Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2000-10-16CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES October 16, 2000 L CALL TO ORDER Chair Douglas Cushing called the Development Review Commission meeting of October 16, 2000 b order at 7: 05 PM in Room C-106 of the Commons Building of Marylhurst Conference Center at 17600 Pacific Highway, Lake Oswego, Oregon. IL ROLL CALL Commission members present included Chair Cushing, Vice Chair Nan Binkley and Commissioners Dave Powers, Sheila Ostly, and Bruce Miller. Commissioners Julie Morales and Douglas Kiersey were excused. Staff present were Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Director; Mark Schoening, City Engineer; Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Jean Hall, Senior Secretary. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Ostly moved for approval of the Minutes of September 6, 2000. Mr. Powers seconded the motion, and it passed with Mr. Cushing, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Powers, Ms. Ostly and Mr. Miller voting yes. Ms. Morales and Mr. Kiersey were not present. There were no votes against. Ms. Ostly moved for approval of the Minutes of September 18, 2000. Mr. Powers seconded the motion, and it passed with Mr. Cushing, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Powers, Ms. Ostly and Mr. Miller voting yes. Ms. Binkley and Mr. Kiersey were not present. There were no votes against. IV. OTHER BUSINESS - Findings, Conclusions and Order LU 00-0002, an application by JB&B Construction Ms. Ostly moved for approval of LU 00-0002-1596. Mr. Powers seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Cushing and Ms. Ostly voting yes. Ms. Binkley, Mr. Powers and Mr. Miller abstained from the vote. Ms. Morales and Mr. Kiersey were not present. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 1 of 1 Minutes of October 16, 2000 V. PUBLIC HEARING LU 00-0055, a request by KPFF Consulting Engineers to construct a 6 ft. wide, 4,800 ft. +/- paved pathway along the east side of Old River Road. This project includes the realignment of approx. 1,050 ft. of existing roadway to the west, construction of two retaining walls and a bridge, and removal of 20 trees. The project is located along Old River Road, from Glenmorrie Drive to the Southern City Limits. (fax Map 2 1 E 11 & 14) The staff coordinator is Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner. Chair Cushing opened the public hearing and explained the time limits and procedures to be followed. He asked Commissioners to report any ex parte contacts, site visits, biases and conflicts of interest. All Commissioners present reported they had visited the site. No one present challenged any Commissioner's right to hear the application. Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner, presented the staff report (see Planning Division Staff Report dated October 6, 2000). She entered two letters labeled Exhibits 18 and 19 into the record. She advised that in 1998 the City Council had confirmed that the roadway was to remain open and the Old River Road Pathway was to remain within the Transportation System Plan. She explained that the current application was the culmination of the City Council's request that the staff proceed with development plans for the pathway. She presented boards that included enlarged drawings of the pathway and proposed bridge and also illustrated the locations of trees to be protected or removed and the area of the protected stream corridor. She noted that most of the 100 -year flood plain would be outside of the construction area and the public right of way was within the Willamette River Boundary Overlay District. She clarified that the existing roadway was approximately 18 feet wide within a right of way area that was 60 feet wide. She related that the proposed tree removal would be mitigated by the planting of additional trees, shrubbery and ground cover. Ms. Jacob discussed the proposal's compliance with the multiple overlay districts and development standards. She advised that pathways and roads were classified as Minor Public Facilities, which were permitted outright in all zones containing the public rights of way. She explained that a public hearing and review process was required because the right of way was within the Willamette River Greenway. She said that portions of the proposed pathway would also impact Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts for RC Tree Groves and RP Stream Corridors. She advised that the Willamette River and all streams on the east side of the right of way were defined as "streams" and had not been included in the Sensitive Lands environmental assessment. She noted the streams on the east side crossed under the roadway via culverts. She also noted that a small area along the east side of the right of way was within or abutted the 100 year flood plain and some steeply sloped areas within the right of way could also be impacted. She advised that the scope of authority of the Commission was limited to a review of the application's compliance with the Zoning Code and Development Standards. She said the applicable standards focused on protection of natural City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of 2 Minutes of October 16, 2000 resources: streams, trees, rivers and plant and animal habitat. She clarified the applicable standards allowed necessary maintenance and repair activities for an allowed use or improvement. She said the existing roadway was considered a nonconforming use under the Sensitive Lands Ordinance and the Willamette River Greenway Overlay District. She noted that impacts to the natural resource environment