all ) .434401 ' r 1 Distinctive Natural Area Policies • ,. .`.' General Policy I ` 2 1,, Weak Foundation Soil Policies / 3 General Policy I, IV 4 Social Resource Policies General Policy I, V • Commercial Land use Policies ' , 6 General Policy III, V 7 Commercial Land Use Policies ` Specific District Policies VI 8 Kruse-No 'h Commercial District 9 Transportation Land Use Policies General Policy IV 10 B. City of Lake Oswego Development Code: _`.• • 11 LOC 49..090 Applicability of Development Standards 1 12 LOC 49 .1;'=5 Major Development 1 A _; LOC 4S .300 - 49 .335 Major Development Procedures 13 LOC 49 . 615 . Criteria for Approval - . . 1 0 „ „ • 0: - . .... . 62,6 14 C . City of Lake ..Oswego Development Standards : . .. . . . . .. . 2,1 15 2 . 005 - 2 . 040 Building Design 'll 4 . 005 - 4 . 040 Wetlands o 16 5 . 005 - 5 . 040 Street Lights 6 . 005 - 6 . 040 Transit System ,t, • El 17 ' 7 . 005 - 7 . 040 Parking and Loading Standards < 8 . 005 - 8 . 040 Park and Open Space 1 18 9 . 005 - 9 ., 040 Landscaping 10 . 005 - 10 . 040 . Fences 19 11 . 005 - 11 . 040 Drainage Standard for Major Development f 13 . 005 - 13 . 040 Weak Foundation Soils G 20 14 . 005 - 14 . 040 Utility Standard 16 . 004 - 16 . 040 Hillside Protection and Erosion Control 21 18 . 005 - 18 , 040 Access Standard 19 . 005 - 19 .040 Site Circulation Standards - Driveways and 22 Private Street 20 . 005 - 20 . 040 Site Circulation Standards - Bikeways and . , 23 Walkways 24 D. c it ' f�f ,,eke Tree f�uttir Ordinance : 25 LOC , ij 10 - 55 . 130 /ry 0 , . ` Page ,A- 1'+ FIt1DING:1, :'01,1CLLISIC-DNS AtaD ORDER AP 91-13-954 (Amended 6/24/92) o• ' �� [P 1 i-'4Ue11u1 (J.Mi�"hit l Moody, er al) ) r• 4 ' • A tN ' t' l 1 • J r 1 SONOY.IISTON 2 The City Council concludes that the appeal should be upheld ' 3 in part and that application DR 13-90 should be remanded' to the �V 4 Development Review Board (DRB) for further proceedings in ., 5 compliance with this order. 6 FIND ItISxS_AN L REASONS . 7 The City Council incorporates the July 3 , 1991 and August 9 , 8 1991, staff reports and the 'August 23 , 1991 staff memorandum on ;' 9 DR-13-90, as well as the record of the proceeding and staff 10 report dated March 20, 1992, in support of its decision 11 supplemented by the following: 12 1. The site at issue in this case is part of the Westlake '` 1 13 Planned Unit Development (PUD) <<,hich was approved by the City of 14 Lake Oswego in 1981 pursuant to Ordinance No, 1793 . The City r` ; 4.. 15 subsequently adopted several modifications to the Westlake PUD. tIB ilt 16 The original plan provided for a total of 1, 527 single <i 17 family and multi-family units . The three acre site (now 2 . 6 1 18 acres after dedication of right-of-way) was designated 19 "neighborhood commercial" pursuant to the Overall Development • }, " 20 plan and Schedule (ODPS) adopted as part of Ordinance No. 1793 in �y , ' 21 1981 . (The original document was actually entitled "Final _t � " ' 22 Development Plan and Schedule" pursuant to the City' s prior µ 23 zoning regulation . In 1982 , the Council adopted a new 1 24 Development Code which codified procedures for ODPS approval at 25 LOC 49 .400 to 49 . 440 . Subsequent amendments to the PUb wore , 26 '. , 0 Page 3 of 1' - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER AP 91-13-954 (Amended 6/24/92) (()R 11-')0-91`, (J.Mi hao1 Moody, et al) ) J t , at` 4.4A f :t Yd � ,I..:' ..V.:4 .. °.� I 1 approved pursuant to the new Development Code and retitled the 0 .,',..,:'.:, -..:. 2 "Final Plan" as the ODPS . ) The "neighborhood commercial" I 3 designation has continued unchanged through the /sevoral 4 amendments considered since 1981, and is reflected in Spacial 1 5 Commercial District Policy VI (Kruse - North Neighborhood f>' 6 Commercial District) of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, which 4, e Y 7 applies specifically to this site. fr v 8 LOC 49 .400 - 49 .440 also govern how the ODPS is 9 applied. LOC 49 .410 states that the purpose ( f the ODPS is to " la `. 10 provide preliminary approval of land uses, maximum potential 11 densities, arrangement of uses, open space and resource 5, .�,,i ,N t;,' „ ` i 12 conservation and provision of public services, while providing it 1} ' 13 the developer of reliable assurances of the City's expectations g 14 :af the overall project . LOC 49 .405 (1) states : . t` • 1 15 Development permits for individual phases within a p•gi major development shall be approved and conditioned in • 1,1 16 accordance with the ODPS . Development permits for each phase shall assure that development plans conform to gl 17 the ODPS, as well as the Comprehensive Plan and Development Standards . ;`y ; k 13 t The ODPS provides that the ODDS "shall be the sole ,.. 19 basis for evaluation of all phases of the Westlake Development on 20 any issue that it addresses . " Section 10 of the ODPS further 21 \ , • provides that approval of development phases "may be granted * , 22 subject to conditions that are consistent with and intended to 23 r carry out the terms and intent of this plan and program and the 24 applicable City ordinances and regulations which govern matters not controlled by this plan or program, " 26 :x y 1 Page 4 of 19 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER :r AP 91-13-954 (Amended 6/24/92) • 4 (DR 1.3-+)0-E 1 5 (J.Michael Moody, et 41) 1 r ' t, \ . '. .,.,1: ,.,.. ,,, , 1 The applicant requests approval to construct a 35, 000 , ... -'..: ... e,,,. % , . 2 squa5:e foot mixed use commercial center comprised of the 3 following uses : 1' . 4 4 a. 11, 000 square foot retail uses, ., • r , 5 b. 17, 850 square foot office use; and \ ` ' 6 c. 6, 250 square foot retail/office use . -4..: r: ° , 7 Such proposal is classified as a "major development" " 8 pursuant to LOC 49 . 145 and thus must comply with the approval 9 criteria contained in LOC 49 . 615 . 10 At its meeting of December 16, 1991, the Lake Oswego F t . YN u•i 11 Development Review Board adopted an order approving the project " s i 12 with conditions . This appeal followed. *aI 1 13 2Y In its Notice of Intent to Appeal, the appellant raised : ' 14 seven Assignments of Error. Pursuant to LOC 49 . 625 (7) the . 15 Coux'cil considers these assignments . s1 Qt, 16 3 . E,jrst Assignment of Error. Appellant first argued that f . 4 f g5 17 the Development Review Board decision failed to conform with +' f k 18 Development Standard 2 . 020 (1) because the approved design fails 19 to adequately compliment existing residential buildings with 20 g regard to setbacks, height, scale and overall g proportions , The 21 appellant further argued that the design fails to conform to LOC `":' 22 49 . 405 ( 1) and 49 . 615 because it fails to minimize the negative q� . 23 impacts of commercial development on adjacent residential areas 2d and residential privacy and weakens rather than strengthens 25 neighborhood identity . For these reasons, the appellant argues tk26 Page 9 e")f 1') .. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER iu' 91-13-954 (Amended 6/24/92) (DR 1J-q0 15 ( ',Michael Moody, et al) ) " 4_ '`Yv r . . • T .w Y .. r". 1 that the proposal fails to comply with Special Commercial 0 ..,... . 2 District Policy VI . 3 The appellant' s and the other opponents ' chief (argument '`' 4 was that the proposed development was not a "neighborhood" commercial development in character. Specific testimony , 6 included: • 7 , That the 50% office space ratio indicated that the 4. 8 development was intended to draw in persons from outside the 9 neighborhool and compete with the Kruse Way "office commercial" i,. 10 development . . 11 - That the amount of w • parking provided exceeded that ,, i 12 needed for the neighborhood and what is required pursuant to the a> w 13 Lake Oswego Code. 14 - That the design is not p ' c pedestrianoriented, as 0 : ; ', • 5 1,! 15 evidenced by the large parking lot in comparison P with the plaza 16 with two benches , - That the amount of s r square footage is too great to 18 qualify as "neighborhood" commercial . '' 19 In addition to arguing that the size, intensity, and 20 types of uses were not conducive to a true "neighborhood" P • , :. 21 commercial site, the appellant {and opponents argued that the 22 design was not compatible. Their arguments included: 23 - That the two stor y office building,s are sited too 0 : ° .:' 24 close to residential neighbors and impinged upon the homeowner' s w 25 prig✓acy ., . 26 Page 1 b of 19 .. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER AP 91-13-954 (Amended 6/24/92) (DR 13--00--L 19 ( ',Michael Moody, et al) ] ♦ J,. f r r . L • t it 1 - That the 25 ' setback and building height limits 2 result in structures that are too close to adjacent residences 3 and too tall, when considering that an 8000+ square foot office 4 building is substantially different than a residential use. 5 - That the proposed six foot wooden fence and '• ". 6 vegetation buffers are inadequate to separate adjacent homes from '.'\ 7 noise, internal traffic and other congestion. 8 - That the design does not encourage walking, biking or 9 social interaction. 10 - That the design makes the development look like an 11 office complex with the commercial facilities designed to serve i 12 the complex rather than the neighborhood. '' ` •. rte i 13 . •.. - That the tallest office buildings are closest to the 14 residences . ' ;b .. 15 The appellant and opponents further noted that when the '''''' '.:-, °l 16 "neighborhood commercial" designation was imposed on this 17 property, the ODPS provided that the adjacent development would .', k 18 be multi-family. They noted that a subsequent amendment to the 19 �,. plan changed this designation to single-family, which is how the 20 neighborhood has been developed, They argue that this change ' F: 21 should require a stricter review for compatibility, considering � 22 the difference in density, architecture, scale and traffic 23 between multi-family and single family uses . 24 The applicant' s response is primarily that the i ' '' 25 densities , uses, heights and setbacks are designed in conformance 26 x�= i Page 7 of 19 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONE AND ORDER ,�stf :� .i AP 91-13-954 (Amended 6;24/92) , 1` (OR 13-90-915 (J.Micha�W1 Moody, et al) ) 4 1 { 1 with the requirements in the ODPS . They add that the buildings 0 ' :.:, 2 are designed using similar materials to other structures , 3 constructed in the neighborhood, and that the additional/parking 4 ' ^ ,A 4 was added to protect the neighborhood from spill-over on-street 5 , parking. 6 Although the Council believes that the applicant has 7 made a good faith effort to address a myriad of difficult design 8 issues, the Council concludes that the weight of the evidence �•-'' �,Y 1 y' 9 supports the appellant's argument that the focus of the project 10 is not "neighborhood" commercial and that the design is not ' '` , ;rw 11 compatible with f-` A surrounding neighborhood. In making this 12 determination, the Council is guided primarily by Special .•:.., •,. il 13 Commercial Policy VI, which states that the purpose of this 14 "neighborhood commercial" center is to serve "this residential ;g :tior2 15 area" by serving "the shopping needs of the adjacent residential m ; 16 areas . " It requires the center to be designed to assure that r :' IN<,g "x = �l 17 height and setbacks are compatible with adjacent ' residential 1 13 areas, to include structural and vegetation buffers to separate 4 ,: 19 ' adjacent residential areas from noise, traffic and congestion, to ':•,,,, 20 encourage walking and biking and other alternatives to the 21 automobile, to provide street furniture and landscaped areas to , 22 encourage social interaction, and to encourage pedestrian 23 circulation throughout the site, The Council Further notes that • 1: ,.„.i• •r 4 • 24 the purpose of all of the Special Commercial District Policies is t . - w Vr 25 to implement General Policy III of the Commercial Land Use ' ' '''1 , 26 Page 41, ' - 5 of 19 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER AP 91-13-954 (Amended 6/24/92) (DR 13-90-'115 (d,Michae1 Moody, rat al) ] Cr . r , y'• t • P 1 t ir' 1 a: Policies , which is to "plan for the development of commercial 2 districts scaled in size to the area served. " ' i 1 t , •' = 3 The Council concludes based upon this testim6ny that vvi� 4 the proposed design does not comply with this Comprehensive Pla n 5 requirement and thus does not comply with LODS 2 . 020 (1) . The ` 6 Council finds that the proposed design is too large in total 7 square footage, is too close to adjacent residential development, 8 is not sensitive enough to or sufficiently buffered from adjacent t� 9 residential development, is not compatible in design with the 10 ' ' surrounding single family uses, and is directed too much toward 1 11 ,; � . automobile access and usage at the expense of pedestrian and '12 w bi,cycle usage. The Council also agrees that the high � ,� il 13 g percentage ". • •. of office space suggests that more than neighborhood use is 14 anticipated. While the Council recognizes that the permitted >.�,- 15 in some commercial and office uses listed in the ODPS will drayk '.'. 10 16 r ' 0-$ outside traffic, the final design should not encourage uses that \' . •' 17 would tend to draw outside tra ffic . Such traffic should be �' 18 , secondary and subordinate to the neighborhood focus of the 19 development as required by the Comprehensive Plan. 20 The Council acknowledges that the ODPS 21 provides that w111 total square footage "may not exceed" 35, 000 square feet, which • 22 standard is echoed by the Comprehensive Plan statement that "not r <.; 23 more than" 35, 000 square feet of retail commercial activity ':, ,,4 may be sited on the subject property. Because the square footage is 25 , •. stated in terms of a maximum allowable amount, hfjwei a, the 26 per R Page 9 of 19 - L'INDIN01 , 0:+NC'L(JSION ; AND ORDER AP 91-13-954 °. . ; . (Amended 0/2�/52) y (t�I2 11- 00 .01�, C,J,M1choe1 Moody, et'. alp ) 1 1 t, l.. ♦ ro- .��,17 y •�r M , ' +,4• r ti t ' a• ,-'0t { P ;, .1♦ %,,: 1 Council concludes that the ODPS does not preclude the Council0 `,....,;, ,.,4,.-.:::.. , ,.. ... .... .. 2 from reducing the allowable, square footage at time of specific ., . .'h:• -. ' 3 approval in order to compl}y' with the Comprehensive Plan direction r, , �' at the Commercial district be designed to be compatible and in i �. 4 th " the surrounding residential development . u ` • �d� . 5 scale with 6 Similarly, the Council acknowledges that the building a' 7 setbacks and heights as proposed comply with the requirements in Si The Council notes, however, that i 8 Section 8 (3) of the ODPS . � + �� .• 9 Section 8 (5) of the; ODPS states that "any provision of this ,' „,t 10 section may be modified by specific phase approval or the site 11 and building approval . " When read in conjunction with ODPS ' i 12 Section 10 and LOC 49 .405 (1) , the Council believes ODPS grants ' to impose different and stricter ` 13 the City the flexibility 1 14 requirements at the time development is proposed if the City411 : ,, .•.,.,.., ,,,, ' A e � ��o • ' ' .. "ig 15 concludes that such requirements are necessary to accomplish the F' ,J.: 16 purpose and requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and p p M 17 Development Standards . Council agrees with the appullant ' s observation i 18 The Co •'�' ;Nab ' 19 that the subsequent amendment to the PUD which changed the 20 surrounding development from multi-family to single family is a k >urr . 21 substantial change in circumstance that requires a stricter 1 Y ', 22 review for compatibility in terms of scale, design and setbacks . ' 4, I23 The Council further notes testimony that amendments to the , s 24 Westlake PUD, as well as the approved phases as constructed, have 2 decreased theactual density as well as the remaining maximum 5 26 - ' • 1 . *.\ 0 .', 1,... ." .' 10 of 19 m FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER r ` ' AP 91.-13-954 (Amended 6i24/92) I.LR L3- 0 915 (J•taiichael Moody, ,jr ,i1' 1 i' i 1 allowable density below that originally planned. This fact, l.5iµk.. M v r. 2 combined with the need to make the project more compatible with 3 the surrounding single family development, justifies doLmsizing 4 the project . b ' For these reasons the Council concludes that the #111 . 6 project should be remanded to the DRB to enable redesign of the tl ;«Y� 7 project to address the Council i guidelines outlined in the order 8 below. The Council notes that the applicant agreed on the record 9 to a waiver of the 120 day local actin rule to enable the DRB to 10 consider the remand. 11 4 . Second and Third Assignments of Error. In its second 12 and third assignments of error, the appellant argues that the IL 13 design does not adequately protect trees on the site. The 14 appellant argues that the Development Review Board decision fails ,.,�- 15 to conform wits Development Standard 2 . 020 (2) because the o buildings are not designed and located to 16 K'ggi compliment and preserve 17 existing trees and other natural vegetation. The appellant also , ' . 14 I 18 g ar ues that the Development Review Board' s decision failed to 'V 19 consider the interrelationship between LODS 2 , 020 relating to 20 trees and the Tree Cutting regulations of LOC Chapter 55 by 21 deferring any meaningful review of which trees should be 22 preserved until after DR 13-90-915 has been approved. 23 The Council disagrees with appellant ' s argument . ,.; ey, 24 Indeed, the Council concludes based upon the evidence in the ;_ 25 record that the applicant has done a good job cif balancing4 26 7, Page 11 of 19 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER AP 91-13-954 (Amended 6/24/92) (DR 13-90_91tj (J,Michae1 Moody, of di) ) . * • j w ti ,, t '! . ' a A pS Z ,. 1 protection of the important trees on the site with the needs of 'r 2 the development . The applicant ' s proposal will save 49 of the 3 103 trees on the site and will result in the planting oe 83 new 4 trees . In addition, the evidence in the record demonstrates that " ~ 5 the buildings were located to save the most significant grove of 6 trees on the property. • 7 The Council notes that this property is designated for 8 commercial development; this. designation and any other 9 development designation would necessarily result in the removal 4� 10 of a substantial number of trees on the site and would affect in 11 the same manner those native trees that have a low survival rate i 12 when development occurs . LOC 55 . 080 (2) specifically requir:�.i the ' I 13 Council to consider the necessity to remove trees in order to ' sp ,``' ! 14 construct proposed improvement, or to otherwise utilize the ,, ��3� is . property in a reasonable manner. a 16 When considered in context, the Council concludes that the applicant ' s proposal as approved by the DRE complies with ` X 18 LOC 55 , 080 and LODS 2 . 020 (2) . Any redesign should maintain the 19 current design' s balance between tree preservation and 20 development . As a design issue related to the Council ' s above • a"' 21 conclusion that the project needs to be made more compatible with e '2 the surrounding neighborhood, however, the Council concludes that 23 the applicant should use a greater percentage of native species p� 24 as replacement trees where such trees would be viable . This V5 would be more consistent with the ODPS for the Westlake PUD, 26 .� S 12 of 1 ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS Amp ORDER • AP 91-13-954 (Amended 6/24/92) , ` (DR 13 -' O-r 15 (J,Michn+e1 Moody, et al) ) r' t , 1 where substantial efforts were made to preserve the existing y' • 2 natural vegetation. 