were already occurring from pedestrian use of the roadway, and because owners of riverfront property used it to access their properties. She said construction of the pathway would provide a safer environment for pedestrians' recreational use, and reconstruction of portions of the roadway that were in poor condition would also make it safer for drivers. She related that a minimum of 43 new trees were to be planted along the roadside, as well as shrubs and ground cover to control erosion. She said tree protection fencing would be required around all trees within 15 feet of the construction area. Invasive species, such as English ivy, blackberries, and scotch broom were to be removed in order to enhance the wildlife habitat areas. She pointed out that a pedestrian bridge was to be constructed at the north end of the pathway and gabion walls were to be installed in other areas. She said the applicant had demonstrated compliance with the applicable standards providing for a minimum disturbance of sensitive areas. She said the applicant would be required to obtain all necessary state and federal permits prior to issuance of a construction permit. She said staff found the application provided for appropriate measures to balance conflicting needs between public safety and protection of natural, scenic and recreational areas. She recommended the proposal be approved subject to the recommended conditions on pages 16 — 18 of the staff report. Ms. Jacob clarified for Ms. Binkley that the only bridge proposed by the applicant was to be constructed at the north end of the pathway and the southern point of the pathway was under Clackamas County jurisdiction. She related that the County staff had indicated that jurisdiction had no specific requirements to apply to the proposal other than that the City was to submit its construction plans to the County. She clarified for Mr. Cushing that the person who wrote the letter in Exhibit 18 had not been aware at the time of writing that the applicant proposed to use a tubular metal railing design (as had been recommended by adjacent property owners) atop the retaining wall. Mr. Cushing asked if there would be any barrier to property owner access to the lower portions of their property other than at the bridge and retaining walls. Ms. Jacob answered that guardrails would be installed along portions of the roadway. Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, advised that access to private property was not a standard for the Commission to address, unless it was addressed as a design issue. Applicant Tim Shell, KPFF Consulting Engineers, 111 SW 5`" Ave, Ste 2500, Portland, OR, 97204, testified that his firm had been retained by the City to prepare the construction plans and documents for the project. He stated that he agreed with the staff report, including its recommended conditions of approval. He said the proiect balanced the interest of the City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of 3 Minutes of October 16, 2000 neighborhood with protection of natural resources along the river. He explained the plan had been created to deal with the topography and existing roadway in a manner that would minimize the number of trees to be removed and impacts on the floodplain, riverbank, stream corridors and tree canopies. He clarified that guardrails were proposed around a turnout area at the pump station and to ensure safety along the 140 foot and 8 foot long retaining walls. He explained trees were to be replanted at maximum density and in generally the same areas where trees had been removed. He clarified for Ms. Binkley that the proposal documents showed the design of the bridge railing design (Exhibit 7), but did not show the design of the retaining wall railing, which allowed a more substantial view than the bridge railing. He explained the design of the bridge railing matched that of an existing bridge at George Rogers Park. He clarified that although Exhibit 4 (on page 22) showed the bridge handrail was 36 inches high, it was actually to be 42 inches high and the height of the hand rail in Exhibit 4 (page 21) would also be 42 inches designed to meet Code requirements. Mark Schoening, City Engineer, clarified that the City Building Code would not apply to the railing, and the proposed railing would be a black color and its design would be similar to railings found on pathways along Stafford Road, near the golf course. Mr. Boone advised that it was appropriate for the Commission to review the design of railings on a "structure" such as the bridge; however, he questioned the authority of the Commission to impose design conditions on non -structures, such as pathway and roadway guardrails (see LODS 2). Mr. Shell confirmed that the pathway was intended for both pedestrians and bicyclists. He also clarified that the pathway connected with a sidewalk at the West Linn city limits. William Owen, P.O. Box 641, Portland, OR, 97207, testified that he was the certified consulting arborist for the project, and he explained he was currently involved in accomplishing an extensive report regarding the trees at the site. He clarified that 22 trees had been flagged in yellow (for removal), including some groups of trees (counted as individual trees) that shared a common root. He also noted that an additional small hazard tree had been flagged that day for removal. None. Proponents Opponents Ms. Patty Bauman, 2065 Lilly Lane, Lake Oswego, 97034, stated she was Co-chair of the Glenmorrie Neighborhood Association, which supported the pathway. She explained that the Association disagreed with some of the findings in the staff report. She related that although previous meetings had been held by the Old River Road Task Force to discuss the City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 4 Minutes of October 16, 2000 pathway plan, this was the only official public hearing in which the neighborhood had been allowed to provide testimony. She explained that the Association believed that the staff report included assumptions that needed to be clarified and additional conditions of approval were necessary. Ms. Bauman also recalled that at their April 2000 meeting the City Council had decided not to attempt to clarify whether the public right of way was actually 60 feet wide because that process would delay the project. She explained that some people believed the right of way width could be as narrow as 30 to 50 feet. She recalled that the Council had approved a 3 - to 6 -foot wide pathway; the City Engineering Department had proposed that it be 6 feet wide its entire length; and the Council had decided to allow the Commission to resolve the issue. She said the neighborhood understood why the roadway vias excepted from RC District protection, but they did not understand why the pathway was also excepted. She disputed the staff assumption that the Willamette River was a "stream" requiring a 25 -foot buffer and contended that the Willamette River Greenway Corridor buffer should be applied. She observed that the staff report had reported that no written comments had been received for the hearings record. She stressed that the Old River Road Task Force report should have been included in the record. She said the residents favored the existing "temporary" speed bumps. She said the residents wanted more information regarding the "temporary" chain link fence, including its purpose, how long it would be up and what it would look like. She worried that the required final geotechnical report would require changes to the appearance of the project and could recommend pilings. She said if that happened the neighborhood desired that another public hearing be held. She asked for clarification of the meaning of the language regarding flood plains in the last paragraph of page 14. She requested that the staff recommendation that a certified arborist be onsite during construction be made a requirement and supported by enforcement measures. She stated that the key issues of signage and security for property owners had not been addressed in the proposal, although they had been addressed in the Old River Road Task Force Report. She requested that the Commission return the application to the staff to further clarify the issues raised by the neighborhood. She opined that the City had not increased the level of citizen input in the hearings process. Mr. Cushing advised that the Commission did not typically review traffic signage. Ms. Bauman related the Old River Road Task Force had designed aesthetically pleasing signage for the area. Mr. Cushing observed that only a small percentage of the 4,800 -foot length of the pathway — in two areas where there were very steep (Gabion) walls — would feature obstacles to access to adjacent properties. He asked if there were other areas where residents were concerned about access. Ms. Bauman explained the members of the Association desired to be able to get to the beach. Mr. Cushing observed the application documents did not include reports of Council action regarding the pathway. Mr. Boone advised that the applicant had addressed the criteria necessary for a Commission review, and he observed that issues raised in testimony by the City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 5 of 5 Minutes of October 16, 2000 neighborhood association did not relate to applicable criteria, but centered on the relationship between the owner of the right of way (the City) and the adjacent property owners. Dave Bartz, 3242 S. Glenmorrie Drive, Lake Oswego, 97034, testified that his family resided near the pump station on Old River Road. He questioned whether the notice of the hearing had included all relevant information. He noted the Old River Road Task Force Report and the Council decision regarding the pathway had not been included in the record. He stated that the proposal violated the Willamette River Greenway and Sensitive Lands Overlays because it unnecessarily converted several hundred feet of natural ground to pavement. He related that he and his wife had landscaped a berm near the pump station where a grasscrete driveway was proposed to serve station maintenance vehicles. He contended that feature was not necessary to the project and merely accomplished a project desired by the City Maintenance Department. He quoted from the staff report that "no sanitary sewer, water or any utilities are required for the proposed pathway" (see page 13 of the staff report). He contended that City crews only needed to use the area once or twice a year during outages and could access the station without the proposed driveway by backing in and out. He asked the Commission to reject the proposal for the drive through. He pointed out the location of his residence on the upriver side of the pump station. He worried that the plan to locate a generator so close to the riverbank posed a danger that breakdowns could spill oil into the river and endanger species there. He acknowledged that his property deed described a 60 -foot public right of way. He referred to an "as built" construction plan for the pump station that showed the 60 foot wide right of way ending just behind the existing pump station. He noted that the proposed plan showed the right of way continued to 20 feet north of the station. He asked the basis on which the City could support the