3 6. Four h Ass gnme o_f rror, The appellant next argues • " V c 1 Review Board decision failed to adequately 4 that the Development « 5 address the traffic impacts on the proposed use. Specifically, • P, ,,;.+. 6 appellant claimed: ' a. The DRB did not address changes in the intensity of , 8 use anticipated in the original approval of the Westlake PUD. 9 b. Impact Management General Policy II is not met in 10 that LOC 48 . 310 (4) was not applied- 11 c. Transportation General Policy I is not met in that ' t Y. i Y2 it has not been demonstrated that existing streets and \, ' ' O. 13 intersections are adequate to accommodate the projected traffic O� y` 14 increases . . ,.e- 15 d. The DRB decision ignores the prior City Council *� go 16 decision (DR 10-89/PD 14-89-792) requiring the City to complete <51 • 17 its own traffic study prior to approval of the 360 unit apartment , 1 18 complex within the Westlake development . The traffic study was t 19 never completed. 20 The applicant responds that the proposed commercial \• 21 , development is consistent with the ODPS and with the traffic • 9 22 projections that were the basis of the approval of the ODPS, and "'''' 23 that the City is bound by those determinations pursuant to LUBA' s 24 decision regarding a previous phase of the Westlake PUD in the �` 25 case of Hoffman v, City of Lake Oswego, Or LUBA (LUBA 26 No. 90-067, September 26, 1990) . . Page 13 of 19 - BINDINGS, CONCLU 3ICNS AND ORDER ,` AP 91-13-954 (Amended 6/24/92) 0 .' (DR 13-90t915 (J,Michael Moody, et all ) 1 .: The Council does not believe that is necessary to 411 _ . ,- , : 2 decide whether NoffmL , v. City of Lake Oswego prohibits the <'•, v 3 Council from considering any new information contrary to the 4 original traffic projections adopted when the Westlake PUD/ODPS . 5 was approved, because the Council concludes that the evidence 6 submitted by the applicant demonstrates that existing streets and "" 7 intersections are adequate to accommodate the projected traffic increase caused by the proposed development pursuant to 9 Transportation General Policy I, particularly considering that { 10 the development will be scaled back pursuant to the Council' s Y: 11 conclusion in Finding No. 3, above. That evidence consists of 12 Exhibits 21, 22, 78, 87, 109 and 175 . ' s' ::;•,..: 0 13 The Council agrees with staff' s conclusion that LOC 14 •,� b48 .310 (4) is not applicable to this request because this site is �0Nr 15 not zoned "Office Campus . " LOC 48 . 310 (4) applies solely to the 1 ., g 16 , Office Campus zone . 17 , , •: The Council concludes that its decision on the Dominion 18 multi-family application is not relevant to this case. 19 The Council agrees with the testimony of the appellant ..-. ::: WR 20 and several of the opponents that this neighborhood commercial , ;` 21 site should be designed to serve the neighborhood and should not <df 22 be designed or built for businesses that would tend to draw a 23 24 25 26 9 Page _ 14 of 19 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER , AP 91-13-954 (Amended 6/24/92) CDR 13-YO--915 (J,Mic:hael Moody, et al) 1 .t/ F k 4+ 1 significant amount of outside traffic into the neighborhood. The .:: ,;•' ;,, 0 2 Council believes, however, that the redesign of the project 3 required by this order will solve this problem by better .eocusing ; ;t,': 4 the design on serving the neighborhood. 5 The appellant raised an additional sub-issue regarding 6 6 traffic at the Council hearing. The appellants noted that there 7 is a conflict in the evidence between the alternative site plan 8 which showed that the landscaped median island on Westla::e Drive 4 " 9 would not be altered and the recommendation in the ATEP Traffic 10 Study (Exhibit 22) that the median be cut back to accommodate a . ' x �,' 11 left turn lane for southbound traffic on Westlake Drive. The h rP ' r r .,, 12 applicant testified, however, that its alternative site plan ° 13 showed that it did not intend to change the. median strip, and ; : 14 that maintain'.ng the median would be consistent with the type of 15 "on the way back from work" neighborhood traffic expected. o 16 The Council agrees that the evidence in the record does • <�� k. , .. .... ,, I gi 17 not demonstrate that the median needs to be altered in order to R 18 provide for safe ingress and egress . The Council agrees with the 19 appellant that any alteration of the median will have a 20 substantial negative impact on the residential character of the 21 neighborhood. The Council therefore directs that the plan shall 22 not include any alterations to the median. 23 7 . Fifth Assignment of Error. The appellants next claim �. 4 24 that the Development Review Board decision fails to conform with y, ' .` the definitions and regulations of Development Standards 4 ° 005 - µ 26 4 . 040 related to Wetlands . ; k Page , 15 of 19 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS FIND ORDER .,_ AP 91-13-954 (Amended 6/24/52) (DR 13-90-915 (,1.M1chael Moody, et al) ] ' , ' „} • r t . ill• i V, n Based upon the evidence in the record, the Council concludes 1 • 2 that the DRB correctly determined that the wetland on the site is0 ' --: .° ' • 3 not an "essential wetland" within the meaning of LODS 4'.'015 (2) , 4 and that therefore the Wetland Standard does not apply.PP y. The 5 Council notes that the DRB did req uire compliance with state and 6 federal wetland requirements . r' 7 8 • , _Sixth Assignment of Error. The appellant next' argued 1 y 8 that the Development Review Board decision fails to conform with r : ' ' 9 the uses allowed in the R-5 zone in which the site is located. 10 The Council concludes that standards and requirements 11 of the R-5 zone do not apply because Ordinance 1783 imposed a PUD 12 overlay on '.his property. Section 2 of that ordinance 13 specifically amends the Zoning Map to •impose this designation and 14 adopt the ODPS as ' t the zoning for the described „it 15 property. The � Q` uses allowed on the subject iproperty are specifically articulatede . ,, ti o0 16 in Section 3 (1) (E) (1) of the ODPS`. The applicant ' s i �mg proposal as • jX �Fe 17 approved by the DRB complies with the ODPS. -� 18 ' The Council notes that the appellant and most of the 19 opponents conceded at the hearing that the ODPS zoned this �� 20 property for neighborhood commercial development ,, The appellant ? '' g P 71 and most of the opponents further testified that 22 they would support a true neigh}zorhoocl commercial development on this 23 property , 24 The Council commends the neighborhood' s acceptance of this designation, because the Council strongly y supports 26 g Page 16 of 19 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER AP 91-13-954 (Amended 6/24/92) (DR 13-90-915 (J,Michael Moody, ,?t al) ) y y • , t a t, t : 1 neighborhood commercial development .at this site and the :, .. ': '''', `� i . • 2 neighborhood commercial concept in general . The Council notes i4. 3 that the new State Transportation Rule requires p all metropolitan 4 jurisdictions to reduce automobile trips, and that METRO and LCDC 5 favor the concept of "mixed use" zoning as a method of reducing ',. 6 automobile dependence by intermingling neighborhood commercial 7 with residential development . This is the exact intent expressed 8 in Special Commercial Policy VI, adopted by the City of Lake ' 9 Oswego over ten years ago, The Council agrees with the testimony 10 of several of the opponents that a well-designed neighborhood 11 commercial development on the site will be an asset to the t ' : i 12 neighborhood. Further, such development may well protect r • 11 13 Westlake from having to rezone other areas for neighborhood ••Y 14 commercial development in the future as LCDC and METRO consider . y,,. 15 imposing P g mandatory requirements to meet the Transportation Rule. eq 16 9 . Seventh Assignment of Error. The appellant next argues that the Development Review Board decision fails to conform with t. 18 the site limitations regarding setbacks, building height, and 19 special requirements as set forth in LOC 48 .310 and 48 . 315; and �,': '• . 20 therefore fails to conform to LOC 49 . 405 (1) and 45 . 615 . 21 LOC 48 . 310 and 48 , 315 apply to other commercial cones and not to the site at issue. The ODPS controls the site at Y. t 23 issue , The Council therefore concludes that the setbacks , J t• building height and special requirements of these sections do now . 25 apply. 26 . • 0` Page 17 f; 19 - EIND.LNGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER p e. AP 91-13-954 (Amended 6/24/92) CDR 13-90-915 (J,Michael Moody, kit ,a1) ) C`r I:, i'. 1 10 . Neither the appellant nor any of the opponents raised 2 any other issue or assignment of error regarding the DRB' s 0 :,,, ::, 3 decision or the findings and conclusions regarding th'e other 7 ° 4 applicable criteria contained in the DRB decision or staff A ` �, 5 reports . The Council therefore adopts and incorporates these 6 findings and conclusions by reference. 7 QUER O 8 IT IS ORDERED by the City Council of .the City of Lake Oswego 9 that AP 91-13 is approved in part and DR 13-90 is REMANDED to the 10 Development Review Board to bring the application into compliance 11 with the neighborhood commercial designation and to redesign the 12 project to be compatible with the surrounding single family , t,:` ' ' '` 1 13 residential neighborhood. In order to comply with this { 14 direction, the redesigned project shall comply with the following ph Ad 0 :, ' ''. ,! arc 15 design guidelines : ' A �t 0 1� 1 . The total square footage of , <Agg the project shall be °.i g 17 reduced. As a guide for determinin the ap propriate ppropriate reduction, the DRB should consider the difference between the current projected density of the Westlake 1 18 PUD at build out versus the projected density at the 19 time of approval of the PUD in 1981 . AA _s 2 . The number of parking spaces provided shall be reduced 20 to the minimum number required by the Lake Oswego Code 21 and Development Standards . 3 . The setback between the commercial buildings and the L2 boundaries with the single family residential parcels 23 shall be increased, or the two story buildings shall be N.. relocated so that only one story buildings are directly �. 24 adjacent to the single family residential parcels , v; 4 , Building utilities (air conditioning, heat, etc) shall V5 not be visible, 26 1 y4^. . . .,. . Page 0 , 18 of 19 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDBR ,� ► AP 91-13-�954 (Amended 6/24/92) (DR 13- O-915 y, et al) ) r 1 5 . The design shall be oriented more toward pedestrian/bicycle use. Additional bike storage shall 2 be provided. ` 3 6 . The design and materials shall be made more cofipatible ' ; with the surrounding single family homes . The 4 buildings shall be no taller than the adjacent two .*::',.e.:' ''41 story homes . Roof structures similar to surrounding ' ' shallbe used. Flat roofs shall be prohibited. .:' �;; 5 homes J t 6 7 . The median islands adjacent to the site shall not be . . . h reduced or removed. v;, • • ' 8 . Garbage collection receptacles shall be relocated away ',` 8 from the boundaries with single family properties . W ( , 9 9 . The plan shall increase the amount of native trees used as replacement trees where native trees would be 10 viable. '` 4 11 This order was presented to and adopted by the City Council " i 12 of the City of Lake Oswego. -�h �Li k 9 �' d 13 Dated this � day of I , l�92 . ` ti14 � A ` de-14-Z--------Th/ ...':: ';. :,'' : ` .j.. 15 Alice L. Schlenker, Mayor r.J �r i• i� 1� ,...1 ATTEST: / l x 17 •G/:712--�f G� 1 18 st Hitchcock, City Recorder .`, 19 AYES : Puskas , M . Anderso 1, Mayor Schlenker, Chrisman 20 NOES . None I' 21 AESTAIN: Holstein , Marcotte 22 ' EXCUSED: D . Anderson 23 r. 24 h 25 26 Page, a `, ,. 19 of 19 FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AN ORDER AP 91-13-954 (Amended 6/24/92) (OR 13 -9O 19 (.)'.t4lohkit'1 Mt(ady=, 0,t° a 1) ) • a- 2 0 - 71i.x i 1 • • y 1 BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD OF THE , ' 2 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO { r 4 � J 4•;•_ 5 A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO) DR 13-90-915 CONSTRUCT A 35,000 . FT,S 6 ••RETAIL/OFFICE CENTER IN ) (J. Michael Moody, et)7 •FIVE BUILDINGS FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS & ORDER .'` 8 � f 9 v1 10 NATURE OF APPLICATION 11 \ ' The applicant proposes to construct a 35,000 sq, ft. retail/office center in five buildings Two • , ` 12 are proposed to be two stories in height and three are proposed at one story in height. The �` 5 \ 13 site is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Parkview and Westlake Drives (Tax Lot 107 of Tax Map 2 lE 6). 15 16 ; 1ARING;z 17 The Development Review Board held public hearings and considered this application at its 18 meetings of July 15, 1991; August 19, 1991; and October 7, 1991. . ,.,..: .....‘ • ZO A AND STANDARDS 21 A. city Os of Lake Os• wego Plan: 22 Impact Management Policies • • 23 General Policy I, II, III • 24 ]Distinctive Natural Area Policies ,r • 25 General Policy I 26 Weak Foundation Soil Policies 27 General Policy I, IV 28 Social Resource Policies 19 General Policy I, V 10 Commercial Land Use Policies 31 General Policy III, V 3 2 Commercial Land Use Policies 3 3 Specific District Policies VI Kruse—North Commercial District 34 Transportation Land Use Policies General Policy IV • ,}, PAGE 1 DR 13-90-r915 � a .ai If a \ of' Br City oLLake Oswego Zoning 1 g tog Ordinance: J {• • 2 LOC 48.120-48.155 R-5 Zone Description (setbacks, lot area, lot0 3 coverage) r y 4 C. City of Lake Oswego Development Code: 5 LOC 4SJ.090 6 Applicability of Development Standards b. LOC 49.145 Major Development t. '� 7 LOC 49.300-49.335 Major Development Procedures • LOC 49.615 Criteria for Approval . 8 9 D. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: 10 2°005—2.040 Building Design 11 4.005—4.040 Wetlands 5.005—5.040 Street Lights 12 6.005—6.040 Transit �.• 13 7.005—7.040 Parking 8 Loading Standard . • ` 8.005 —8.040 Park and Open Space • 14 9.005—9.040 Landscaping 15 10.005- 10.040 Fences 11.00S— 11.040 16 Drainage Standard for Major Development 13.005-- 13.040 Weak Foundation Soils k'„ , 17 14.005— 14.040 Utility Standard r ° r x 16.005— 16°040 Hillside Protection and Erosion Control 18 18.005— 18.040 Access • 19 19.005 — 19.040 • Site Circulation —Private Streets/Driveways > 20 20.005 —20.040 Site Circulation—Bikeways and Walkways0 21 E. City of Lake Oswego Tree oAting r i :: b•b ••A 22 LOC 55.010—55.130 23 F. City of Lake Oswego Sign Code' 24 25 LOC Chapter 49 � 26 ;t CONCLUSION . • • 27 The Development Review Board concludes that DR 13-90 can be mad e to comply with all 28 applicable criteria by the application of certain conditions, 29 -'i , w•: FINDINGS AND REASONS 31 y . The Development Review Board incormomtes the July 3, 1991 and the August 9, 1991 staff 32 reports and the August 23, 1991 staff memorandum on DR 13-90 as support for its decision, a• • '' 33 supplemented by the following: 34 I. The Board reviewed the following exhibits submitted by and opponents of the proposal. The Board relied on the evidence and testimony submitted by the "+ PACE 110 e .° : ,, , 2 DR 13-90-915 ° i ,' 1 applicants and their representatives in support of the application and made additional >�, • findings as illustrated in items II, III,IV and V. A. 2 1. Tax Map 'r` 3 2. Vicinity Map 4 3. Applicant's Narrative 5 4. Site Plan r ' • 4 5. Elevations (Retail Building A) �` 6 6. Elevations (Retail Building B) 7 7. Elevations (Office Buildings A and B) 8. Elevations (Otfice/Retail Building) i••• r, 8 9. Landscape Plan • , u 9 10. Grading Plan 11. Utility Plan 10 12. Lighting Plan 11 13. Topographic and Tree Survey 14. Wetland Study and Delineation, Shapiro (February 19, 1991) y 12 15. Wetland Mitigation Plan, March 8, 1991 • 13 16. Preliminary Soils Inspection ` 17. Phosphorous Removal Worksheet 14 18. Division of State Lands Letter of October 29, 1991 15 19, Division of State Lands Letter of February 1, 1991 20. Consulting Arborist, Bill Owen's Letter of January 28, 1991 ,_. 16 21. ATEP Executive Summary of Trafi,7c Impact, February 22, 1991 22,, ATEP Traffic Impact Study,November 13, 1990 , 17 23, Traffic Impact Study for Westlake, Carl Buttke, 1984 , 18 24. Ordinance 1783 y '. 25. PA 3-79,Findings, Conclusions &, Order •" " 19 26. PUD 3-80,Phase 1,Westlake PUT) 20 27. Final Development Plan and Program i. 21 28. ODPS 2-84-207 Modification to PUD ► 29. ODPS 2-84-255 Modification to`Final Plan and Program 22 30. PD 6--89/SD 25-89-776 Westlake; '89,Findings, Conclusions & Order 23 31. LUBA No. 90-06'7 Final Opinion and Order, Westlake '89. 32. Lighting Data " . 24 33. General Westlake Letter from Stephanie Compiott,received May 1990 7 ` 25 34. Letter from Gordon and Le Landgren, March 13, 1991 1 ti 35, Letter from Ray and Laura Sahlberg,April 15, 1991 26 36, Letter from Emery and Mary Ann Sundberg, April 24, 1991 27 37. Letter from Beck and Ed Bard, April 28, 1991 38. Letter from Mary Bennish, April 2'7, 1991 ' • 28 39. Letter from Erin O'Rourke-Meadors, April 26, 1991 .'. 29 40. Letter from Erin O'Rourke-Meadors, April 24, 1991 41. Letter from Erin O'Rourke-Meadors, April 23, 1991 I0 42. Letter from Thomas Sickler, April 27, 1991 31 43. Letter from Dori Becker, April 30, 1991 • ` ' 44, Letter from Tom and Bonnie Bil'y, April 30, 1991 • '`; 3 2 45. Letter from Phyllip and Joanne Thorn, April 30, 1991 3 3 46. Letter from Nelson Brady, April 30, 1991 47. Letter from Jill Heavey, April 29, 1991 3 4 48. Letter from Meredith Ryan, April 29, 1991 49. Letter from Carolyn Knisely, April 23, 1991 50. Letter from Cristine Firmat, April 29, 1991 PAGE 51. Letter from Benjamin Schwartz, April 30, 1991 d, ti 3 DR 13-90-915 ,r " . t , ' 1 52. Letter from Keith Chapman, April 28, 1991 J , 53. Letter from Craig Cooley, April 29, 1991 2 54. Letter from Ernie and Sonia Fondren, April 27, 1991 55. Letter from G.L. Landgren 3 56. Letter from Wayne Carter '' t 4 57. Letter from Cecilia and Gordon Tracy, April 27, 1991 5 58. Letter from Rita Firmat, April 29, 1991 ... 59. Letter from George Clute, Ma'" 4, 1991 6 60. Letter from Jonathan and Michelle Kaplan, April 30, 1991 r` 47. 61. Unsigned Letter from Westlake Resident, May 1, 1991 62. Letter from Bill and Velva Halstead, April 28, 1991 8 63. Letter from Donald and Suzanne Hall, April 30, 1991 64. Letter from Les Stevenson, April 22, 1991 65. Letter! from Steve Berne, April 29, 1991 10 66. Letter from Roger Swanson,April 29, 1991 ; . 11 67. Letter from the Zielkes,May 1, 1991 ^•° 68. Letter from Kevin Robertson,April 29, 1991 • `' • k 12 69. Westlake Home Owner's Association Community Guidel'nes, 37pp. .. "� 70. Applicant's Request for Postponement, Jay 1, 1991 13 71. Applicant's Letter of May 20, 1991 14 72. Westlake Master Plan,Exhibit "A" 15 73. Ordinance No. 1783,Exhibit "B" 74. History of Westlake,Exhibit "C" , 16 75. Architect's Letter Re: Revised Plan,Exhibit "D" 17 76. Lake Oswego Review Arterial, Exhibit "E" 77. Wetland Consultant's Letter of December 3, 1990, Exhibit "F" +,_ 18 78. Architect's Letter Re: Vehicular Access,Exhibit "1-I" (Error in Letter :, 19 sequence—"G" Missing) 79. Comprehensive Plan p. 116, Exhibit "I" 20 80. Arborist's Memo of May 9, 1991,Exhibit "J" 81. Architect's Letter Re: Tree Preservation, May 15, 1991, Exhibit "K" 21 82. Landscape Architect's Letter Re: Tree Preservation, Exhibit "L" 22 83. Landscape Architect's Letter Re:Proposed Landscape Trees, May 10, 1991 '. , 23 Exhibit "M" 84. Engineer's Letter Re: Storm Water, February 6, 1991 Exhibit "N" ° ' 24 85. PUD Time Extension Letter, November 19, 1990, Exhibit "0" 25 86. Wetland Consultant's Letter of May 22,,1991,Exhibit "P" .,. v. 87. Traffic Engineer's Letter Re: Driveways,June 10, 1991 ... 26 88. Architect's Letter Re:Plan Policies,June 20, 1991 `z' 89. Alternative Site Plan,June 18, 1991 ' 28 90. Traffic Review by Keech Associates, April 27, 1991, 2pp. . ° 91. Arborist's Site Plan Review (Stephen Goetz), May 3, 1991, 4pp. 29 92. Wetland Preliminary Site Inventory, Chris Thomas, May 3, 1991, 5pp, 93. Clackamas County Assessment Roll, submitted by Erirt Meadors 1 0 94. Westlake Phase One, submitted by Erin Meadors :.;, 31 95, Letter by Gregory &Erin Meadors, 3 pp. 96. Final Development Plan & Program for Westlake, submitted by Erin Meadors 32 11pp. 33 97. Excerpts from the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan (pages 16, 32, 35, 61, 97— •� 3 4 99), submitted by Erin Meadors 98. Excerpts from the Lake Oswego Development Standards (pages 3-5), submitted by Erin Meadors 99. Excerpts from DR 10-89/PD 14-89-792 Findings, Conclusions and Order PAGE (pages 1, 8-9), submitted by Erin Meadors 4 DR 13-90-915 '„ 1 r.= 1'. ' • 1 100. Figure 5 —Westlake PUD Traffic Impact, 1979, Buttke, submitted by Erin Meadors x 2 101. Photos, submitted by Erin Meadors, 3pp. 3 102. Letter by Tim Ramis requesting continuance, dated July 15, 1991 103. Traffic Circulation and A transportation Management Program Kruse Way ;" 4 Corridor, by Carl H. Buttke, Inc., dated January 7, 1983 Kruse 5 104. Way Corridor Study, by ATEP, dated July, 1982 4 105. West Kruse Way Corridor Land Use Plan,dated August, 1977 • • 6 106. Initial Report on Street System Analysis Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, by - °; Carl H. Buttke, Inc., ated July 19, 1977 F "` 7 nc.,107. Report on Traffic Impact Westlake Planned Unit Development, by Car! 1-1, k? 8 Buttke, Inc., dated May 4, 1979 108. Letter by Tim Ramis, dated July 19, 1991 9 109. Supplemental Traffic Report by ATEP, dated July 12, 1991 } 10 110. Supplemental Wetlands Report, by Shapiro and Associates, Inc„ dated July 11, 1991 11 111. Supplemental Arborist's Report, by Robert Mazany and Associates, dated July 12 15, 1991 13 112. Final Opinion and Order by LAND USE BOARD OP APPEALS (LUBA No, t` 90-067) on Appeal of Westlake '89 (PD 6-89) 14 • 113. Letter by Jeff Miller and Connie Crow, dated July 9, 1991 - `" , 15 114. Letter by Patricia M. Collmeyer, dated July 9, 1991 115. Memorandum by the City Engineer, dated August 9, 1991 16 116. Letter from Erin O'Rourke—Meadors, dated April 24, 1991 17 117. Letter from Erin O'Rourke—Meadors, dated August 8, 1991 118. Definition of"Essential Wetlands", submitted by Erin Meadors •w' . 18 119. Excerpt from "Jurisdictional Wetland Determination for Kruse Oaks Project", ; 19 submitted by Erin Meadors 120. Article "Living Among the Oaks", submitted by Erin Meadors " `. ,tY 20 121. Title Documents, submitted by Erin Meadors 21 122. City Attorney's Response to LUBA, submitted by Erin Meadors 123, Request for Continuance, submitted by Erin Meadors 22 124. Photos, submitted by Erin Meadors .t `•„ 125, Letter by BayCorp Development, dated August 12, 1991 23 126. Declaration of Restrictions, Exhibit "U" of PUD 4-80 „.' ` _ 24 127. Articles of Incorporation of Westlake Home Owner's Association `t 128. Declaration of Restrictions, Exhibit "BJ" of PUD 3-80 25 •129. Declaration of Restrictions, Exhibit "BJ" of PUD 3-80 Amended 2 6 130. Amended Declaration of Covpitants and Restrictions 27 131. Letter by Greenstreet Archito.ture, dated August 16, 1991 '• 132. Page 11 of Applicant's Narrative Amended, submitted August 19, 1991 •i ' 28 133. Letter by Paul Norr, dated August 19, 1991 l9 134. Resume of Martin Schott, Ph.D., submitted August 19, 1991 : 1 135. Written Testimony by Randy Tomic, submitted August 19, 1991 I0 136, Authorization for Ray Sahlberg to Speak on Behaif of Other Property Owners 31 137, Written Testimony by Ray Sahlberg, submitted August 19, 1991 138. Authorization for Tom Over to Speak on 13ehalf'of Other Property Owners 3 2 139, Written Testimony by Tom Over, submitted August 19, 1991 3 3 140. Written Testimony by Jeff Becker, submitted August 19, 1991 �,: } 141. Written Testimony by Dori Becker, submitted August 19, 1991 34 142, Authorization for V.J. Ramsdell to Speak on Behalf of Other Property Owners ' 143, Authorization for Keith Chapman to Speak on Behalf of Other Property Owners 144. Authorization for Bob Barton to Speak on Behalf of Other Property Owners " • PAGE 145. Authorization for Rita Barton to Speak on Behalf of Other Property Owners . . .,, 0 5 DR 13-90-915 y . k: P . M ` f " I G`i't',M^ k r' �y r t t • r 1 1 I. r \ i ^r t.'. 1 146. Authorization for Beverlea Kramlich to Speak on Behalf of Other Property Owners 2 147. Authorization for Charles Mansfield to Speak on Behalf of Other Property 3 Owners 148. Authorization for Ron Remington to Speak on Behalf of Other Property Owners 4 149. Written Testimony by Ron Remington, submitted August 19, 1991 150• Video Tapes (2) .,i , ` 151. Authorization for Jon Kaplan to Speak on August 19� 1991 01VfterS r !,:p 6 152. Written Testimony by Jonathan Kaplan, .,A 7 153. Authorization for Mike C ilnieyer to Speak on Behalf of Other Property Owners .,',�1 154. Written Testimony by Michael Collmeyer, submitted August 19, 1991 Written Testimony by Cynthia Johnson, submitted by Erin Meadors August 19, ,''y' 8 155. � 1991 9 156. Written Testimony by Bev Kramlich, submitted August 19, 1991 10 157. Authorization for Tom Montpas to Speak on Behalf of Other Property Owners 158. Written Testimony by Tom Montpas, submitted August 19, 1991 ].1 159• Written Testimony by Pat Collmeyer, submitted August 19, 1991 12 160. Authorization for Dave Zielke to Speak on B ha'of t�he19 Property Owners . submittedAugust162. Authorization for Erin O'Rourke—Meadors to Speak on Behalf of Other Property . 14 Owners 163. Market Study Prepared by the Applicant, submitted by Erin Meadors August 19, 15 1991 ' } 16 164. Written Testimony by Roger Swanson,Pu es tt2 d 32gust 1subm9, 19ed 1y Erin 165. Lake Oswego Development Stan g 17 Meadors August 19, 1991 18 166. City Attorney's Memorandum to City Council Regarding Council Procedures, submitted by Erin Meadors August 19, 1991 r 19 167. Excerpt from City Council Meeting of March 13, 1990, submitted by Erin •x� 4 20 Meadors August 19, 1991 •,'" '•� 168. Written Testimony and Attachments by Tom Foster, submitted September , , 21 1991 22 169, Written Testimony by Paul Norr, submitted September 4, 1991 23 170, Written Testimony by Erin O'Rourke—Meadors, submitted September 4, 1991 r 171. Materials submitted by Tim Ramis to Address the Amount of Development and s . ` 24 Construction Work as of December 1982 and Extensions 171a. Letter by Nick Bunick, dated August 9, 1991 25 171b. ODPS 2-83 Staff Report, dated November 15, 1983 i Nawzad Othman, OTAK, dated October 12, 1983 ; •� .� 2 6 171c. Letter by 171d. Letter by Joe Dills,OTAK, dated October 4, 1990 ;, 27 171e. ODPS 2-83-40 Findings, Conclusion and Order, dated jai-wary 23, 1984 ` 28 171f. Letter by Hamid Pishvate, City of Lake Oswego, dated November 19, 1990 • 172, Materials submitted by Tim Ramis to Address the Contact with the 29 Neighborhood 10 172a. Letter by Nick Bunick, dated August 28, 1991 ' Letter and Attachment by Nick Bunick,dated August 29, 1991 31 172c. dated August 29, 1991 172c. Memorandum by Mike Moody, b"u 3 2 173. Architect's Written Rebuttal, submitted September 4, 1991 1991 '. 3 3 174, Arborist's Written Rebuttal, submitted September 4, 175, Traffic Engineer's Written Rebuttal, submitted September 4, 1991 , .:. 34 176. Wetland Engineer's Written Rebuttal, submitted September 4, 1991 177, Response by Timothy `V, Ramis to Norr Memorandum,dated September 17, 1991 ,, t J w• PAGE 178. Written Testimony by Karen Wallace Sorenson, submitted October 7, 1991 • . 6 DR 13-90-915 .i • 179. Written Testimony by Bev Kramlich, submitted October 7, 1991 1 180. LOC 48.075(1)(2), submitted by Erin Meadors, October 7, 1991 ' 2 181. Ordinance 1783 (portion), submitted by Erin Meadors, October 7, 1991 ' •��:, , 3 182. Westlake, a Planned Community (portion) submitted by Erin Meadors, October :; 7, 1991 4 183. Written Testimony by Erin Meadors, submitted October 7, 1991 , 5 184. Written Testimony by Erin Meadors, submitted October 7, 1991 185. Written Testimony by Linda Alvstad, submitted October 7, 1991 6 186, Information on Wetlands, submitted by Erin Meadors, October 7, 1991 . 187. Information on Oak Trees, submitted by Erin Meadors, October 7, 1991 ' 7 188. Article on Wetlands, submitted by Erin Meadors, October 7, 1991 '` 8 189. Information about Jean L. Siddall, submitted by Erin Meadors, October 7, 1991 9 Ytnd ti"Jestlttks' ".aster 10 II, jJye And Conformance With Compre ens�ve Plan Zonln 11 Elam r ; 12 The original master plan from the Westlake PUD, which was adopted as the Final Plan 13 and Program by Ordinance No. 1783 in 1980,provided for a three—acre neighborhood 14 . commercial use at the same location as the subject site. The master plan states that"it 15 shall be the sole basis for evaluation of all phases of the Westlake development on any 16 issue that it addresses." That provision is still binding and relevant today. 17 18 The master plan established a number of specific standards relevant to the development , 19 of the neighborhood commercial site. For example, the master plan limits the total 20 square footage to no more than 35,000 square feet and excludes drive—in restaurants 21 from the center. The applicant's proposed center is consistent with the master plan and r- : 22 the other relevant approval standards and policies in the City's Comprehensive Plan 23 and Zoning Code. 24 25 Opponents to the project testified that the location is not an appropriate one for a `, ' 26 retail/office center. That objection is inconsistent with both the Comprehensive Plan 27 and the Westlake master plan, which require that a neighborhood commercial use be • 28 located within the interior of the Westlake PUD at the particular location of this 4 .. �9 proposed project. The opponent's concern about the appropriateness of the proposed • " •` I 0 use are not relevant approval issues for this application. 31 v, 3 2 The relevant development approval standards and policies address how the use can be . 3 3 best constructed, but the commercial center itself is an outright permitted one. `• 34 PAGE ' ' , :. ' 0 7 DR 13-90-915 a ' A. r 1 III• aPsign and Impact Management Considerations. 2 The City's Impact Management and Commercial Land Use Policies en"ourage ' 3 applicants to balance a development's negative impacts on adjacent residential areas • ` 4 and on trees and other natural resources. The record in this case demonstrates that, over ' 5 the course of the year in which this application has been'pending, the developer's h • N 6 architect has made numerous changes and improvements to the project's design in 7 response to comments from the staff and neighbors. It is clear that to allow for a ,, ; 8 neighborhood commercial project of reasonable size at this site requires a balancing j - 9 between the preservation of the maximum number of trees while at the same time ; ' ; 10 providing a sufficient buffer for the adjacent residential area, Minimizing impacts on 11 and maintaining the privacy for the house closest to the project requires siting the 12 buildings closer to the wooded portion of the site. 13 14 The approved site plan and design does a good job of balancing these competing policy 15 concerns. The buildings and related design elements comples•nent the residential 16 neighborhood in which they are to be located. The developer has abandoned the typical I M 17 monolithic strip center design in favor of a clustering of separate buildings with exterior ' 18 details relating to the neighboring residential structures. This design aspect, coupled i 19 with the site plan which preserves the largest number of trees consistent with buffering 20 the residential area from buildings and parking, while preserving workability of the 21 center, balances the site characteristics and satisfies the design and impact criteria. 22 23 IV. Maximum Tree Preservation, 24 As discussed above, the design and site plan for the building represent an appropriate r ' 25 response to the City's policies that encourage protection of trees while at the same time 26 allowing for a reasonable economic use of the property. The applicant has proposed to 27 develop a tree preservation program and a post—construction maintenance program for 28 the project, and the development of such programs has been made a condition of 29 approval. See Condition of Approval 44 No. 6, J , :�1 In addition, as required by City Code Chapter 55, the applicant will be required to 32 obtain a tree cutting permit prior to the removal of any trees that are five inches or A9 33 greater in diameter, That Code requirement is stated in the approval order. Developers do not need to apply for the tree cuttingthey •rJ. 34 PP Y permit at the time receive their initial °, development approval. Based on the testimony of the applicant's arborist, it will be . x PAGE feasible for the applicant to obtain the tree cutting permits necessary to implement the 41) :• 8 DR 13-90-915 , . ,, !Jn t L 1 approved site plan. Further, the evidence demonstrates that the site plan will allow for •�y ,F< r: 2 the maximum number of trees to be saved that is possible, and that those trees proposed ° :y 3 to be saved will preserve the neighborhood character and, further, those trees proposed 4 to remain will be able to survive the impacts of construction. c, 5 6 The tree preservation plan to be developed pursuant to Condition of Approval No, 6 is 7 intended to prevent inadvertent or secondary damage to those trees that are not 8 permitted for removal. The opponent's attorney objects to Condition No. 6, arguing 9 'Ytl •� ' 9 that the DRB should not delegate this matter to the staff, but rather the DRB itself must 10 review "a specific plan designating exactly which trees am proposed for retention, and 11 determining whether those trees designated to be saved can in fact survive under the w . 12 proposed development plan." The DRB rejects the opponents' attorney's suggestion 13 that it review the tree cutting application and preservation procedures for each 14 individual tree on the site. Common practice under Oregon's land use system is to • 15 delegate the implementation of such technical matters to the staff. The City's tree 16 cutting ordinance, in conjunction with the testimony of the applicant's arborist, provide 17 a sufficient basis for the staff to determine which trees should be cut down, and for the s:; 18 staff to assist the developer in taking reasonable steps to preserve those trees that are 19 not approved for removal. 20 21 The applicant's arborist has provided persuasive testimony as to the reasonable and ° '., r. �' ippropriate preservationstepsp ` � � "- 22 Pp p to tree that can be taken and are feasible. The development 23 of a tree preservation program, in conjunction with the staff, is one additional approach 24 to achieving and preservation of the maximum number of trees on the site. ' ,/ 25 26 In summary, the more persuasive evidence demonstrates that the applicant has satisfied 27 the City's policies and standards that encourage a site plan and design that preserves the „c 28 maximum number of trees as is feasible considering the need to buffer the project from 29 the adjoining residential areas and the need to provide for a feasible development '10 consistent with the use allowed for by the City Code and the Westlake PUD. 1N• 31 l 32 IV. No Essential Wetlands. Condition of Approval No. ° 3 3 pp 4 require;l the applicant to obtain all necessaryapprovals 34 from the Division of State Lands and the U.S, Army Corps of Engineers "prior to •` p altering the nonessential wetlands on the site." (Emphasis added.) That condition PAGE reflects the City's long—established policy of leaving all regulation of"nonessential" 9 DR 13-90--915 Y , t V . a , .ra .. . • .• i. . Ir • s G r - ` rr i • F,. l k • 1 wetlands to the state and federal governments. Zoning Code Chapter 4 makes clear that 2 only those wetlands which meet the City's definition of"essential" are to be regulated ., 3 by the City. The overwhelming weight of the evidence in the record demonstrates that0 c:•4 there are no essential wetlands on the subject site. There is no real evidence, 5 compelling or otherwise, in the record pointing to existence of any essential wetlands i on this site. >1 7 V. Iff 8 9 in approving the development of previous phases in the Westlake PUD, the City found, i 10 and LUBA has affirmed, that the traffic impacts of the entire Westlake PUD were 11 considered and addressed when the project was originally approved. Because the 12 proposed retail/office center is consistent with the use of the site anticipated when the 13 Westlake PUD was approved, it is not necessary for the applicant in this case to submit 14 a new traffic study. The City has previously determined that each phase of the . 15 Westlake PUD has developed at a lower level of intensity than was originally approved, 16 The City has also previously determined that the original traffic reports developed in . 17 support of the Westlake PUD remain valid and accurate. The PUD as a whole, • r' 18 including the proposed neighborhood commercial center, is developing in a manner that ): 19 is consistent with the master plan approvals. The previous findings regarding traffic; 20 remain valid and binding for this application. 21 •22 The applicant has submitted a traffic analysis that demonstrates that the existing streets `' 23 and intersections in the area will have sufficient capacity to safely accommodate the 24 traffic generated by the proposed center. The applicant's expert has persuasively 25 rebutted the concerns raised by the opponents' engineer. For the most part, the 26 opponents' engineer's criticisms are focused on isolated or minor details in the various 27 traffic studies, none of which undermine the overall validity of the studies. Further, the 28 opponents' engineer's claim that the relevant internal intersections are not adequate is • ' 29 rebutted by the evidence presented both by the applicant's expert and the evidence in t' 10 the prior traffic studies prepared in support of the Westlake PUD, 31 r R 32 Traffic safety measures involving crosswalks and signage are within the control of the 33 City's Traffic Control Board. Both the applicant and neighbors have indicated 34 willingness to seek further review of Westlake traffic safety measures. However, the 4 review of these features are not in the control of the Development Review Board. PAGE . 10 1..JR 13-90-915 •ri f, .. 0 1 t ORFFR o r ' Y 2 IT IS ORDERED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD of the City of Lake t. 3 Oswego that: 1. DR 13-90 is approved subject to compliance with the conditions of approval set forth • '' . 4 in Subsection 2 of this Order. t 5 2. The conditions for DR 13--90 are as follows: 6 a ; A. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits: 7 1. The final exterior color selection shall be reviewed and approved by staff. 8 2. The roofing material on all buildings shall consist of cedar shingles. ' 9 3. The final location and design of trash enclosures shall be submitted for the h 1 10 review and approval of staff. :' is 11 4. The applicant shall obtain all necessary approvals from the Division of State Lands and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, prior to altering the • 12 nonessential wetlands on the site. 13 a 5. The final design of street furniture, bike racks and paving materials for the •.