expansion of the right of way onto private property. Rick Jacobson, 3166 Stonebridge Way, Lake Oswego, 97034, testified that he resided one block west of Old River Road. He explained that five of the property owners on his street were joint owners of some river front recreational lots. He said he was in favor of the pathway, but the application had not fully addressed the issues of whether the adjacent property owners were to be responsible for maintenance and liability related to the pathway and the issue of parking along Old River Road. Mr. Boone advised those issues were beyond the scope of the hearing. He indicated that further research would be necessary to determine whether the pathway was to be treated as a sidewalk or as a public street. Mr. Schoening advised that the City had historically taken the responsibility of maintaining its asphalt pathways. Mr. Jacobson pointed out the location of the jointly owned recreational riverfront lots (about halfway along the proposed pathway length) that extended from the right of way to the river. He explained that there was no "short cut" for the residents of Stonebridge Way to use to access the lots, so they typically drove the 1.5 mile round trip to the property carrying City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 6 of 6 Minutes of October 16, 2000 people and supplies. He said that if the owners' right to park across the road from the lots was eliminated their enjoyment of the property would be reduced. He explained that the river lots had been created for recreation of residents of the residential subdivision at the time the subdivision had been created. Jerry Lublink, 17007 Old River Road, Lake Oswego, 97034, recounted the legal history of the roadway and disputed the City's claim that the right of way was 60 feet wide. He noted that the width was described as 30 feet in dedication, survey and name change documents dated 1871 and 1884; and although a 1914 survey had not specifically described its width, the document had referred to previously established vested rights. Mr. Lublink held that meant the document intended the roadway was to remain at 30 -foot width, or it would have specified a new width. He also observed that nearby Glenmon-ie Drive and Stonebridge Way were 30 feet wide. He recalled an old law had provided that if no width was specified the old right of way width would remain. He also recalled that at its April meeting the City Council had indicated the issue of roadway width should be resolved. Judy Dauble, 3030 S. Glenmorrie Drive, Lake Oswego, 97034, testified that she had served as the Glenmorrie Neighborhood Association representative to the Old River Road Ad Hoc Task Force. She recalled recommendations made by the task force, including: • The amount of new asphalt should be minimized to maintain a "country lane" quality. • Tree preservation is essential. • The Old River Road right of way should be managed to ensure quality of life for residents, and quality of life should not be compromised by future improvements. • The use of paint and signage should be minimized. • The City should work with property owners to enhance natural resources and protect native plants and wildlife. • The pathway area should provide a natural park -like experience for walkers and adequate security for residents. • The design of all improvements and any associated amenities should address neighborhood concerns about congregation and security. • Aesthetically pleasing barriers should be installed to prevent parking along roadway shoulders. • Implementation should be phased, judicious and based on thorough testing. There is not a need to complete the entire program at once. For example, the use of traffic management devices may mean there is not an immediate need for a fully developed pathway. Ms. Dauble stressed that the task force had not foreseen the installation of retaining walls, the removal of 20 trees and the development of a structure. She recalled that the Task Force had included people with differing interests who had reached a compromise regarding roadway improvements. She said the essential conclusion of the group had been that "less is more." She opined that once asphalt and retaining walls were installed they would never be City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 7 of 7 Minutes of October 16, 2000 removed. She urged the Commission to take a restrained position regarding the application. Mr. Cushing asked if the group had envisioned that people would continue to walk in the street. Ms. Dauble clarified that the Task Force had recommended that traffic devices be used to slow traffic and then that a partial pathway (of varied width) be constructed where it was necessary. She said the group had envisioned a pathway design that used part of the road, incorporated "pinch points" in places (in place of retaining walls and tree removal), and featured traffic management devices (including speed bumps). She acknowledged that the group's position regarding prohibiting parking along the roadway differed from Mr. Jacobson's position that parking be allowed there. Jim Morse, 17147 Old River Road, Lake Oswego, 97034, stated that he owned property on both sides of the right of way. He asked for clarification regarding the difference between the terms "easement" and "right of way." Mr. Cushing explained the City had a right to occupy the right of way. Mr. Morse asked what his liability would be in the event someone was injured on his property. Mr. Cushing explained that issue was beyond the scope of review of the application. Mr. Morse related that he had constructed a boat dock, and he asked if other riverfront property