• 14 pedestrian plaza shall be reviewed and approved by staff. Additional bike 15 racks shall be provided on—site. ;', . 6. The applicant shall submit a tree preservation program and a post ` 16 construction maintenance program for review and approval of staff, after 17 consultation with an arborist chosen by the applicant from a list of qualified 18 arborists developed by staff. The tree preservation plan shall include: `+ '. 19 — A tree felling plan. " •'4 ' '' :r 0 20 — Protective measures to be taken during construction, such as temporary fencing around the dripline of trees. 21 — Supervision of construction activities and any root cutting or pruning. 22 The arborist shall be on site for construction and shall provide a log of 23 inspections upon the request of staff. 24 — Tree protection fencing along the north property line in order to protect the existing open space Tract "B". '' 25 7. Submit a final landscape plan for review and approval of staff. This plan 26 shall show: 27 — Those Sessile Trillium which are located in the areas to be landscaped as 28 being preserved within the landscaped areas. And those Sessile Trillium that are not located in the areas to be landscaped as being.trans, nted to .,planted • ' 29 an appropriate location on the site specified by a qualified expert. 10 — A solid 6' high fence along the north and east property lines abutting 31 residential lots, w 32 — Of the trees proposed to be planted, 20% shall be 4" caliper or larger, 20% shall be 2" caliper or larger and the remainder shall be as specified 33 on the landscape plan. 34 8. Submit irrigation plans and specifications for review and approval of staff, per City standards, , ' PAGE ` r . ..,,,co. .,, . 11 DR 13-90-915 •,.. ' , ii-'1'''.\. : :,..: 4 a ,r t . r, t , t ` r r 4a t 4 tn-• r ./, , 4 t 7 f l t + + ,, •r Q I .. `. .' kw'^} S t` Id < ;, r a, 9. Submit a final drainage pl ans for review and approval of the City Engineer, 1 per City Standards. F 2 10. Submit a final erosion control plan for review and approval of the City x 3 Engineer, per Erosion Control Plans Technical Guidance Handbook. 4 11. Submit a detailed geotechnical report for review and approval of the City w` h 5 Engineer, per City Standards. 12. The proposed lights shall have proper shielding in the g ea and on the 'r ,, ; 6 builings to prevent potential glare onto the adjacent 7 Lighting shall not exceed 150 watts (high pressure sodium). 13. Final construction plans for any public improvements shall be submitted for • 9 review and approval of the City Engineer. 14. Final site plan and construction plans shall incorporate all recommendations r' 1Q Itt• " ' listed in Exhibit 22 and as modified and w Exhibitalkways to the site Gin order to 11 walkways to connect street—sidepaths { ; ' encourage pedestrian access. 12 . Y 15, Any alteration of the existing island in Westlake Drive other than that shown 13 on Exhibits 4,9, 10 and 89 shall be subject to review and approval 14 Board. • �.. • ` 15 16. Submit a final development schedule for the review and approval of staff, , ,Y r to the ssl,nnc„�of an v Pe its: 17 i. Designate the proposed driveways as fire lanes in the deed or on a recorded map, and post the roadway as such, per DS 19.020(1)(e), 1a 19 2. Provide easements for public utilities that exist for the review and approval of the City Engineer. � 20 ��TTTC)NAL INFORMATIQN. t . 21utilityplan onlyverified the location and capacity of • 1. Staffreview of preliminary 22 utilities to serve the site. 23 2. If fill is placed on any lot, the extent of the fill shall be shown on as—builts, accompanied by a statement that the fill meets the minimum requirements for bearing 24 soils adopted by the Uniform Building Code. 25 3. A tree cutting permit shall be obtained prior to removal of any trees that are 5" or ;� r d _ 26 greater in diameter. . 27 , M 28 w l9 '�0 31 ,• Yr. 32 33 • 34 ' . '....,P•731.... PAGE 12 DR 13-90-915 t r 1 � t 2 I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the • Development Review Board of the City of Lake Oswego. 3 r 4 DATED this dayof , 19__, 5 6 S p V y. 8 Robert H. Foster, Chairman • 9 Development Review Board '', ` 10 ut di/t / ? 11 . L/b\)-(1)'- 12 Secretary .; ,� 13 14 A'1'1'EST: , . 15 ` 16 ORAL DECISION-October 7. 1991 P ` r 17 AYES: Sievert, Stanaway and Foster t' \ i 1 j 1.. 18 NOES: Remy and Starr • , ', �; 19 ABSTAIN: Greaves 2p ` ws ABSENT: Bloomer 21 22 WRITTEN FINDINGS=December- 9, ]991 1Zinr Vote) 23 24 AXES: Sievert, Remy and Starr 4 , 25 NOES: None '-•:, 26 ABSTAIN: Greaves and Bloomer 27 ABSENT: Stanaway and Foster ), 28 WRITTEN FINDINGS - December 1.6, 1991 (Second Vote) ` AYES: Stanawway, Foster and Starr hq' 31 NOES: None 32 ABSTAIN: Greaves 33 ABSENT: Sievert, Remy and Bloomer 34 ., • PAGE �' 13 DR 13-90-915 A ✓ N A, ' i • . ! ,. tt “ ft. • 1 i 1 ... L• 'EXHIBIT >d September 28 , 1992 1 r . c'2_ l3•-Q o LL ,:n. The Development Review Board City of Lake Oswego ��.I G , ` 380 "A" Ave . Lake Oswego, OR 97034 , Dear Members of the Development Review Boards • t This information is being submitted to you in conjunction with AP •, :, 4 f; 91-13-954 ,pproved in part by the City Council and DR 13-90-915 ;{ , which was "REMANDED" back to the Development Review Board "to bring the application into compliance with the neighborhood • commercial designation and the redesign of the project to be compatible with the surrounding single-family residential neighborhood . " ; w� -; The City Council ordered that the redesign of the project shall • , comply with nine specific guidelines . r Nick Bunick, the owner of the property and Michael Moody and Rick Eckard the developers of the property , proceeded in having many z' � meetings with representatives of the Homeowner' s Association in ;; , order to address those guidelines . The meetings generally lasted • ��'' between 2 to 2 1/2 hours over a period of many weeks and began . ,''• after the order was adopted by the City Council in July of 1992 , , > . The representatives of the appellants numbered from 7 to 8 people d' and included three of the officers who are members of the board • of directors of the Homeowner ' s Association in Westlake . This included Erin Meadors , the president , Bob Barton the vice ' s; president and board director , Ray Sahlberg • The meetings were extremely productive with both sides providing their input and '.: positions on the various guidelines in which the City Council• ordered to be addressed , �� •y fir. �� The plan now before you represents many MAJOR changes from that plan which was previously approved by you, the Development Review Board, last yeas , The plan before you actually represent , the ; fifth new design that was created by us since the City o uncil . t. &k (9 F✓ ;. ' r ,: ordered as a result of the meetings with the representatives of `• ', ** the Westlake Homeowner ' s Association, and this fifth design is /S0. actually a composite or "HYBRID" of some of the elements contained in the previous four designs . We wish to address the nine items specifically that the City Council REMANDED to be brought before you, the Development Review Board, as a continuation of the hearing . It is important to note that the , ry ORDER b;, the City Council confined itself exclusively to these nine issues . They are as follows : ,yr: _ m ' 1 . The City Council ORDER stated that "the setback between the commercial buildings and the boundaries of the single-family " residential parcels be increased, OR the two story building ti .. shall be relocated so that only one story buildings were 1. directly adjacent to the single-family residential parcels" . . . . The plan before you accomplishes BOTH of those 'r objectives in that the setbacks have been increased as well i ': as the fact that the two-story building that was located on • '' ' .. ... , , ,,, . .: the southeast corner of the property has been reduced to a one-story building . The building, which is two-story , is located in the northwest portion of the property has now been given an increased set-back distance from the single- family house which is northeast of it , This building now abuts the open space area of Westlake, 2 . We were directed to "place the building utilities , such as air conditioning and heat , in such a manner as to not be ' 'ir': 4 !. visible" . , . , The new plans and elevations have addressed .• this issue so that these utilities are not visible , 3 , We were ordered that the design shall be "oriented more towards pedestrian/bicycle use than the previously approved l ' ', design , Also that additional bike storage shall be provided" , . . , The plan before you is SUBSTANTIALLY more '� r t oriented towards pedestrian/bicycle use than the previously approved plan . We created a number of different green areas S i , ,a , t � - t ,a. r j: throughout the property which also include gazebos that have :,.4 shelters over them. The new plan also includes pedestrian - ' ,e;''. ; ' 0 s S' pathways throughout the property which continue around the `- . •, entire neighborhood commercial center as well as to the n . gazebos . These ,.athways as well as the gazebos are oriented ,.�., '' both to those who are on foot as well as those that may x } possibly be riding bicycles . Bike storage areas will be t r' i provided as shown on the plans . •1 4 . The City Council ordered that the "design material be made : , • , . . more compatible with the surrounding single-family homes . It also stated that the buildings shall be no taller than the adjacent two-story homes and that roof utructures from • the surrounding homes shall be used , but that flat roofs b" '` ' shall be prohibited" . . . . The design and materials that are ',� '• ` before you have been made substantially compatible with the surrounding single-family homes . We have used exactly the same roofing material , brick decoration, siding material and , ;' windows with wooden grills as are found in the single-family homes in the Westlake area. We have also incorporated non- . commercial designs of roofs . . 5 . The City Council ordered that "the median island adjacent to the site shall not be reduced or removed" . . . . This ' requirement has been met . A:. 6 . It was ordered that "garbage collection receptacles shall be relocated away from the boundaries of single-family • , properties" . . . . This objective has been met . 1 + � 7 . It was ordered that the plan "shall increase the amount of r i native trees used as replacement trees where native treed would be viable" . . . . This order has been implemented into our tree planting design. IM,1 9 8E9 Number eight dealt with square footage and number nine dealt. y4 114• ' .Ct,,, e , with parking places . s. t 1 • 1 , • t To our knowledge, the only issues which we are not in agreement z .'° ... with the representatives of the Homeowner 's Association has to do ; " with item numbers eight and nine which are related to each other . ♦ , That first issue deals with a reduction in the square footage of the 35 ,000 square feet that was approved in the original PUD approval in 1981 and the ordinance that was adopted. That ' ordinance allowed 35 , 000 square feet of improvements to be built J , on our property , t During testimony before the City Council , the City Council was left with the impression from remarks made by staff as well as r those representing the appellants , that the population in r / Westlake, when Westlake is completely i.., p y built-out , � going to be fr less than the population was "ORIGINALLY PROJE'1.1 .,0" f at the time that our neighborhood commercial property was a pptove, for 35 , 000 square feet . Based on that erroneous assumption, the City 1 , ',1 )' C 1 Council concluded that the improvements that were �- '• approved by you (the DRB) for our neighborhood commercial center were too large in volume and that the 35 , 000 square feet should be reduced. The City Council also decided that as a guide for determining the appropriate reduction, the DRB should consider the difference between the projected density of the Westlake PUD at "build-out" 4 versus the "projecteddensity" .. at the time of approval of the PUD in 1981 . °' We sincerely believe that the 35 , 000 square feet of improvements w .y p • that was approved by you previously is consistent in si;.e with • the acreage which represents the neighborhood commercial + p g property which is 113 , 256 square feet after construction and dedication of the streets on its west and south sides , We also believe that the reason this became an issue in which we were ORDERED by the City Council to make a reduction, is ® { . because the elevations that were presented previously in the plan that was approved by ' you, ♦, •» the Development Review Board, gave the impression of the . . .• 't . -� . ,. 1 .t. .1 a of 1.. .• 9 t r ... L , Y 1 builthings being taller than they actually were because of the roof line designs , as well as the remarks that were made by staff and some of the opponents which gave the City Council thw impression that the population at "build-out" in Westlake was actually going to be substantially less than was "originally planned" , • It is unfortunate that this ORDER was made by tho City Council , .� based on some of the misconceptions that existed at the appeal• hearing , We believe that a reduction from 35 ,000 :square feet is not necessary to accomplish the objectives that are desired. Instead, the reductions will create economic hardships which could result in this neighborhood commercial center being an• economic failure. Our studies show that not only is 35 ,000 square feet of improvements a reasonable amount of square footage for a property of this size, but that if the reduction is more than just nominal , the project would be exposed to likely economic failure . We do not feel that we should be "punished" to having to reduce the square footage arbitrarily , which could cause economic failure, if there is no justification and we have accomplished all of the other objectives of the City Council . • At any rate, we are providing you with a compromise proposal for a reduction in size in order to comply with the City Council ' s • ORDER. We feel that our proposal is fair and realistic . The • t following information explains in detail an analysis of those •'v numbers : • 1 . Regarding the single-family and multi-family lots that have ' already been developed, there is a total of 443 units , of which 160 are multi-family and 283 are single-family . 2 . Regarding the single-family lots which have been approved • for development , but have not Yet been developed, there are 192 and regarding the multi-family lots that have been approved, but notlet developed, there are 352 units . .. . , . 1 K.. 3 , Regarding the single-family lots which have been approved in A the PUD master plan, but have not vet been processed before - the Development Review Board for actual development , this property could be developed into a minimum of 55 lots or to ':: a maximum of 62 lots . In the spirit of cooperation and compromise, we have chosen to show only +t.,p, lots as a criteria for these single-family lots which have not yet been developed although the maximum that was originally } approved allowed for 62 lots . 4 . Regarding the multi-family properties , which are on Center •. Pointe Drive, which have been approved in the PUD master ' ir, plan but have not yet been processed before the Development Review Board, it allowed a minimum of 206 units to a maximum of 258 units . We have used 240 units to represent that ' anticipated number of units at "build-out" , although we / sincerely believe the number most likely will be the 258 % % ' units , because it is in a commercial area off of Center Pointe Drive where there is no single-family residential and i /' is directly across the street from the commercial office buildings , Also , it is close to the 1-5 freeway . r 5 . At any rate , the total number of single-family units based on those that are already built , those approved to be built , which are not Yet developed and those vet to be processed represents 515 single-family units and 752 multi-family units for a total number of units of 1267 . t 6 . The City Councils ORDER said that a comparison must be made based on the 1267 units which are projected as the total at. "build-out" as compared to the "PROJECTED DENSITY" at the time that the 35 , 000 square feet commercial was approved .art .Nti 1981 , The following information is regarding the "PROJECTED DENSITY" at the time of approval in 1981 : ;w. , ' '• a. The projections were made by the original Westlake r zit. ,:.'...:" ... .,..:::.;': • applicant , Nick Bunick, of Nick Bunick Construction tl . ; . Company . We are submitting to you Exhibit "A" which shows the first page as the cover page to the ' ' • ^ projections and the next two , pages representing the � ,� background information regarding the Nick Bunick Construction Company,p y, as a verification to you that this document represented the projections , ' b. The next page of Exhibit "A" provided is page 28 of that document , which shows that the number of units ' , that were projected by the applicant , based on the analysis of tax revenues for the City of Lake Oswego, was 552 single-family units and 670 multi-family units • you can see,a total of 1, 222 units . As this s �; represents actually LESS units "ORIGINALLY PROJECTED" than the 1 , 267 that will actually be experienced at � • "build-out" . 4,} • . ., ... . , .,.. . . :. c. We then submit page 32 • . We have highlighted for you the same 552 single-family units and 670 multi-family ;:U units that were `projected, which again is slightly less f ', than will actually be experienced at "build-out" , d. Lastly, we include page 37 , which deals with the impact on city services , Again the applicant, Nick Bunick , identified the "projections" r 'projection of 552 single-family lots and 670 multi-family units for a total of 1 , 222 units , , ' which is slightly below the 1267 units which area expected at "build-out" , • Obviously , if we were to use the formula of "ORIGINAL r PROJECTIONS" versus "build-out" , we actually would be entitled to 4•• increase the 35 , 000 square feet , As previously stated, it is ° unfortunate that testimony was given by staff and others whir:h •• , A gave the members of the Council the impression that the "buil�.d- . . . .A ,, .ice / 1 out" population is actually going to be less than was "originally " , I., , ; projected" as well as their thinking the building elevations t..'.',', ' 4* '.',:". ,..'4. f' appeared to have too much mass . ` .' Therefore, we are offering a compromise in order to accomplish f4 the the ORDER of t City Council . Our compromise in the plan before you is a reduction from 35 , 000 square feet that was approved in the ordinance in 1981 to instead 33 , 000 square feet . The 2 ,000 square foot reduction was , accomplished by reducing square footage from the two--story r: , building? To be candid, we do not feel that the reduction of l : 't '' 2 ,000 square feet , or reducing it more than 2 ,000 square feet , or leaving it at the 35 ,000 square feet will, even be visibly noticeable or have any impact on the cosmetics or esthetics of the project . On the other hand, any additional decrease in . •, square footage could have a disastrous impact on the economics of Ir' •the project and would create substantial hardship to us . As previously stated, we sincerely believe, in honesty , that there shouldn' t even be a reduction to 35 ,000 square feet for several °a { reasons : / 1 . 35 , 000 square feet is a reasonable amount of square footage, • <'• y. , :�. on a neighborhood commercial property of this size , which r'. was 3 acres before street dedication. h'R 2 ? The elevations have been substantially changed, so that the improvements are visual '', gentle and not imposing on the property . d r.; 3 . The changes that were made in the elevations and designs of the buildings have been substantial , which at the same time e ' substantially reduces the size, and mass volume of the improvements physically and visually , 'o '. 4. 4 . The population within Westlake is actually going to be ', ,. • r r ' slightly greater than that which was "originally projected" , as shown in the exhibits that were submitted by the HI'(:*„.:::,!. applicant in 1981 , who is also the owner of the property in tea rw f , l the application before you now . 1 5 . However, in the spirit of compromise, we are prepared to comply with City Council ' s ORDER, we request that you 1 r _ ` approve the project before you with the ',eduction shown from 35 ,000 square feet to 33 , 000 square feet . .a; At the time that the development was approved in 1981 , there was a tremendous amount of pressure that was being placed on the City , '' of Lake Oswego by the Land Conservation Development Commission fir' (LCDC) in order to have the city increase the potential density P , „ , of land in Lake Oswego, LODC felt that the City of Lake Oswego d � was not meeting their quota as compared to the cities around r { them, regarding the absorbing of the population growth! Therefore, your predecessors in 1981 as well as the 1981 City Council , in our PUD approval , created a mi'aimurn and maximum table in terms of the potential "build-out" of Westlake . The total number of units shown on Table "A" of the PUD master plan had a minimum range of 1 , 234 units and a maximum range of 1 , 527 units . Unfortunately , representatives of the Homeowner ' s Association have come up with a reduction position which is extreme and will cause economic failure to the neighborhood commercial center , Their position uses the numbers which represented the absolute maximum number of units allowed be built in Westlake as opposed to the amount that was actually anticipated being built , Their , , ` s d position takes the maximum number of units allowed of 1 , 527 as • 6 ' its basis , and divides that into 1 , 267 units which is projected at "build-out" which equates to a number of 82 , 9% . Their position is to then reduce the 35 ,000 square feet to a number ; ' which is 82 . 9% of that amount . It is unfair to use that amount �: on the table of 1 , 527 maximum units that was established to 0 pacify LCDC. In fact , it is physically impossible to have built N • I1 P 1 , 527 units in Westlake. This is evidenced by the material 'W presented to you in Exhibit "A" r K For the representatives of the City of Lake Oswego based on the +� Y , above facts , to require a greater reduction in size than the compromised reduction to 33 ,000 square feet , would be arbitrary , 1, • punitive and would create substantial economic hardship to the property owner and developers . We are requesting that the n members of the Development Review Lord reject the proposal using a fictitious number of 1. , 527 units . The projected density by the °. { ''=' • applicant who is now also the property owner in 1981 when the M,,�uf-' k"' 35 ,000 square feet was app roved was 1 , 222 units , as compared to the 1, 267 units that will be experienced at "build-out" , '' ' F . The other issue that we are not in agreement with the Association's representatives has to do with the number of parking places , The Council ordered that the number, of parking spaces shall be reduced to the minimum number required by code , 0 ...-‘ ,. . .. •:' We are in agreement with that formula , but obviouslythe number ; , of the parking spaces will be directly related to the total {f 1 '' 1r amount of square footage, whether it be 35 , 000 square feet or b some square footage less than that . Enclosed is Exhibit "B" , 1, • ,, which is a letter dated August 3 , 1992 , from Robert Galante explaining the formula for the parking spaces . We are not asking { for a change from this formula or for ,';: any more parking Spaces ; than the formula allows , which is explained in detail in the letter from Mr . Galante , Lastly, * `• we wish to publicly thank the representatives of the Homeowner ' s Association of Westlake who participated in the many Y1 hours and many meetings that we held with them. We wish to thank them for their sincere effort in working togetheL with us in a spirit of cooperation to create a design which is a substantial � • • ` ` improvement over the one that was • + ._, previously submitted to the0 .. .,. Development Review Board. We sincerely believe that we have met, . the OBJECTIVES of the City Coune,iri and that the futu).. e S 1' 1' neighborhood commercial center will be one that we will all be r•`r proud of and that the center will provide some very important services to the families now living in Westlake as well as the future families who will become residents in this fine re neighborhood " Taking into consideration that this application was originally ' submitted to the City of Lake Oswego eighteen months ago in June jam•;,• .Y r/ YT r of 1991 , we are requesting that the approval pr0mtjs be completed l: today• at this hearing ry Sincerely, • Nick BUnick • ,f Original applicant of the property . Now current owner of the property , • • rf Vs s \14, Y11x it •1' •� l N .41 t itl P'. Y J• , a J .h TJ4 e ?' q♦ r f: EXHIBIT 'Afl t • YY • • 1 ' J L t 1 r 1 � ' N N :J 4.4.411 WESTL • a proposedplanned community Y Y ✓�.,d •i • fy • J ,,•: submitted to the city ►�;�:'. of lake oswego by nick bunick construction inc. � r • I • 1•. 1' rl iM • •. •• • prepared by: nick bunick construction, inc, + EXHIBIT y — steffanoff, horning and associates cf 3 • n k 1 • bk 13-9 bit ` '' 'r�l r w r GC. .... . , �. NICK BU IC CONSTRUCTION . .„ _ .. .,, ' •206 WESTHILLS MAt,!, • 4478 SW SCROLLS FERRY RD. • - . , PORTLAND, OREGON 97225 • 29 •9287 a " ° 't 9 ut ,fin ExceL}"ence t r � r ry February 1, 1977 4 . City of Lake Oswego ` • • City CouncilRE: :?? Planning Commission Westlake . City Planning Staff Tax acre development} ' gyp Lot 100 , Sec 6 , T23 , Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 R1E• a Dear Staff, Commissioner, and Councilmen: Enclosed i, you will find an in-death report and development program for the referenced property. The report consists of a complete background, site analysis and community •impact for the Westlakei, :, property, formerly known as the Mormon Church property or Bonita Meadows. These elements generate. ' '':,..;. : 's 410 • gram and master plan resulting in the land uses beingtbalancedowithpthe .;Y� �, physical constraints of the site and the public facilities capacities �", "' `y'.• of the community. This report is also structured to analyze the proposed ` project' s degree of conformity to LCDC goals and guidelines as` !1 • „ the citizen input for your eventual Comprehensive Plan revisions .part o i • Attached to this report and program are a series of maps ,diagrams depictingp , plans , and g Pict n natural and man-made influences on and around the ' i .. , . Westlake site. These drawings and report document several months research and on-site investigation that will be impossible to• minutes allocated for our verbal present in the 25 Y .. ; . ; a y We therefore, presentation to you on February 7, 1977 . suggest that the report and related documents be read and '.` . reviewed in their entirety after that February 7th meeting so that their formal introduction into theComprehensive is proceeded with full understanding obytthes , P inlanComm process +'� and Council, g Commission • as '� ++ " Recognizing that development of such a large property, in light of today ' s :_ planning ond approval requirements and procedures, demands this extensive documentation we are concerned about the time it will take for your re- view and therefore, ask the following: ,' 1. When do you anticipate we will have a response and recommendation from your staff, Planning commission, and Council regarding our t . ,t: proposal? 2 . What will be the format of the land use designation ' comprehensive land plan when it is adopted3 g on of your new 1 `� :" • till �7 J 't 7 '4 f ''s page 2 City of Lake Oswego ,,' ,. Feb• 1, 1977 ., • / these points are of ` • 4 A paramount importance to us in our consider- ' " _ Lake and thoughts of voluntarily annexing into the City of , • . r Sincerely, s'. Nick Bunick Ni3:j mb — enclosure F. J y' ,•A j w•• S f } �✓ r ,4 V- + of • ". tt /I , :• M1 . ..P.. Y — K,.. 1J ` : i " . " .p " 1, , ,� i • I, / ti r 1 Y, , y t I V. TAX REVENUES . In order to determine the tax revenues of Westlake , one must first examine the housing attitudes planned, the number of units in each attitude, their respective values and the commercial development and its respective value. ' ' The community of Westlake will contain: q'a. Approximately 227 . 5 acres of residential development. v- , r b. The residential development will be a mixture of single {,t family and multi-family (apartments and townhouses) . c. There will be approximately 552 single-family homes and 670 multi-family units: _� a. 199 townhouses - b. 471 apartments, ' t Using the City of Lake Oswego' s projections as to the commercial development which are as follows: ti a. 30 acres of commercial development . . 0 x i t, Y. r: L; b. Value assumed at $3 .00 per square foot or $3, 920 ,000 c. Building value at $30 .00 per square foot with 30% lot coverage equals $11, 761, 200 . • {14 d. Total value: $15 , 681, 600 r a ' 4 Total valuations of Westlake: 1. Single family a. Unit value: $70 ,000 .00 b . No. of units: 552 c. Total value: $38, 640 , 000 . 00 • t... 2. Multi-family , a. Townhouses ° 1. Unit Value: $55 ,000 .00 2 . No. of Units : 199 3 . 'Petal value: $10 , 945,000.00 * i b. Apartments 1. Unit Value: $30 ,000 . 00 2. No. of units: 471 3 . Total Value: $14 ,130 , 000.00 Page 28 •Au • • _i,' 1' 1 , rY 3. There will be approximately the following number of residential units in the respective attitudes : a. 552 single-family homes b . 670 multi-family units 4 . Approximately 35 acres of Westlake will be in commercial • development. � p The factors that must be given consideration are the family size per living unit and whether the living unit is a single family or multi-family unit, and the school population of. ;` these respective units . We are using for single-family a factor of 3 . 16 persons per unit. We are further using for the town- ' 01. houses and apartments a figure of 1.92 Persons per unit. `� f� We are using the figure of . 914 for the number of children that are school age per unit sincrle-family, and in addition . 20 school children per unit for the multi-family which in- { -- corporates both townhouses and apartments . ` I'. 11 The average family size per unit: a, single-family: 3. 16 times 552 equals 1744 persons . b. multi-family: 1.92 times 670 equals 1286 persons . c. The total projected residential population of Westlake will be approximately 3030 people. • • • •r School population per residential unit: a. single-family: . 914 times 552 equals 505 students . I b. multi-tamily: . 20 times 670 equals 134 students . c. The total projected school population of Westlake equals 639 students . Forty-six percent of the total school population is in the elementary schools . Of the school population, 16 . 5 percent is in the junior high school and 37 . 5 percent of the total school population is in the high schools. This would indicate that the projected 639 students that wouJilli be enrolled in school district No. 7 upon completion would • `' fall into the respective schools within the school system: Page 32 • • d �' / y to y ,-0 f ' ° p i r. y v, . ° °d" 4 �� 4. f ,r l. b) Impact on City services. r As indicated in the proceeding analysis, Westlake is a proposed community development having the following basic land uses : Total Acreage 278. 5 + Commercial Development 35 acres + A4. 9 Neighborhood Commercial Development 3 acres + 4-.. ; , Church Use 13 acres r+ , ', ,, Residential Use 227 . 5 acres + 'v % Single family 170 . 5 acres + Multiple family 57 acres + ~' f f i 1 As previously noted, this development is proposed to have the ;M i"M1 `, following development characteristics: Z use Commserci. al Development, Area - An area of mixed commercial ,44 j; Neighborhood Commercial Development - A village center concept, T neighborhood oriented services - small grocery, baker, laundry, barber, offices, small delicatessen restaurant and perhaps a ser- vice station. Y5 Church Use - A meeting hall and perhaps another church structure ' ,. at some later date. , i. Residential Area - Approximately 552 single Lamily homes. ` r ,'''• •• H.' �`.' Approximately 670 multiple family units: 199 townhouse type : r 471 apartment units. �.. The community is expected to have a very high market demand with homes starting in value at around $60 ,000.00 and commercial develop , ment of a consistent quality and architecturally keyed to the re- ' c mainder of the community. The townhouse type units (some may in . • fact, become condominiums and other perhaps will be high • ' .p p g quality _ rental units) are expected to range in value from $40 , 000 . 00 to $80 , 000 . 00 . The apartments are expected to he in $30 , 000 , 000 + value range with some units in the lower enOs ' f this value to accommodate young married couples and olr.erly members of the community. The Lake Oswego city's manager' s -ffice recently compiled a ``" published report providing an overview of the financial impacts of development in the "west end - Bonita Meadows" . The proceeding Page 37 , ` „Y.. " i_ {•a, as t r ' EXHIBIT "B" k 1 .. A DICE . - -,•• s; .. ..ric.1„itlis .,,,,....7,..% ht OREGotk � „ r "i DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ' August 3, 1992 , ' Nick Bunick � 5282 SW Meadows Road Lake Oswego,OR 97035 . RE: Westlake Commercial Parking Dear Nick: I understand that there may be some confusion over what will be required to determine the .- • number of parking spaces for the Westlake Commercial site, This letter is intended to provide 1 , ;.:, • some clarification. • The Council Order, AP 91--13-954 (portion attached), lists condition "2" as follows: "2, The number of parking spaces provided shall be reduced to the minimum : number required by the Lake Oswego Code and Development Standards." " . The Parking and Loading Standard at 7.020(8) lists the required minimum standards (i.e. 1 • space/300 gross sq, ft. for retail and office, 1 space/200 sq, ft, for grocery, 1 space/250 sq. ft. plus 1 space/work station for hair stylist and 1 space/75 sq. ft, for restaurant). These are the requirements that will be applied to any proposal made on the Westlake Commercial site. You • Div,wish to reduce the amount of parking below those minimums if you can demonstrate •' r, compliance with parking modifiers listed at 7.020(9). The modifiers are discretionary and will not be considered by staff to be "required" under the meaning of AP 91-13-954 (Condition 2), Please let me know if you have any further questions, • Sincerely, y " / --4------------'Robert Galante P � Senior Planner 3 • o Et H Im B I ir ' , ' jbn2.114un,sbw4ckJttin 380"A"Avenue ' Post Office Box 369 • Lake Oswego,Oregon 97034 • Plnnnins+ Division;(503)635.0290 ' Building Divisions(503)635.0590 • FAX(503)635.0269 r f I . f 1 t d y- ',4/_y�- r r � 6 : ' t t r , 1•: • ! fi' SE 1 BY; 10-30-92 ; 11 :58 ; OT 1(, Inc,-, 5036387161 .r,• 2' 9 , i; F A • . . ,,';',7 ,;k..,,', . 46) Compliance with Zoning Code Standards :' _ 1, The proposed Neighborhood Commercial the is allowed under the Westlake Overall Developmont ` Plan and Schedule. { • 2, The maximum allowed area per the Comprehensive Plan Commercial Laud Use Policy for the .' ' Kruse • North Noighborhood Commercial District is 86,000 square font, The proposed building ' area is 33,000 square feet. The rational for this reduction in area is praam:lied in a letter from Nick Bunick to the Development Review Board dated September 28, 1902, •F', ;', ry 3, Other Specific Ordinance Requirements: 48.910.1 Required yard adjacent to residential zone; from a structure: 25 feet from a parking lot: 10 feet , .- from a vehicular acceasway: 5 feet fah t' {• Mi As shown on the site plan, Sheet SD-1. The project is in compliance. 48.7,10.2 FAR rivximum - .26 rv, 35,000 square feet per Comprehensive Plan, ,ry 48.310.3 Lot coverage None. 4 ; v, R 48,310.4 Vehicle trip maximum - N/A. • ' ` 4 ,310.6 Height . 35 feet The maximum building height is 23 feet (Building D), • 48.315 Special.Requirements 1, All business, service, repair, processing, storage or merchandise • displayed on property abutting.ar adjacent to a residential zone shall be cunductod wholly within an oncIosad building unless screened Prom the residential zone by a buffer area planted with year around sight " - obscuring landscaping at 0 feet high, " ' The associated business activities will take place within and adjacent to the 'A' interior parking area, None of these activities will be visible from the reeidontial a II`, zones, '4 EXHIBIT • • °� 2, N/A d 3. N/A 1yS • 4, N/A a yr, 13-R0 ,SL. 5. pia eh commercial area identified on the City's Comprehensive Plan Map also is described in the text of Voluble I of the Comprehensive Plan, The specific conditions for each area, other than those areas identified . far subsections (I, 7, and 8 of this section, nee by this reference made a ;. part of this chapter and ere colidittotis and limitations of each zone, SEAT BY' 1 U-30-92 ; 11 :59 : OTai(, Inc.-+ '0363971 t l ;K 3: , 1 "ti ' • Following are the pertinent criterion front the Co; , rohensivo P1• � an for thin site: 0 ..: i•`' r a, shared access points on collector streets and a unified site plan for �* ' e t three acre site, to assure internal circulation and to s traffic congestion on residential streets prevent + ' 'hvo access pointy will distribute traffic onto Westlake Drive andl'arkview � �: Drive, b. development standards which encourage private development in ' accord • with: • height and setback compatible'vith the district Iatid adjacent }residential areas ' The building heights and setbacks continue the existing reafdentIai fabric. • structural and vegetation buffer to separate adjacent .i,, residential areas ,from noise, traffic anti congestion • Thu residences currently have a wood fence separating their rear yards from the project Site, Additionally, substantial landscape buffers will screen the project from the residential neighbors, Most commercial Activity will take place within +,he central ., + aide of the proposed °adding% from the neighborhood,a °n the opposite4'. • pedestrian Walkways, bikeways and safe bike storage, providing a convenient safe altnt ativo to auto travel The proposed project enjoys proximity to a neighborhood pathway. New sidewalks connect to this system and provide direct and safe access to pedestrian gazebos where benches and bike racks are located, This pathway/sidewalk network allows neighbors to visit ovwy shop or officQ { without once crossing a driveway, • street furniture and landscaped areas situated to encourage • social interaction uragc Circulation nodes and open space are marked by pedoatrian are designed to provide sheltered areas for pedestrians to rout and to that encourage interaction, • sharer', -urkfng facilities and walkways to encourage pcdc:stria.n circulation throughout the site. Parking lots should be designed ';: with adequate trees and lnnd&caping, in accord As mentioned above, the pedestrian circulation system will allow cafe access throughout the project, The Landscape Plan, Shoot L•1 shown the • extent of new landscaping which will "soften" the space, • public transit service 0 The nearest bus stop is two blacks south of the project at ICruse Way, It ► is connected to the alto by the existing pathway system, 4• . •- SENT BY, 10-30-92 ; 12:00 ; OTAK, Inc,-, o0363371t 1 ;g 41 0 \ Compliance with Development Standards ° 1.005 Historic Resource Stnnds•td - N/A **,..:,.,'',7......,:::'''''' ,\ 2,005 Building Design 2,020 Standards for Approval 1. iluildings shall be designed and located to complement and preserve existing buildings, streets and paths,bridges and other elements of the built environment. ' Rl a. Design buildings to be complementary in appearance to adjacent structures of good design with regtlyd to: \ I. 11�faterials 4 F it, Setbacks (for retail/commercial part specltical.y) ill. Roof lines iv. Height v. Overall proportions • k This specific area of the `Westlake Neighborhood is comprised of a large multifamily 1, , project, Westlake Meadows, as well as many single family residences, Westlake Meadows ` ' ` features stained wood siding, steeply pitched concrete tile roofs extending down to one itstoryII save lines and subtle accent color, The single fondly residences would be , :'. characterized as large homes with painted wood siding, subtle trim features err.; broad ` wood shingled gable or hip roofs, Generally, they are two story. The homes gone ,I!ly ' align with the minimum front and side yard setback moos. The proposed project respects the established residential pattern in a variety of ways; I • Ccrnoatible Materiels: The propcsed buildings will be clad with painted beveled siding and wood trim similar to their residential neighbors. The roofing will be wood shingles and the end walls will feature large arched roof vents, J• • Streetscape Compatibility: The retail buildings create a strong backdrop for the existing pathway, Their reittionship to the street echoes those of the adjacent v' residential buildings and homes, completing the "fabric" of the neighborhood, • Compatible Roof Linea; The proposed buildings all have gable roofs with 8:12 and 4:12 it. hes, These • p roof pitches are very common in the surrounding neighborhood, • All of the buildings have single story nave lines as do many of the residence in the area, . • �lsic'ht; The proposed building are shorter than most of the surrounding neighborhood buildingi, The only two-story building is located adjacent to a grove of Oak/Ash trees north of the site, All otissr buildings are single story. �, t eU 0 , . . Il.,. , 4l ��i� ,, i'N. 10-30-92 ; 12:01 ; OTAK, Inc. » •so3i� 97lu1 ,T 5/ •:.;...:"., v • O,,er;all Pro onions; 113/ �___.___ Each of the proposed buildings are composed of f elements linked by lower pitched connector masses, p tpea.r to be a ttured gableAmk E Those buildings agip grouping of smaller structures, the linkages being low-keyed and subordinate, hose r smaller feature elements relate directly to the massing of the neighboringui o " : family homes, Additionally, street elevations are enlivened by orientation of the r buildings, Never are two bread sides placed side byelse, zzrgle� acUacent to a side elevation, A front elevation is always The proportions are further delineated by plan undulations, Cornoz`s are card out and elements step forward and back creating Interesting shadow patterns, 2,020.1b N/A 2.020.1c Design bus shelters, drinking fountains, benches, mail boxes, t�tc, to complementary• in n , be appearance to buildings, is cited in the previously mentioned letter from Nick I3unick this r oriented toward the pedestrian, Several gazebos have been placed at pedestrian/coon strongly space nodes. These gazebos are of the same vocabulary used in the other buildings.g 'Phase gazebos shelter benches and bike racks, ,•• 2.020.1d Design those eif,anonts l(stod below to be complementary • • 4 those buildings or structures u ri `3' in appearance to Pon which they are located, ; • Windows and doors have boon ' .\•,' details commonlygrouped together and have wood trim consistent with , found in the neighborhood, Windows have wood \ alludes to these residences, grilles which also • Mechanical equipment will be located gcljacont to the buildingsau with landscaping and fences, y gesso and screened • Gutter and downspouts will be painted to match adjacent surfaces. • Utility connections and meters will be placed in unobtrusive locationo, { • ]wilding signs , ' f� gas vzll be located on the vertical sections of awnings back lighted from beneath the awnings. • Sidewalk lighting will he fluorescent ntnunted beneath awningsand w , incandescent lights as shown on building elevations, Parkin n all `mounted area lights as described on the lighting plan. Area lights will have will be lighted by °'� protect neighboring a.. bhboring properties from glare, cutoff shields to n A H ,Y. • Foundations will be standards " . minimized through planting and footings, Visual impacts of steer walls will be grading', • • Arched gable end wall vents were used to add interest and dotalsimilar 1 ' used at the lower pitched roofs to break up the horizontal line and II Wdo detail is 4 continuity, 0 4 s : ir 1 N. • 6 -. • SENT BY: 10-30-92 ; 12.02 ; OTAK, Inc.-+ 50363971014 66/ 9 2.020.2 Buildings shall be designed end located to complement and preserve existing natural landforms, trees, shrubs and other natural vegetation, ` f a. Cons1e er landforms and trees es design elements which must relate to art' •, building elevations to determine scale and proportion. at0,;t '1'. To the north of the site is an open space which consists of an Oak/Ash forest, �" Adjacent to the north property line, we have placed the only two-story building in the ` project. The eastern part of the site, adjacent to the residential neighborhood, is an open field. Here we have placed one-story buildings whose scale is more complementary to the adjacent homes, b. Design foundations to match the scale of the building,being supported. Berming, rositing, ur sheathing the foundation structure with wall siding are examples of methods;which accomplish this purpose. The foundations will not be exposed, but rather will be partially screened by landscaping. 2.020-3 Buildings shall be designed to minimize the personal security risks of users and '' to minimize the opportunities for vandalism and theft. Building hardware that discourages forced entry and provides approved egress capability shall be used. 4 Building entrances will be well lighted and oriented toward pedestrian areas. The 'health" of the buildings will have no doors but will be continually "monitored" through windows. 2,020.4 Building shall be designed and constructed to reduce noise impacts on interior r ` o:uupied spaces and adjacent property. All noise generating activities will be on the "interior' side of the buildings away from surrounding neighbors. ' 4 9 * `' : 2.020.E Buildings shall be designed and constructed with roof angles, overhangs, fleshings, and gutters that direct water away from the structure, See Exterior Elevations, 2.020.0 N/A .: a_ 3.005 S&,roam Corridors ' • + This site has no stream corridors, A drainage ditch which originates on alto will be re. ` ,, routed, 4.005 Wetlands \, A small area of wetlands will be eliminated, A mitigation area of equal cite will be duvolopod on the uouthwoot corner of the situ. Thin approach has not changed from the " A, original submittal. • 0\, 5.005 Street Lights Existing street lights along Westlake Drive and Parkview Drive will renutin, Internal . access drives and parking areas will be illuminated by 20 feet high pole lights with cut offs to minimize glare. 4 a 60363971 b i 7; 9 ° SEA; Y� 10-30-s2 12 03 OTAK, Inc,N 8°006 Transit System • 1'' Y ,. The nearest bus stop is two blocks soath of the site at Kruse Way and Westlake Drive. An costing public pathway connects the site to this stop, 7.00E Parking and Loading Y For parking layout and tabulation, see the Site Plan, Sheet SD-1r Y" 8,005 Park and Open Space The OPDS for the Westlake U PUD states: t , There vri.il, be a total of 46 acres of open span- The location of approximately 41 acres is indicated on revised Exhibit BD (revised 10/84 e/ The remaining balance of approximately 6 acres will be distributed between Lot 8, Centerpointa Plat multifamily area 3 and single-taniily area 2 of revised Exhibit K. (revised 10/84). Alteration of the distribution of this 6 acres of open apace may be approved by the City Manager as a minor change to the ODPS. The open space requirements for this PUD is being met on the abova•mentionod sites, ja 9.005 Landscaping Screening, and Buffering The existing Oak trees on sits and the adjacent residential area bordering the site are the two major factors driving the landscape design. Because of the sensitivity of the Oaks to construction, major groves were left intact and replanted.with indigenous ground plane ;. plantings, The portion of the alto bordering the residential area is heavily planted with native evergreen trees to form a continuous buffer, Plantings througir:at the remainder of the site are matched closely with the Oak grove and buffer plantings to provide a strong continuity, The completed landscape will appear natural and in character with • the area. ' • 9,O20.1 Commercial and industrial development, other than in the Office Campus Zone, shall provide 16 percent of new buildable area its landscaping and/or `,o oren space, including courtyards, planters, raised beds, espaliers, etc. Office campus developments shall provide 20 percent. Approximately 32 percent of the site will be landscaping which exceeds this minimum ° requirement. , y 9,020-4 All development abutting stroots shall provide street trees at the proper ' spacing far the species. • Westlake Drive and Parkviow Drive each have existing street trees to remain. i , 9,0'20•6 Parking lot plantings shall be designed to allow surveillance of the lot tram the street at several points, U , Interior parking lots will be easily viewed front off ,.to at the entrance corridors leading 'tl into these areas. These parking amens will also be monitored from inside the store and offices, .0+rn i 0. ,v .' ry ri N OTAK, Inc, 5036307l61 :K ti' 0 ' a 9.020•0 Screening and buffering shall be required to: a. Mitigate noise, Iighting or other impacts from adjacent transportation ' - routes or dissimilar uses, h. Screen publics or private utility and storage areas n /ti and parking iota. o. As a separation between dissimilar uses. The perimeter plantings specified on the Landscape Plan, Sheet L1, will satin requirement. ty thin 10,005 Fences • Y v ; Tl~ 'illy now fences are thane required to ecreen mechanical units, 11.005 Drainage Standard for Major Dovelopm.ents The etorni drainage retention requirement is satisfied by the overall THUD system. S the Site Grndint, Plan, Shant$1 .2, and the Site Utility Plan, Shoot SD 3, • , 12.005 N/A 13.005 Weak Foundation Soils The site is identified on City maps as having potential for weak sails, Per the original submittal, preliminary solLs engineering reports suggests soI1s are adequate for the proposed buildings, Complete engineering reports will be tiled with the City prior to construction. ; 14.005 Utility Standard rA Utilities will be provided as shown on the Site Utility Plan, Sheet SD•0, . , 10.005 Hillside Protection and );rosiori Control An erosion control plan, indicating methods to City Standards will be submitted with the project construction documents, n' `i°' 17.005 N/A •. y' 111.005 Access !. The site will be served by two access points, one from Westlake Drive and one from a P• Parkviow Drive. The Westlake Drive access will be right in/right out only, The existing median will not be altered, The Pnrkviow Drive access will allow unrestricted ingress ` r• and egress, See the Site Plan for specific ganmetty of these access points, 10,005 Situ Circulation Standards .• Driveway© and Private Streets All on-site private access aisles and drives conform to the Parldng Standards, Only the ono•w ' y drive.at the compass spaced in the censor of the parking area have aislua fans ' r than 26 feet, Fire tictnicka do not need to position themselves in these aisles, See Plan, Sheet SD-1, for specific geometries, the Site i ' 1 , SENT BY: 10-30-92 12:05 OTAK, Inc, 5036397161 :r 9/ 9 ,. , . 20.005 Site Circulation Standards • Bikeways and Walkways The existing public walkway shall remain, Other Applicable Codes and Standards Chapter G5 P - Tree Cutting 55,080 Criteria for issuance of Permit Trees that are Not Dead, Dying or Dangerous: The City shall issue a tree cutting permit for a tree that is not dead, dying or dangerous if the applicant demonstrates; a. The tree is proposed for removal for landscaping purposes or in order to construct development•approved or allowed pursuant to the Luke Oswego Code or other applicable development regulations; • ti Thu trees indicated to be cut on the Tree Cutting Plan, Sheet S1).b, must be cut in order to Construct the proposed project, which Is In compliance of all other Standards, b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjaeont trees, or existing r . windbreaks; and The interior of this elto will be substantially eluttigod, Storm drainag e , ` managed per the Utility Plan and Grading Plan and will not have a negative impact on the surrounding properties. The site in relativelyfist, not be affected. Remainingtrees are mostlyin du ,which therefore,ea coil stabilityresethe will odds of their survival, Sara which greatly increase ti 1 c, Removal of the tree will not have a significant negatives impact on the character, aesthetics, property values or property uses of the neighborhood. In making this determination, the City may consider any proposal by the applicant to mitigate for the loss of the tree by planting new trees or other vegetation, The Citymay .,, impose such mitigation requirements 119 a condition of approval of the permit, This revision of the design responds to the mandato from the City Council to make the project tnoib "pedestrian/bicyclo oriented," : Soo our t'osponso to ShnCi_.1 Requirements, Paragraph 48,315 beginning on Page 1. ri - This is a significant design accomplishment, Ilowovor, this rearrangement of buildings, sidewalks and parldng nrnns did lend to additional troco being cut, Perimeter trees wore prioritized. These clusters of tree:: continue the existing '. neighborhood canopy and serve to buffer the project, 44„, . .. • . • Chapter 47 Sig 410 "' 3u 4 0 Signs Signs have not changed from the original submittal, {, 1,iet3' "`• NICK BUNICK & ASSOCIATES, INC, 5285 SW Meadows Rd. Suite 377 • Lake Oswego,OR 97035 t, ;• October 30 , 1.992 (503) 639.1676 •FAX 639.7161 , r Development Review Board ' City of Lake Oswego 380 "A" Avenue p Lake Oswego , OR 97034 Dear Members of the Board: • :, ., 1 . During the hearing of our Westlake nneeighborhooddycommerc bothial prc,v��eity , there wd s testimony that was given opponents and staff that was false and erroneous , It included the following: , Population in Westlake at build-out was only going to be 70% of single family homes as opposed to what was originally ' projected, Also, the population of build-cut of Westlake was only going to be 90% of multi-family homes as opposed to what was originally projected. (The actual fact is that there is no decrease between the build-out number and -., original projections . ) 2 . There was also testimony that theelevations l eV bonsoo that weh height and ;`• . provided showed the structures having needing different roof lines . • 3 . As a result of the above information , the City Council remanded it back to the Development Review Board and stipulated a formula that should be used in order to have a reduction in size. The formula required the applicant to determine the number of single family and multi-family homes ' w' I that would exist at build-out and compare that with what was originally projected in order to establish a percentage of . .numbers . We are including a typewritten transcript of the deliberations '~ :. , , that were made by the City Council at the appeal hearing . We are providing you excerpts from those transcripts that will show you two things : 1 . The council repeatedly made statements that the 35 ,000 square footage that was approved should be reduced BECAUSE A r OF THE TESTIMONY that war; given to them claiming that the number of units at "build-out" was going to be 70% of single family and 90% of multi-family . 2 , They repeatecll y made s tatements of wanting the is:,;ue addressed regarding height reduction and new rooflines . WE URGE YOU TO READ THESE EXCERPTS: `• W '" Councilor Puskr s . . . "In listening to the testimony , . , really felt that , yes , circumstances regarding those properties r ,, 4 • ;+ EXHIBIT 17 I .roy „,a Development Review Board October 30 , 1992 Page -20 ,,,,.„. . ..• . - really have changed since 1981 and that maybe we need to review ! ; exactly what that development should look like or should be . . . . •_ So I would like to look at the square footage. ” ... .: Page 4. . . . Mike Anderson. . . . "My thinking goes along similar `'. lines . I also feel that conditions have changed since the original application. " , ,. Page 4 . . . . Mayor Schlenker . . . . "The chair really supports what �•.'; ,.. . the last two people have said. . . . (page 5) . . . , And so, I would agree that I would like to reduce the total square footage . I A : don' t have a number, but I have an idea about how that might be approached in terms of the EARLIER PROPOSED _, DENSITY and the CURRENT DENSITY . " ',.• Page 8 . . . . Dan Anderson. . . . "I believe it should be scaled back . 4:.-♦ . I believe it is appropriate for us to look at it in that light of making an adjustment . . . . And I think that we are in a position here to be able to justify that because of some of the reasons that have been stated by others here. AS WE HAVE BEEN TOLD REPEATEDLY, WESTLAKE HAS NOT DEVELOPED AT THE DENSITY THAT IT. WAS : ORIGINALLY PLANNED. . . . And try to come up with some method for } determining how much scaling back would be appropriate, or even ,: whether or not we are the right people to determine how much • + • scaling back ought to be appropriate . . . . I think we have to be0 il ' sensitive to the fact that , or at least try to reach some sort of r. ; :� ,.. OBJECTIVE method for determining that , rather than just trying to pull numbers out of a hat . And one of the ways might be looking at THE PERCENTAGE OF DENSITY THAT EXISTS NOW VERSUS THAT WHICH WAS PLANNED, AND REALIZING THE DENSITY HAS J3EN REDUCED THE MARKET FORCES IN THAT AREA AS WELL AS BY THE CHOICES MADE BY ' _ . * DEVELOPERS" , . . . (page 9) . . . . "Maybe different roof lines . . . . and perhaps greater setbacks . . . " Page 10 . . . . Mayor Schlenker . . . . "The overall consensus is , what I am hearing the council say , is yes , move forward with the '• neighborhood commercial . . . , scale back the square footage , the size of the project , increase the setbacks , height . I think there is four or five of us who feel that height may be an issue . . . . ONE OF THE STRONGEST REASONS _ FOR THIS IS THAT THE A DENSITY IS LESS THAN THE OVERALL ODPS AND ORIGINALLY PLANNED. „ AT +`. \ " LEAST THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TOLD. . . . " " . The following now represents conclusions that ')ere made roc` specific points that the councilors wanted placed in the final order . They are as follows : Page 23 . . . . Mary Punkas . . . . "Reduction in size , a reduction of square footage, parking , possibly height and setbacks , a greater , • setback for consideration, " WEHAVE . DQNE $ALL_ OF . THES '. • . . . atg - tl 11 e�' ; Development Review Board ,';h:: October 30 , 1992 Page -3- Page 23 . . . . Mike Anderson. . . . "Not having visible utilities , looking at the design concept in terms of public access and community usage, pedestrian access , etc . and the parking issue. . . . " WE HAVE DONE ALL OF THESE. Page 23 . . . . Mayor Schlenker . . . . "I want the setback to be increased, I want the square footage to be reduced . I am interested in bike storage and in shared sidewalks . . , . If the height is not reduced, at least have a pitch roof . . . , But not any higher than the two-story adjacent homes . . . . " WE HAVE DONE , ALL OF THESE. Councilor Chrisman. . . . "Reiterate the height ' ` Page 23 . . . . g consideration, I think the same as 2-story homes . , , , Landscaping , I just would like to see a percentage of native trees rather than trees for, decorator trees . I would like to see it user v friendly . Not visible utilities . . . . " WE HAVE DONE ALL OF THESE. • Page 24 , 25 . . . . Dan Anderson. . . . "That the ingress and egress was designed, with the island still remaining so that the traffic flowed towards the neighborhoods and that it seemed logical . , . . I believe it ought to be scaled back and I would like for DRB to look at it , perhaps look at some objective method of doing that . . The figures that we had, that perhaps THE, SINGLE-FAMILIES • ' � PROJECTED WOULD BE LIKE BELOW 70% OF THE TOTAL_AMOUNT THAT WAS ORIGINALLY ALLOWED AND THE MULTI-FAMILY WOULD BR _AROU.ND 90% OF , : :: WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY ALLOWED. That is a significant reduction in " ' the number of families that would be using this area from that originally proposed and I am talking about the 1978 or 1980 original not the 1983 change. " (Again, conclusions are being drawn on false and erroneous testimony. ) , . . . "Different placements of the building to make it more pedestrian friendly and fitting within . . . . From my personal standpoint , I have already stated that I , based on the testimony we have already heard relating to this particular site and the trees that are on ' • the site, it ' s suspect in my mind whether or not there ' ll be we' ll be able to save a significant number of them anyway . . . . And the other, the design I think, the importance of making this look 1 even more like a house with a real roof on it . . , , rather than a flat roof with potentially exposed utilities . Or even shielded utilities , . . , personally we would rather see a peeked roof on it . My emphasis would be on the scale of the buildings and the placement of the buildings and available land. , , . " WEHAVE,.DONE ALL OF THESE. Page 29 . . . , Mayor Schlenker , . . . "Mr . Moody ' s cuLrent building down on State Street , that ' s two stories , that he remodeled is; : . . much more in keeping with the pitch roof , the style that 1 thinl. ;• ;. ,Y L A I ` • • F'.'* f 4 , L • 4 x A Development Review Board �:'; October 30 , 1992 Page -4- is compatible, It is two-stories and it doesn' t look out of . place for two-stories . " WE HAVE DONE ALL OF THESE, a tF ' IFFFr`�. ( 47, Page 31 . . . . Mayor Schlenker. � ' ° ' - ,•'.. # "I think the bike storage Is very A w ' a ��j important . " WE HAVE DONE THIS . .'s Putting aside for the moment the issue of a reduction in size and new rooflines , there are many issues that the members of the + ' council had requested. THOSE ISSUES AND GIVEN THEW COUNCIL WHAT FO E HAVE ADDRESSED ASKED SINGLEONE OF r•. R.. ''s„ I. Regarding the issue of wanting to reduce I,}ye hetdono structures and have new rooflines , we have absolutely etthis . We have reduced the height of both the one-story and the two- ` story buildings , as well as changed the rooflines t .� substantially to appear as the rooflines of homes . A t 4 t Regarding the reduction from 35 000 Y" square feet , the record shows that the council REPEATEDLY referred to information they Were given that was false and erroneous in stating that they were making their conclusions based on there being a 30% single family reduction of units in Westlake at build-out and 10% on multi- family units as opposed to what was originally false information had been forthcoming bothfroomothetop ' ents and staff . The council then created a specific formula. We object to the fact that the City Council was false We erroneous information in which to draw certain conclusions , and , , EVEN AT THAT, WE HAVE RESPONDED TO THEIR FORMULA AND HAVE MADE A COMPROMISE REDUCTION TO THAT FORMULA THAT THE CITY ESTABLISHED, OTHERWISE THERE WOULD BE NO REDUCTION, EGOFFIL DAA WE OFFERED A 2 ,000 SQUARE FOOT REDUCTION, EVEN THOUGH NO REDUCTION TS We also replaced the architectural firm that was representing us previously, with OTAK, and spent thousands and thousands of dol - lars on new site plans and new elevations in order to address the issues that were reflected in the transcript of the City Council . We spent hours and hursnof work d the fdiagnosing what the population would be at build-out and compared those numbers to the original .1 numbermeetings projections . We have had many , many with representatives of Westlake, including the • , • .T associations president and vice Barton, in an effort to develop a consensus �ofrourin t�site p Hobu design and the other issuesplan , out • • "'"' Council , that were addressed by the City Iy li' !« � tl • e � f +i ' A'• r . i Development Review Board October 30 , 1992 '::::,..',Y. ' r Page -5- :� r The fact is that there WILL BE NO DECREASE of single family and a' t multi-family units . The differential is actually 15 MORE unit .. ., at build-out as opposed to what was projected originally . }��. ,� .„ � . , ., • false and erroneous information was illustrated in absolute ,1, ..s ., detail in a narrative that I submitted to staff . But in Ran ," .` effort to offer a reduction beyond the actual formula that wan '•�� ;,.. K ' : established, we proceeded in offering a �% reduction (2 ,000 square feet) in size. We also created a new site plan and new elevations which specifically address the concerns of the City �, M ' Council in wanting to reduce the height of the structures and have 'home-like' rooflines . We have addressed and met all of the requirements that we were requested to by the City Council . This application , which is now K two and a half years old daserves to be treated with fairness and , :' ./`•:, honesty . We are requesting it be approved at thin hearing . Respectfully yours , ,, , dL • •- s Nick Bunick Property Owner P • NB;bla }. t.•" 0 cc : Rick Eckard " Mike Moody r,:. :. ..� • ';�r • y. i�. i , , }1t l r 4 WESTLAKE DENSITY ` , 'A"f, y� , 1 ,y t , ALLOWED PUD v ` . PHASE LAND USE UNIT RANGE APPJROVEI2 BUILT ,, ' ?ln. e 1 Single Family 198—248 227 225 1 /.� 2 Single Family 12— 16 0 0 e '1 3 Single Family 40—46 (No Application, 0 •: a' Assume 46) I : ',,, 4 Single Family 184—247 1.53 0 tf 'Q: 5 Single Family 50—84 46 0 • ' M• A ' 6 Single Fancily 55 —77 65. 65 • TOTALS 539—718 537 290 ° , 1 Multi—Family 206—258 (No Application, 0 Assume 258) 2 Multi—Family 142-160 160 160 ` ' 3 Multi Family 347 —391 (Applied for.37„ 0 TOTALS 695 —809 770 160 44 • A. Total Maximum Low Range 1,234, 0• B. Total Maximum High Range 1,527 . a: C. Total Approved or Approvable (Max.) 1,307 ..1 ..4 � ` r. 'Total Built—to—Date 450 �" ., Percentage of Build-Out (to "C") 34.5% ° ,Ka p k9z11eeor,oswenLhefkmlry a+ EXHIBIT I —I I71?. ►3- LL •i � Y lY A_. 1 V r.�1 t 4 1� 3` 5i f tl •I- t."- V l' ! y# rR u • i , LOama •I AD'm I Vu1w'"I \ I , . q tD D1II 70'E 7DD 7DI , •iIo ,I.. .�.-.._�......Y....�.�._..�.�.,�..��_..__.. .. ♦..gyp � ,� '�1 v 1! • L 7 111I . 1 l i `) 1 (`. '� RauKAw A11A / LMbKAw/wA /1 ,0« wuKA••. QUILQf10 Q t `` C" +:. �A/..A � � I / / _.. AOr10 d',1 w�Ga. K �I. � ,a- li A\M1 ILL '�y i 10 m • n r I I I I 11 I 1.4111.1 11.111111111111 } 1.l ; +��'- + .1 _ y 1 , 1.., R 7 rV r I , IL L ,—. i 1 r' i I ' ' _ __ N 1 .` I 1 T �, ,. �. . .. W I lllilL�M01 G.. t�,a.. J I •r I q► ✓.,i rote', R°r 1� h. l + I \ 1 11 r 1 I 1 n I I I ; K r r r _._. I j , 'I' to Q1��'NIAI,I Q10 . :r 1.I I ��I 1 .. 1 C I ; r '�i " Pot rnr.,n��n AMA, I:Ia.13'A ' Y 11 YY]] r 1"dIIILQII�I A_.I I a �5,1•M:gdW K.i�....A14n-E1 1Ni M 11 I.! I I 1 .. .rY ,, .�... --_ »atlas t(� r, I 1 Tt,lr.MH/M2,.. rruM , ", I -.,1. I 1"ij . { QIIi minAtIALTeI/ ,, �I I I I.I. I I _I I r � r.t o.n A•u aq {/ rro�r ro.t. ws 1 I n t I I r 11 . 1 f 7 n CArXnYkL 1}1 4T�!4_ ° i`+ A A � rP1 1 f t f1 Inn g„ .,. - `A �� , r t\v r� \%+ ; 1 .'!, •_ ky Si IV.ti� ic�,rlAa:In.l Y.+a„.nrrc.. v/ t s I r11pt Mkt u f-. ....��-� I d� .I RA�' 11Y'��q•� z J tm m' 11 t cuLLQt100_ l --- W. _.. r -1 .r�M 1 !i U ix- I I I t r ` __. u1A,44441 AMA Ill .0] Y+.. `/ ' �.. I I J`l}.�,.,a I � �,��l I .... w•m.r4bM.. Q .Y- t—r ' ' + , nl6u/DimVilQ .» ___ .. __.. . macc_ .,moil 1 7T'•m' iili in wu'r i1.n ' 0 en Il L I 1 1 • d< 0 `/Y, n .. l}J etde loll! �.J 7sl Iln.lin u ". 11 .•.:� IW I•AwtylW QIRIYY .. Z „_, ......,. .. .__ 6D=I I �. ii W JRL--., •-_.. _ _. _ L1ioDAmm ,p • g ,r howl tot_— •. *MINIM* 0 . , . 41) 1 / . w ti r� t {'. i :'mot Y y . �. Y 1"� • • Y 7 If. ^0 f 0 0 . , . 9 i j 1 4. {b {{ ffamm—. MnnthT 1 2�" 1 Aci Irnn�x • I ' ‘,1-•,• ..**,'..'..:::n...,..'.:„.,',,,,:.,,.*...'-.',..,::_'' 8 . ..... ,. , ; 1 1 Pi 11 : ,G' , '1 l\@KI^D1MG_,12♦�',.` d.`.."1 _•;el\ ,`4 Y ',..j I i 1 1 a ,�'`` ,.'eq ,�\ �`, L.._� uran. f >en4W. \ `� i� _ . __ i 4. 1 '7 1 • pmiline , � ;.r.,‘. ..:: . .,... ...,,..•,:, 1 i i \ _ {.7�NCLF��.d `'' • pink. YI� A, - :%-C. J �� i ,\ +, '; 1, .............10Te.0 III r,t.. ? '''' :•‘..,',,.':',..:,:, ''.'•,''1.....:,'*:..,' y. lai 4(j) i . ....,,. .. ..,. . . .. „ . . - - •• •,s . J'., ''.'- LILL .i. J ,„ , J I .v '• I i I . ff•. , .�qe - � .. It+�"2 �.-, tI/1�J f ,R . \` "/r �, / 11/♦ R d e • MNGAa-►ryalnl N 1. .• -'" _,,, ... 241 �__-mow 31 .-� iI ,i p _ i '\��--� • W ate_ E P --.... X - 1$ \'` �, —.�,SY• .,,� �� Yt`4N 1„ L (, / + 1»Iw...a.a. La.)r O ,' a ' ,,rr ./r7, • __._ j Iw ilt .�w°I MN 6D•7 —I " • Y • .�'.' • • I •1' . ..If f. 1 { 1 1 r eft y�,y��. , ri"— lw^d.10 1 a ° caum / __ _ ,4,:—. .. .... _,---..--,.....— ,--. —,..—... _ ___..., ',• ♦-_.t., _ .4....4 IBUILQICIci._Q '" I I • � ; L �JJWJIHW1iiflhiiwir ° �. •. i� eyorrl p N (( }y, ,_.--i --.--1 \ uILDINIG,' L_i I 1 t,• I_ _II IT U ' • �. one. .e etoprl - ' g 1 ILITY PLAN • le -I- - .11w v _ `/ 1 11 11r.,-11'' •1r L. o t I • ,. , . . „ \,_ . __ �.) : � Ili DD 1 : ,", .". . `.,, I ii /[NG11D•1�«t14 M.1. . .... — — .CC -^...H... . .gi g s f.-�2..'"� �,�,�,` • �: .1L ....... d RM',,ata..fl'uAt4Mra _ •. .. .. j. vMeh.11ec L. ., . ,..Th ,.V M rn4enI. 1- N` `4 1 at0.141tApr�ISLLCNMA111 WO/tau ft t el4EN I li '..�7 BD.; a kw..' LISoe,too 0-1 0' 46. I �sy rw° a I '..:'.:,.1:''f, 0 0 0 .. r • 611:4*- n.r 61Y6m— ru1m r i1Wbd I _. ,_ ___.. k * • II C UI6w6?ING..0 \ .r I J 1 '• �f •.. t MI It SMW/ r4 Lrel DcfICMfT r. 4 »... ...».». ».......».. .« i..... 1YR�r Y3 IIUG Q(.�Ly1 • lk I I H i I] F 1 r m 1--, F -T-I-Frr-- 1 ..', .. .... . ....Pt 1, 101111.0 1 1 ( 27 a Fllotat$tnle k1AUNAr1 Cw n.a.o ee. yy �I��I'GSs� .rt��r/: e T> t C I SI,_TE LLIGNTING PLAN .I 1 I .1 a e..' (() E I . I I I ., ( t � y if { . - �. 1'.A A'hw .m�.— — a r \ --..- f r... ' t11Inl N0Lr ri 0. '« \,• 111/6 PLAZA L . / ...=a. ...w. . L*I Yr1:r,"I'l Mom_..+,..�v>...�_ L 1611.166.116.61.10 1011.11 .{ ♦ ...a. { rwKbt 061161.1 RbeKWrP II 11 'wj nwnr/ p + f WGADdg0sl/,M. l i. rti,J .. . k._ r J r ti in (MCI � r LLII NM ~ 1...' r : d b•,6 • • c 1'Y: f1"_/ _.. _.,. '•.. _ _ hm4idedd° .,.4 • .t" t , e I 1� V1'f ( P� •' 1 ,- .. 0 1 -i a 1.. r ,Y S . r $ 1.; I W p' 143•- rnat •Y I lC1Frn a >.tind,n V "'j 1 tYdW • 46 irt • () 0 I •l U U U 1 I I f Jo J J I I d 1_l `J) 11 I f o Pa 0 o r^+ h e C) • tl \ t . J 1 _ M ) i ) 1 - U J1I91 ) t �. I s � ryi • I v ( TREE CUTTING PLAN 1 4 I t)f:M.MI Ir••�na' —. •� t If I st r.. t 1 Iii11110[ INI o Ir11041 1le11 Itl M••YMp �'a ' O• p • p In•»w .0 to Yr1AY1 \(`\J t4 p 1naa.M/111 l N1ALiCll ilI la i ''. !. , •W—_ II IIV/I1tIA/etl N limlflw tr•ii;N at IM_n y ti p W 0 • �1 • f fr. HNWGipreent N.i. >.::__. _ .. _._.,, _ - �•.__ n...s...�. �_ , _ (1(��( k ._LL�� _ w in 1.1.....1 MI LA.1IN 11.#• _________ -- - 1111 O " `tl 8p•3 L floe/olo 0 IM Ib ,} .ih .0 � a. .. r •. wf Q. t l I A I • 4 C •, t1 i� • • it' .!• • 14 R,.. � .1 • i ' N 0 0 ° 1/ 1 t }.. Yi e,p1 , 1 ..�-�._s, —--_a.A-... - _ tune - nw ... nyt 1111 1'" , 11 _�. IItirI 111741,11 IHIiItL trial yf + by n IiYiof nn,,,•.nbd1 I,.N'N• nftntl • '"`� 1 - A ' N il«,111I,1e1 1'•I'1 I. MAW ryy > A, 1 IN.•u11N1I1 W.A.'MOM' 1k 11 M r ».1LI rlel..W �11.1Y»If111.111 h O1rM1.• Iv Ili.PP. •,'j .1 •nnN«Iltl.v • " ,/N••10'r• nil /In M 11•tel..W +, ✓. 1 r . r b•• •O..1'h .. p. Y•uul f+IN1111 pasµ htwp'1, b;Klira rOnrf ryNf Nw11 tur.el. .a.elnel Y ,1, 1 IN • r. 6 +• • M tl t. / �� yp/�� p W.4 W joi Cy{ rr`{• / ( r ,T' -"" •1• 1 1: �`i i • I11 OF u�d nw 1n.p• '1�r°"It ..sit..'ili'/e..22,;:.,:,ay •61s..0,14. iw.. t'v4y• re » je S�',.♦'ly�.- Iii it I" •ilr'fi 1nl"r• +, 1 i • p •,.S•r,..•. 1. ............. .r )•24 .i , j i. .04, Y1Nt nl 1..�,aitr.,%11l=1 la.lo• �•�I . •1 1Jy" ��''`+��IltiYff Ti1'r • ti.t11111 111Y.16,v. 1` 1 MI. ' st 1 / , Ilv '•N 166,64 Y ✓ \\ 1.».,,1'T».:2+6.6IN'flue' / /. J�.I N �1•�� IIl IIn1Al1 M.My....^., 1•..b. 11 } • ) P i'y y{/r " _ Irtc. s 11I: "111U• p n.r� .0 bM IYn1�lwi 1�'t11111' 11.11• h a 1 I 1 > .� r II` "' 1•NI"Y« ( iw �,�' M:,ler:lln ro n wtell' iiir k11S. .,1 P. ••' n c iiy u I newl w+ 19.1 11' 1 W. i, -AIM .•1k txt�� < M Ml.w• Inlr•1 1«I. 1r►!/s, Yn -r ,' 1 . ,. fIU' Y y .qar. Ylnunrlxl'Im»rlp «'. V ISJ. .Y [,t•nti ` 1.....,.... J7` I tM1 N•«• O 46.1.tIYV6,..a 1 ' ttri:1bylr11",. ••I IU' �J'V •��••13 1 ` M ►.,NIII U/.,... leK.►v.n Il•.k• -'i • 1 r 111 - 1»r - ..�- iN♦ r+-�I I!: rY • .wMlnl'1.n y1111Ywly»' I«I. 11111i NIII ��1)n I I l i I I .41 411114 . 1 ,4 w/,y" .»*121.4;4 i 44 W i Kn �/.lyl�r I.V.//�� 11.�� Irw{111 NJlell. 1 �1 v,"� .I III U 1�IN� Mf'1»�•i,u . .4•Mt�'N`I \ly �� f«MI�e YIr.M b.s.bN.l 11•.U' !1 1: Iv/le YI/MN' 1 : ti Mn.-N11.11i '�' 'r __ I rM111 1.,Ng11'N,IL' 1 i„, . I Il Ii IF .1 w v,ll ' Y '(}I_I N NII•M NII - 6. 1 •"• I1I, -......piT .1sJUM _ .. ., --- (41,,,,, - ._-. yMli». .,,,y�.0 El IIN1t.1I�''t.w1.' 1 I 1'�i' ILn111e1N 1.N b rn1 •W r 11 1 i 1 ' v1 1p d.r ln _ _ ;t1•Ih4+. IN, t.minMAI 1.+ - )I k'1'Ate. i "' "" E �-n� .. 1 wI1r.:.,illWIn 61016011M e•4111M 1w f .• •� ' I ~ A/••�/.e IINM h�11�'i . rl.(I ''IlflWI II I*P II.v II br'Y/IM�� I�II IN 1111 W H. I- INe•11 Mln N1111 IIN f.eN ll NW IN II MII ry lllnll t'r,, ,•' I i,, -1✓, I I,.IN• Inlllulnrl, 111 IMr Ih In ". M ItlOI OI.►I' `1.1Y I.YI IIv NIr t�N� .• 1 r k 4i id«e N 4,0 / A OY»v111•'. ,Vr �1/ R��f I t}Y�'�11'�.''eFj7 ,11L11r .., 1 1 VH,,,.,r. rr``\\1,, /�/���\���y7 Londocope Plan •b�•r.` 1 ' , it WI.R1.MrIT' I • i tip/• �<. 4, ___ I 4V "'01# . rI �.1"h L-C1 L'.'I11.01 ' `�, 61• 3 ' 1. fI•.�i-'aP4.:nl'l •MO `Ir/ i I, .WPC..iffy,61 ,_ . It;VI"ittli;\itillst E Lli . : , 1►Mi.N•d++ Y1. 1 M .Ioa. i,tn\ 9 4' 1" •,;n E,, �vw,y Yh,•K'11++ �l `iM 1 1' "Merl' 1 ,,. V/ ly 1 'I A,a �n r. ` f. ,.,...1�dViHt� *Ada R- -.��_ 41°.IrY~ 1,, Ot i1,� 'Y 1 DN to i- , : 1 a I . n � ,p rt JJy�1 Apr ( 4r ,.a- • - �{Y .yr 4 'AI4l01.:T i , J!A'-1,,4w'{kj;(,t'IU�11! 11 ' .1. N..._ _ : 1 - — is->M , 'i. ,,,Y r !4w1'1, ...� :f ,. _ - ..s,,.-_,.,..,,-.,. i1cM1 gaqwt�Ix t�bw. 1I�'y 1fNcio•IWIlel,N.I. pY•.0.9 T i^Iliri illi: II 1� ur`I n r.w t N wr 1/"•, 1/111111 N11 •. , - Stw..-._. - - - _ IH lnw.l Y»r 1�•iI11Ir 'I • Q •1 1•ryw w1M -_ ►1r•gHN q»• lal sll-1.'ai.r - 1'rRw :JIp NI�� , Tr 1 _ , �' CIUUTtlp1UN tlllillLIl u+u1o�1_.,. `, r IAi EICA11 Alrlllrlol r (y• _ • i.l.,«.www I.,.r rr•w�Y,.., FNLLII td. f.,. Imo"/I _ r ° [ ..46rPf, 6..$TY. !,k11 • ' ! . C I V ,6 r, ,w A 1' ••�'I 1 '.1 4• r • y, r: ,I�� •. •...- w N a'...: 01: ... ti L Tt,l •J.. , :F y:> 1. x ,1.. • • t ! .r ..' :13ti + S r 1,r er Ilt . A.', r,l'. , . 4' 4 J IUt I .. ,�?aPl JI .i , ,• S' /, ti. I ,M1�J� r •+X.0� i+ I f�,f(''�r>`i'i}�"s.� ,,. •.''/':1 ' �" ,I • . ,t:,11 .l,o/l C.1.IwJ1 ( �r � h f •J,'jIV '�' I r♦y,, + 11�11 r . y. ••' ' '�r •y�! �,jrr.11, LI �i�'I J't ,1 ,.� ..1'.. t J • I; t)1/ ' / J,� ti{�'"r•'E' 4 'I.1 ,1'.,1 1 '',l(.1'' ;>~i�''I� 1 ,' +�Ir ,,11{p!1`�54� (�.�� ' 5 r ' 1ry;1 ,•'�{.,;4/, .1..V �' t�n ,•1"+ I �1''•,•,` I '1 i�'rz .)1 I or' `' ,. J>•� ti/• !"r d,;>gin. �`� ~ uwn rarael - W a , e,1 . '+1 l 1 , rry 1 1 .I I '1 h1:t'1 . .{1 J �'.1tif+h 'r �.i.r.' . ,• a g"` ,r�_+"aI µI •, 1 /` , , � t fir. IF ' 11!, is • \ i MN//O WOp'Mlp1 --.L-.•, .1 •�M1: 1^ 1',� 11r 1. , 'tJ''1'�, /:,' M11r,• u'�4 ,k+ fw �1-,,' t>..-'�f•�'J�' MNU'loyrN .�_=.1'r r a 4 • r, r'.1 r tr toe 1 1 1�17�t', d .al"�1 :[i'�T r Is'►r , M'rtpi..... /"•� v . �. ,, L ' , ' i'J•, 'r rrl$ i i 11"I' R, `t/,'i '1 t l +•• '+ Ii .„._.r. . !•,4 ,i..1_'."""l. S T'11 +//•t ''t ) 'A'1 . ,ti' "� ' + ),.� r1 �t1fJ / ir'.a , ' MNrn ,1 d' Ir- ,1 ' di„,"' ''.:-t- 4 , 1',, Y, I 1 M h`�. • t ' roa'IWr. .._..�..�,__.. . •,:',. t'_ r' ' ' . Ift . '1' 11' f'; '11'N 'K,1•i' �'a y S, 11.1441 hw F♦ 1rY�'« a :t{ i,t. • � , wf�ly ,1�f li'll}rr'IM4 ",t 1 4 It a a. 11 i �.r+ t � IFNI e' �'I`� III* - — MI 1 .— ! kg- -+ '�� M/1/ern roosts woo mom sous SI-. OCAl '' li,� 1 I N „N I '1 ' .Ili, is •1 •' 5•.hl , + 'I•., I - " +, + i l+'i I, ' ' �'1'IJr .; _1 ,I �' J J'1,1 ] 1 } �'• •V ,Itl 11•f, u'.q, J ° . 1 I, d 11 A1:t f • r' i1,t J•' 1• 1, . 1 1 , I r' ',, , Id �,, ?!• w' 1{I �� { + n11 J 1I I' >t �% `1 p r4'' 1 1' .,, J . d 1 .'1 l'• ' (t it h','.I+ n!t 1y� lift,. 111'1111 • ,'i • 1 '1•' \ 'M1;tl I, v,.,' 41, ' 1^� •i 1 r' ,.,• 1•51., ,1 t' J IA d h 1.1 ,.• . 't 46 1, J, a,IP.�It` 1'I;t 15 1 r frla '1 11 IV , A'1 '!', '�,t a 1 .t;,1 M A 1,. 1,1. w�r♦'V uJ1' ) a I J1• t .,I d. y.�, IP') II 11 1 II j+P , . J., .1,1 r 1 M.' r. .c� , r , 1 )� ,! 1l ',,.}l1'..H r..! ,1 ' ',Irl r ,rI'+i%1 1, I ►t" A I"rl ' ' +JJ' '»I II. ' I , I'i'jt IIt, I 4 .., '1iIii, O'1'•;t�4, �.'' • 1 J''1' �f, ,I a 41, + d'• ) '', t.'y J•,,1. •1l •'1.l ,, , '1 II Ind t °d Y,�' t' �1.J�`' '1;'1 4 ,•1 t„ 1 r•',.1 '' �A I. I. ', 1 G' l fir. , r,r Q , 1 `i +1, r 1 et I v jI ti 1I ,� . ,A ,1 q^ C ' 1 1 I ' '� ' la•4r0., hi 1.. ',' 1 dtl a/' .1?.' O. •, r. 1.:/• p ,� 11 q5'C' '' �� '��t �,r.Y, 4� 1 �a�1 P, t t 1' 1_I J'�„ IY/rf I. •1Ri •5. +' • 9 /� lY' ;�I,rY �1 f ri,�', 1 �' 1 +ir i1 !� I�� rt"uI.e,j1 Itr t! 1'lN;t 11.,',� IIu +', ,1 i{� I , rt , J +J,19 ' / nj f J/"� i r d 1, 1,/yd�flta ' .. . ap '. "1"'� • 1y11" I y_,•1. .K'1*,li h1� 4:%j'�O14."^ M "1 I r t '�I, 'tl,''° .F'41l'il'I•144 5 " • V ��ifilln'rti'. wpm " d T / U /y`y ,i I^ I! +......�I r: �.wr,,Im r41r:' ima q p n �-- n• i i� •� h •1 ac--` 1 �.�...f. 111-1 ®� ��t a �� II' I�' 'r { J1�,. �111��IIY�, EYAI /B�ILdINO t'GI.'l1,+••IY la'_tiORIELAL IOPN 1L,�=gam.�is5ii.h�li ��u a! PINGAO•Iq'nee,N•L ;,p ig.niNO' i•E bb'p.N'11.IWIN II IY+IkN UTnril AS EL , I "�"Mi.'/1IN:::::+ CWI' 'GUi 6..1•M • Ze i (e ° 41, 0 0 , , . 1..., /'.,,=. . .. . . . . , • Y-' , d , 1 ! •• • ' •i t , e .� .I t ,s I •t\ . 1 I • It'. • • • • y!n • F u a •v. +t �' i ,r , n r •' J ! i , . ;1. 1 , 0 . 1ry • 0 . ,. + . tP. I^ r ' y p'h ♦, r^ ,,', {. \Ah fl•' ' ti Ilr,. a ( 1 / • • I 1 , I `. 1 t •41 1�,,41 1..., • ,, 11• ; I ly ti1� I'„I�y A •r•ar.I 1 h1y 1 Irk ,• ,I fy1 • 'I •1� •1 1\t S , / ,: • 'a l' •M '\ r 1 ,n)til• I i 1,•f : �V �l I Ylr,�l+ 1 ,'r , . ' .•`• ,ffi. •sa. .. ..w.Li 1..1.��..� II a li•i ) 41 �a.,'t111'.. 1,1 i. 4* ff. (�J•'i.1 tr• e •.r ra 1 , ,1 / a t tia 1,1 rr ,,., f h + 1 `P ' ��� (�) 1 'i\ • fi•. • • .40 Y �• o J`I�IJ • ' I'n'+tt J 1 .A 1'\ ")11 • `.'I!.111. II 14)111 r! 1. Ij' Fir ,' .1 •V ,� iT +.� 7+• rt.." 1Iw�5t r••a " 1•I Jr '1A II 1Ja�'a ^1�, 'f'ti. . Id !:• f .11 J +k tir I; I, 1l ,. .` r a r III • a J,, + ,ti. ... r.•t r .. ,• ,a t,r• )d,l ,a, f ;t?r'-� ...a4 ,,a ,_-%' f a, t 1,.•+ \ _ L• -;.t 1u1.•, , f ,,r,� 'y. , ,..• ` 1 X f•t -Y �•, •,1• ,1 �� haft It (11;im 1,' .,\ l PII.-C. 1 i.i,a,1 Ilr.- r,,4j r -� _�' i l .0�'.+ /t t J, p `r _ , «T�1 hG 1 p .�,._-_._.'# � . n'+ • II, - i� -_""�— .w.^ ifr\1' t.f� r 'm' .,I".h �'1 ':' �. �- I ED EE:i ) pUIIbIN ' 'sOUTH . �� � ] E4ATION _____-- y yr U D) Q C'. ear c ©TIQN _ -.•- ___ 4; I • - •1 yY Yary t 1 •,In , f�, y, '•h.. ►11M1l tCIrvM1 •Io • 1• • t Ntl"t t ,..•4`nil / .Ir J11�n 1 1•• , (II" Ida), I t1\ •I 1.6 \\,Ja •►�,t•1 1 "v� t, 11. �11 ( a+' '1.•1t r '1t1 1+ L•+V' 1 4. , ,{,,I, •t i1 'y1y1ltl it I ,� 1• T'II !rf ,1�({11��•�I-II h''`1' '4y 1.• t1,11�' {', ('1 , ' lLj4 .�r: Iry r 1�+ I' I 1,, •, 1 \1 • ` f Y,�'`1py'\/.• ,J l \ a >p+0 1• 1r, t •M •,) •I• / '1 yl II,1'I.a«I1'I1 is 1 41 • l •a 11� A•`fl ill .)\ t 1 .1 �• 1,141 It r,\t f�1Fi'~•.11 '+ rj I i•V• 11••i ri rr .6 elf• , , rh•r. '(tl• ,1'I'•J4i, a!' t III O 1 I A/ ,Ir l4•y a, 1 I`O^11l( - \ 1. r 1 ' 1;\1 1L j )1 1• 1 1 r J 1+,• *It"' '�IN► ,I I� r •i`• I N h 1 a••;f 1••. • J i" 1 •1 I II ,, r a. �' iJ�• / r ' 1.1 1,..: ;tl + ) t,'.f 'I 1 r •li;I'I l ''t,�,!f,:J •,;:,. J, , '1 yr' ,,11 -t t 1�1 y'�y l eYw11q •1! I •1 J, f r 'l,; 1 �' 1' J ' 1 kr 'II LI ``f1/41 V'' 't v' ! 1'I+r 1'I �/ 1' i• Y ri f'" • r U e .;•1'a r 1h 1'�..V,� 'li •I•I'r .r•a N r �;1\i ll, ICI r1 hr a I I I, I 1',►. , ,,I' •Ji J .f c= j, 'rl,r n 1, t' N1/ne rrvol ruwlu iI'�l Jr il r./ l., �1 It-r.Iw.ld y,d .0".�t. 'I••4'•* p11 r ,rt 11'.i 1 1.i�J?N" I 1 i• • ,, �'' :il�•LI'r'S ti 1i� ,�f'i,1l'1,I lIA:}�7i:Ik '!• r'"waaq/rn, t l ��,11 ff t 1 r24 6 aw�... t.„,, .e k h :1• •.1..,a),„; '. /� w j 1 1 ' ?' •1 ,n J'`•f y 6 f ►wre.Iroa 1e1••1». •q F flY ti v "C + :.r' ,rl 1 It,c 1i . p�,rtiJ 7t•!•I' t I i d n 1,�/1/'�'. • t y�l'1 {' Ir ►.w'' �`�,7 t rl'1 :•) G• •_, pryry I •I .I �i " • , \" .f .l r.�'1 `••I 1 1 n r' 1 1 t �,M, My y- I'{,r • IY ,d I r�r __..«.. •'1' ; , I -•I :1 i•,,f .," 1 N 11 a 3- 4 + 1. 11•\ Ir} , ,I / ��dl' bl, It'1 �r I I(Ft I / 1• 1 i • d 1 t 1 \. eta V 1 r .• C I ti1.t J /' Iff 1 Iri r ., * >r yl 1 , 11'I 1»�h11jt;,�'1 ,�p4 , it.,!rA ,1 ;Y,�r,•1 �• ', 'aa \'J `(\� �Il��r 1'1ti►•I r. 11 'I'.1 a l — • -;-. �:�. 1 I��' 11,t . t�-.- • T •� I.,1 a., I '�N r r •9�•n V r)1 •14'1�.1,,1. 1 1., i�I .-I• I� a \ + a� • 'I i ,,, _� '� �'4 ,.•,� �� S• >t ,l .\.„'► 1 ti • .t-- " '�' -+fit- •'Ir V A°' 7+Ijr�•' 1 'I �If,�� I •11 '' r \ •, Inert Milli _... ,,a .� : :4- t. (� t1'1 I h,l ,I`- p cry Llli 1: l ,11.1' � S, f;I RnJrrt ..� FI �� ,t I ,U amod. a 4 r----iit:-.=+--,;;--":---*:':: •Mr 'iit i J1 " •._.._.. r I 1 , lII I f II t t tttmla 1' s - \ i1M Ell fij�l __ doll tt w. ' .1 14pJNl4_Ct N jN ,e,+ , _-'•-- , a 11 i s n r,,tl II . a. ,- y 1 1'1'�'-'��-�� IIVfV a� I Y `• • nWc�o•U�Inn►,N.I. @�lL�pINQ WE3T 1 o u It _ . ur.'r i `. imam/twit►l•IA11 out, s " .. dm t9 r A 2 ,.,..oak r ►. •gip• 1 P h.h,' F . W j . .j 1 I ' 'a'S i 7. f, ' A 1�II 3"'kla li •,. A • ,} L.f)I l 1• �` \t,,,xl •' 'r+,,,t f.,.• 1 •th \•'1 tl1•` 1 ti1 1 1' 1,'1 �` '1 1 ``.. j t f. rI 1� { . �'' !l ' 1 1�.� J`tI 1=5 °In'y i'A'I •E',1,qt 4 ` t.1, u u'n11 I,0,,,I '1 (. 1'�•1'tf, ��,ris 4,�1•.I,, �'.4: rl �.9,r1 11,�� /r� 1,I Y/ti/�'f�` ',1'111.0J•�'.'`+ •.i 1t1 .1 1,��•�kn/tll�. .• � a i .•"{:k` 'It ' i l'I'Y 0 1. %, ,.0 , ;,Il A/l�l l . J�' •r 0, / 1 3` 1 rr ' i rA 1�"+'I,;� tl 11t Ifl1 1'' +ty1'^'! ;�1t„,�• ,I,;)tirdt�l•IN•Ul,t1� 1'C�1;I.+t'1 Ar114.'rl`r�,,^abt. 1kR `4�,441, rF',)I •`• t, IJ +�,1 1, Ir MMILIWOOe MOM v 1�IN1' 1 e,, 13'y„hI, Y''•,,, 'S ;Il d;'�1% r� `,jt '1'.� 11 C t'ht1 1 � k • `� rd. 11I {,A ' , /$, \"a, �, 1 11',� ,t '1J •t F4 I1 " NI �a�i''i VAC.; 1I'' + '1 I�' 4.i neAe elwau 1 ., 1 i 1p� 1. r1`(, 1�j r 1f J/(,r / Y .g.,.'.¢�'•11',r,, lr'�I''\).0.',..'\,)0 1• 'A1 iIM•:1/I',t. (�_ *, ,1�] S. `„j et �] 1�11+i h /h,�;i'i,It,' �; I.II�11 11 '� l-r-o • E Iw!*W � y ' MMIN3 row IOW a 1 1171- 1EfllEIE9 I t 1- will YNri rMOrA IIIM WAIT KW . AUILDINQ'D'•NORTH ELEVATION :' IUGW IIM.14• l ,`....1 1 , ,..•. ,,+ 1'1 I • ,1 • , •t1 f ala/�I " 'lc , I i:l 1.y ht�, •i' , ! ' r ,1 •. . 'Ilet ,' y. 1 , d1 i .,d 1 1 1 1,, .. , 1!t ,..1' }, .,u l , tl i f) .I, it., \N., ! 1 1y, .,4 %1• 1 , "1� I. „ ; 1 .I '• , , 1 Itlt i1t. ,1 ` "``1,e a},.I ,',. J 1 ,1 , .1 1 11,E `\ .1'11 1 _i 1.; '' nt,.I.11 I• 1 � ,1 tf �J,I " ,.,. �', 1 ,1 11.41'1.\ ., I 6 l• ,11 1 , I,Itri •1 rin:1, j'11' .\21 J(1e ! u ,,,�ti``i. l u. '�d )T o:1.�. ,I �' ' 4 I'� VI",.! 1' 1 ' V} t S F\ r11,1 ''1 l v•, • '' , I Ih To: 1 '�' 1, it t A I •rs J 4. 1 17` A - XI 1,,eil 1 r 1•,1, 1. i�'', ,,F l,M,,,l 1, '1'•l+, '� 1'A41 1 III •t• ,rp A. ,� ,.� n 1 1 r ,1 t•. "1; ` , 1+1'h 1,. I t ,(/ tit, Ml.l.l. 0t '(A•� 01114 tM.4 r 1 r.r•'; •i,l Y n : ' 1r ,� 1 'I' /1 I 1 1- y1� ( .I• 'j}' .I 11 i ,... IY 1 0 �.. (, . I, (! 31 � 1}�+, I ,1�y1 il'1I 1.,•1 1.t ,l,1 •, I,A1C' ^k ••'. i ,I1d; i,,111• ' V l', ' 16 M , fff).e,ltv;1'1 �,ti,t ,,,„,�111`{"',"tv •t I}' Ili 4t'XI I. .1��'le,f, ,$1 .1.°o„,,,,1,,A„ ,' t.y ?i, , 1`.~ 'I D }l ,(1. t II V11, , �t .1 \Ir111 y1 \ �r ,' •,. , l i i t1:1 '•:fl`t�i+'.s;;\ .y./'a llll�M ^ 1�1 (' Is��l �i a v1 k�� .►� i�. } `'' ii • •,n `,, 7l 1 1' rlt , 1,•• • // i n"111:I r,,, f'I ;`!, ,r ''•,. r1 11/ al , r1 .•,t F r l,.✓ , )� it } t ..•+. , 1 �'r.l •4" a141. /t�, �� '1�ar 11f �' ''�` ��' it t �`�. ' f �• •� • ', i ,. • III- , '�" 111 • 1 .� tl t• V i1t • 1 1, 1 1 b L'Ic It I 1 prIPP • 1 . .r .. it 1 r1'li : ,.. O:" , z a 11• 1.1" 1t 1rElin .r• a. m f II a t�ii ,1 A 1 ,/ 1 .,/ wwnwee,il,r�sw I j -- (` - ... _._. y' I .. 1 '� 9E it _ - I! 1 t r,. try J LI_. . _ r.,:I �'' �d' I ` nUILDING•D'.WEST ELEVATION , ,p�1l,�.pllig'D1.SOUTH ELEVATION SCAM11r.1r IN,4LI4At4W 0•P0•Ite ,C IU III r r;... • tilKAD•Igenei,N.1. � I1 Ot'r ,1 ♦ �C �.7J` r `. . Ili, . • , { FILE : 13-9011 NOVEMBER 23 , 1992 ' , `'. , FROM: RAY AND LAURA SAHLBERG .'',4,:',,,....?..� �'° ' 14489 CAMDEN LANE • e LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97035 • • 4 TO: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD ` ` ' CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON t 380 "A•' STREET, P. 0. BOX 369 , , y LAKE OS,4EGO , OREGON 97034 ,� SUBJECT: YOUR FILE DR 13-9011 (REMAND) ; DEVELOPMENT 01" PROPERTY �r AT CORNER OF WESTLAKE DRIVE AND PARKVIEW AVE, DEAR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD: ON MONDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 7 , 1992 YOU WILL SIT IN JUDGE- N,.. MENT FOR CASE FILE NO. PR 13-9011 (REMAND) , A PROPOSED 33 , 000 ;. `; SQUARE FOOT NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL PROJECT LOCATED ON THE ., NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF WESTLAKE AND PARKVIEW :. ° DRIVES . PREVIOUS PUBLIC HEARINGS BY BOTH YOUR BOARD AND THE CITY >r ' COUNCIL HAVE RESULTED IN FINALLY HAVING THE PROJECT REMANDED TO YOU WITH A LIST OF ORDERS, DESIGNATED DESIGN GUIDELINES, WHICH WILL AFIRM AND ASSURE TEAT THE REDESIGN OF THE PROJECT WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SUP' ')UNDING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL y. , 1 NEIGHBORHOOD AND BRING ",''HE APPLICATION INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE r EIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION. "> SINCE RECEIVING THE FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS, AND ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL DATED JULY 7 , 1992 , A GROUP OF RESIDENTS OF THE rift WESTLAKE P. U . D. , IN A SPIRIT OF COOPERATION HAVE MET SEVERAL ,'r. .* TIMES WITH THE LAND OWNER, MR. NICK BUNICK AND THE DEVELOPERS, MSSRS . RICKECKARD AND MICHAEL MOODY , TC) DISCUSS THIS.J PROJECT AND • PARTICIPATE IN THE FORMULATION AS TO HOW THE PROJECT MIGHT BE REDESIGNED AND BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GUIDELINES SET FORTH BY ' THE CITY COUNCIL . ULTIMATELY A FULL SCALE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING WAS HELD WHEREIN THE AUDIENCE PARTICIPATED IN A GENERAL ; ,;' DISCUSSION WITH THE APPLICANT , h ° SPECIFICALLY , THE CITY COUNCIL IN IT'S ORDER LISTED NINE ( 9 ) �'� • DESIGN GUIDELINES TO BE COMPLIED WITH FOR THE REDESIGN OF THIS PROJECT . GENERAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE" • ` K' NEIGHBORHOOD WAS REACHED ON SEVERAL OF THE ISSUES AND CONSIST OF . ., No. 4 - UTILITIES , NO. 5 - PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE USE, NO. 6 - DESIGN AND MATERIALS NO. 7 - MEDIAN ISLANDS, AND NO. 8 - GARBAGE RECEPTACLES , HOWEVER , AN HONEST DIFFERENCE OF OPINION EXISTS ' 'N ALL OTHER ITEMS NAMELY , NO, 1 - REDUCTION OF SQUARE FOOTAGE , t(t, - PARKING SPACES, NO. 3 - SETBACKS , AND NO, 9 - TREES , THE GREATEST AREA OF CONTROVERSY AND DIVERGENCE OF '"SPa NIoN w EXISTS IN REGARDS TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE APPLICANT HAS ''' 1 Et'iiCED THE TOTAL 'SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE PROJECT. HAND-IN-HAND ' ' WITH THIS REQUIREMENT , THERE IS THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES '!0 BE ';0N5IDEREI1 SINCE THE SPACES ARE DIRECTLY RELATED To THE SIZE ,a O1+ THE PROJECT. '`' ;• ' • Pax.- 1'&-q Uir,. . ` • z ti • THE APPLICANTS IN THEIR WESTLAKE POPULATION ANALYSIS, IN ATTEMPTING TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY COUNCIL'S DIRECTIVE TO DOWN— SIZE THE PROJECT, HAVE PROPOSED A FORMULA THAT INDICATES THE PROJECTED BUILD OUT WILL BE 1296 UNITS COMPARED WITH 1380 UNITS • ' — ' INITIALLY PLANNED. DIVIDING 1296 BY 1380 YIELDS A 94% PROJECTED " BUILD OUT WHICH IN TURN LEADS ONE TO ASSUME THAT THE PROJECT PROPOSED SHOULD BE REDUCED BY 6% OR IN TERMS OF TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE, 2, 100 SQUARE FEET. THIS THEN GIVES US A PROJECT TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 32, 900 SQUARE FEET AND PROVIDES A PARKING SPACE CAPACITY OF 110 SPACES ,•' WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT THE DEVELOPER - " HAS ASKED FOR IN HIS APPLICATION. IT IS OUR CONTENTION THE ABOVE FIGURES ARE MISLEADING AND DO NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT THE CONDITIONS THAT TRULY EXIST IN THE i WESTLAKE P. U. D. FIGURES DERIVED BY OUR STUDY GROUP INDICATE A PROJECTED BUILD OUT OF APPROXIMATELY 1267 UNITS COMPARED TO A PROJECTED • DENSITY AT THE TIME OF APPROVAL OF THE P. U . D. OF A MAXIMUM OF r �<. 1527 UNITS. THE RATIO OF THESE NUMBERS INDICATE A BUILD OUT PERCENTAGE OF 84%. 84% OF 35 , 000 SQUARE FEET YIELDS A PROJECT OF ° ' — 29, 400 SQUARE FEET AND A PARKING LOT CAPACITY OF 98 SPACES, WE FEEL THIS LAST GROUP OF FIGURES IS MORE ACCURATE AND MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE CONCEPT OF A NEIGHBORHOOD—COMMERCIAL 'r DEVELOPMENT. THE ISSUE OF SETBACKS BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND C' i, 4 THE BOUNDARIES WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETELY AND FAIRLY ADDRESSED, THE SETBACK OF BUILDING "D" , A TWO—STORY STRUCTURE ADJACENT TO THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE i • „ r•. IS 10 ' AND ALTHOUGH APPLICANT ARGUES THAT THE SETBACK IS ADJACENTVW TO AN OPEN SPACE, SOME 27 ' OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING "D" IS INDEED JUST 10 ' FROM THE NEIGHBORING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT'S BACK YARD. + WE FEEL THIS SETBACK IS INADEQUATE AND SHOULD BE INCREASEL.D IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNCIL'S GIUIDELINE NO. 3 . DOWN SIZING c)F BUILDING "D" WILL ACCOMPLISH MUCH TO ALLEVIATE THIS INTRUSTION INTO THE PRIVACY OF THESE PROPERTY OWNERS . f AS REGARDS THE TREE ISSUE, THE DESIGN BEFORE YOU RELECTS AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF TREES TO BE CUT AND REMOVED, 70 TREES NOW ARE PROPOSED TO BE CUT COMPARED TO 36 FOR THE ORIGINAL a• ; APPLICATION, ALMOST A 100% INCREASE. THERE OUGHT TO AND MUST BE . A BETTER WAY, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, THERE IS LITTLE PRECEDENT CET;�ET OR AVAILABLE THAT WILL AID YOU IN DETERMINING HOW A NEIGHI3+iRHOOC,F- ' COMMERCIAL PROJECT MIGHT BE DESIGNED. CERTAINLY THERE MUST BE .SOME DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SHOPPING CENTER SET IN A COMl"1ERrIAL, AREA AND ONE IN A RESIDENTIAL SETTING . NEIGHBORS OUGHT TO HAVE THE CONVENIENCE OF BEING ABLE TO WALK TO A PLEASANT CENTER FOR COMMON EVERYDAY NEEDS AND PERHAPS TO SHARE A CUP OF COFFEE WITH ". , THEIR FRIENDS . THIS PROJECT WILL BE A PROTOTYPE FOR THE CITY OF `, LAKE OSWEGO AND THE SURROUNDING AREA AND MERITS ALL THE TIME AND EFFORT IT WILL TAKE TO TAKE IT THE BEST TT CAN BE, .. ,, • . . " . . .r 1 1..: ': Y t File : ERIN November 24, 1992 :: To : Development Review Board City of Lake Oswego 380 "A" Avenue :, -, Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 i' i 4 4!11/n)(94/20&,14/'From: Erin O'Rourke-Meadors 5261 Coventry Court ������ Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 za • Re DR 13-9011 (Remand) Dear Members of the Board: This communication seeks to draw your attention to the •� design guidelines established by our City Council in an attempt to bring the application into compliance with our development code and standards . The City Council concluded, in part , on page 9 of its findings the design was "too large in total. square 4, + `� footage . . , too close to adjacent residential development, . .not ; + sensitive enough to or sufficiently buffered from adjacent , . d: residential development, . .not compatible in design with the surrounding single family uses . , .directed too much toward ',' automobile access and usage at the expense of pedestrian and bicycle usage" , They subsequently established design guidelines which would assist the application in achieving compliance and compatibility, The first, and most significant, design guideline No . 1 t ,. ID states , "the total square footage of the project shall l-. reduced" , It continues , "as a guide for determining the approriate reduction , the DEB should consider the difference between the current projected density of the Westlake POD at build out versus the projected density at the time of approval of the POD in 1981" , The maximum allowable density "at the time of ` approval of the POD in 1981" was 1527 dwelling units , The "' "current projected density of the Westlake POD at build out" is a maximum density of approximately 1262 dwelling units , following recent Planning Commission and Staff decisions/approvals earlier this year. Therefore, the applicant's proposed reduction of less than 6% or 2 , 000 square feet fails. to meet the established guideline , A more appropriate reduction of the maximum allowable square footage would be approximately 17% or 5 , 950 square feet , Design guideline No . 2 states , "the number of parking s pac,-'c provided shall be reduced to the minimum required . . . ' , The ;� applicant. proposes 110 parking spaces . Parkin lot, capacity i m related to a significant degree by the overall si e of a p7: ,je,-,r. The general requirement for a project of 33 , (100 square feet ,:,,xld indeed be 110 parking spaces . However , an appropriate square . footage reduction would yield a more appropriate number of parking spaces .. Additionally , the minimum required parking 1'' ,' : spaces for this site due to its proximity to a large number ,.f dwelling units and its overall sire is less than proposed by the p r EXHIBIT 1 • _ ,, r ; 1 V YY• V H1 applicant. Therefore, the applicant's proposal fails to comply , ^ � with the established design guideline. l '; Design guideline No, 3 states , "the setback between the commercial buildings and the boundaries with the single family 1 residential parcels shall be increased or the two story buildings shall be relocated so that only one story buildings, are directly ', ad_iac;nt to the single family residential parcels.. Let uc look � ';• at proposed "Building D" a two story structure which is "directly ' '-r '' adjacent" to a "single family residential parcel" . The cLetbAck Nr between this building and "the boundaries with the single family k. i residential parcels" has been decreased not increased, ��'•!.., 1':r� Additionally, this two story commercial office building of `' q ?. approximately 14, 000 square feet actually overlaps the single family residential parcel by approximately 27 feet, 'Therefore , ` ''r '• the applicant's proposal fails to comply with the established ` design guideline. r Design guideline No. 6 states "the design and mab erials shall be made more compatible with the surrounding single family homes . . . flat roofs shall be prohibited" . "Building 1)" appears to have a flat roof--prohibited by the guideline. Further, the a' ` proposed "beveled siding" appears to be the same material �,. utilized in the original proposal. Therefore, the applicant's proposal appears to fail to comply with the established design guideline . Additionally, where the Council previously concluded that "a '• good job of balancing protection of the important trees on the ' ....H site with the needs of the development" , the applicant's current , proposal further reduces the number of trees to be saved--with ,A 11 ony 29 of 103 trees on site being saved. It should be noted this is due, in large part , to an inappropriate square footage reduction, inappropriate number of parking spaces and • inappropriate placement/setback of "Building D" , In conclusion, although compliance has been sought and to a • t•• •".• significant degree achieved `: ' ♦ . .g with guidelines addressing issues •, such as building utilities , pedestrian/bicycle use, additional g•'. '` bike storage, architectual design elements and garbage , w collection receptacles--.guidelines of true. significance which would bring the application into compliance and provide compatibility such as total square footage, number of parking �u'' �'•' ' spaces, increased setbacks have failed again and again to be met. , . Therefore , this application should be denied, , Y• i Y , Y 5 0 w, .A ! , 5 Y 2 Y. Y _ t r ,, x "0 3 1 tF 4 � Memorandum r TO: Walt Williams,Records Center FROM: Barb Dillinger,Planning Dept. SUBJECT: Microfilming DATE: August 30,1995 , The following documents have been purged and are available to make camera t" ready for microfilming. ` 4 1991 DRB Minutes SD 1-9I/VAR 1-91 1992 DRB Minutes SD 2-91/VAR 2-91 1993 DRB Minutes SD 3-91/VAR 3-91 1994 DRB Minutes SD 4-91/VAR 4-91 �, ` SD 5-91/VAR 5-91(a-b) SD 6-91/VAR 9-91 7 SD 7-91 HR 8-90 (OUT?) SD 8-91 9-90 a'. HR SD 9-91/SD 10-91/SD 11- 91 (OUT-BARB D.) HR 10-90 SD 12-91/VAR 12-91 ;.•� FIR 11-90 HR 12-90 SD 14-91 HR 13-90 SD 15-91 . 4,, * t-'. HR 14-90 (FC&O ONLY) SD 16-91 HR 15-901/SD 25-79 SD 17-91 '• HR 15-90II/SD 25- SD 18-91 79(Mod. 6-90) HR 16-90 (?) SD 19-91 ' HR 17-90 SD 20-91 HR 18-90 SD 21-91 ....**•4 HR 19-90 SD 22-91/VAR 14-91 k HR 20-90 SD 23-91 tP 4: Still waiting to be purged: • i. Y 4 t K 5 ,J r 11 Memorandum TO: Walt Williams, Records Center FROM: Barb Dillinger,Planning Dept. SUBJECT: Microfilming S DATE August 30,1995 The following documents have been purged and are available to make camera ''` ready for microfilming. 1991 DRB Minutes SD 1-91/VAR 1-91 -'\ t• 1992 DRB Minutes SD 2-91/VAR 2-91 1993 DRB Minutes SD 3-91/VAR 3-91 p 1994 DRB Minutes SD 4-91/VAR 4-91 ; i.. SD 5-91/VAR 5-91(a-b) SD 6-91/VAR 9-91 `' SD 7-91 ` HR 8-90 (OUT?) SD 8-91 HR 9-90 SD 9-91/SD 10-91/SD 11- r,..', 91 (OUT-BARB D.) s ' HR 10-90 SD 12-91/VAR 12-91 ' r HR 11-90 SD 13-91 HR 12-90 SD 14-91 ' , HR 13-90 SD 15-91 .'.., HR 14-90 (FC&O ONLY) SD 16-91 HR 15-90VSD 25-79 SD 17-91 FIR 15-90II/SD 25- SD 18-91 79(Mod. 6-90) HR 16-90 (?) SD 19-91 HR 17-90 SD 20-91 HR 18-90 SD 21-91 HR 19-90 SD 22-91/VAR 14-91 ity'r HR 20-90 SD 23-91 '° it >,. Still waiting to be purged: N,