owners would also be allowed to construct boat docks. He also wondered who was to be responsible for landscaping the right of way. Mr. Cushing opined that Mr. Morse would not be obligated to landscape the area, and he observed that if the City landscaped the area, it would be to the property owners' benefit. Mr. Morse asked if the City would have a right to change any landscaping he installed in the area. Mr. Cushing commented the City would probably have a right to change it if it interfered with public use. Mr. Morse related that he had held discussions with PGE regarding the burying of power lines along the pathway area. He asked if the City would share the cost of moving poles. Mr. Boone advised that was not a design issue and he suggested Mr. Morse discuss the matter directly with the City Engineer. Mr. Cushing observed the application documents showed poles to be relocated, but it was not clear to him which ones would be moved where. Mr. Boone cautioned that the legal opinions expressed by the DRC chair might not be the same as the City's positions. C. C. Dawell, 16805 S. Old River Drive, Lake Oswego, 97034, stated he was testifying on behalf of L. M. Dawell (Tax Lot 1100). He related he had resided in the City for 73 years. He said the Glenmorrie Cooperative had determined that the right of way was 30 feet wide after they had engaged a lawyer to clarify the legal width of the right of way. He said a 1908 survey had indicated a 60 foot wide road, but that would have made the roadway too wide when it was measured according to the scale of the survey. He recalled that Ms. Morrie had platted the road in 1913; however, in 1914 the County had determined the original plat was faulty and had requested it be replatted. He explained that Mrs. Morrie had never signed the plat. He noted the road in the plat showed a 30 -foot wide right of way along the river. He also pointed out five locations where the roadway had been flooded City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 8 of 8 Minutes of October 16, 2000 during a 1964 flood and recommended against building in these areas. He recalled that residents had been discussing the roadway issue for eight years and had agreed to a 6 -foot width of the pathway when it was adjacent to the road. He noted Willamette River Greenway regulations provided that property owners' views and existing vegetation were not to be disturbed. He stated that as many as 340 dogs per day had been counted along the roadway and dog droppings presented a maintenance problem. He worried that a 6 -foot wide pathway would not accommodate all of the people, dogs and bicyclists who would use it. He also indicated his concerns regarding trespassers and drivers who used his property to turn their vehicles around. He questioned whether the proposed pathway would be worth the disturbance it could cause. Carolyne Jones, 2818 S. Poplar Way, Lake Oswego, 97034, related that the neighborhood's major concern was ensuring the safety of pedestrians by slowing vehicle speeds along Old River Road. She worried that drivers would feel they could continue to speed along the roadway if a 6 foot pathway was installed beside the roadway. She recalled the Old River Road Ad Hoc Task Force had determined that the best use of the roadway was as a "walking park" and not as a cut -through for drivers avoiding Highway 43 traffic. She requested that more Task Force recommendations be included in the project plan in order to accomplish that. She clarified for Mr. Cushing that she would prefer to see higher speed bumps installed on the roadway. Priscilla Penachello, 3000 Stonebridge Way, Lake Oswego, 97034, related that her family had resided in the area for many years, and owned Tax Lots 1200, 1201 and 1203. She worried that permanent development of the site would further urbanize the area. She asked that it be left natural - without wide pathways. She observed the plan (including the wider roadway) was different from that which the Old River Road Ad Hoc Task Force had envisioned. John Handy, 16955 Old River Road, Lake Oswego, 97034, pointed to his property (]Fax Lot 1800) and explained that was where the 140 foot long retaining wall was proposed. He asked how access to the beach from his property would be accomplished, without going across someone else's property. He also worried about the security of private property owners. He said that although the Old River Road Ad Hoc Task Force had adequately addressed his concern, the current project design did not. He held that access and security were design issues that the Commission should consider as they reviewed the design of the retaining wall and railings. He observed that 20 trees were to be removed from the area of the retaining wall and he asked where the mitigation trees were to be planted. He explained that the width of the right of way was an important issue because it impacted how much riverside property he owned and paid taxes on. He stated that he was on the board of the Glenmorrie Neighborhood Association and the Association was in favor of the pathway, but the application should have more adequately addressed residents' concerns. He requested that the issue be mediated. He summarized the issues as access, security, trees and the impact of the large retaining wall on remaining trees, including a massive maple tree. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 9 of 9 Minutes of October 16, 2000 He clarified for Ms. Binkley that he had installed a "No Trespassing" sign on the beach. He said he currently accessed the beach either by climbing down a steep rock wall, or via a pathway that meandered across some else's property. Mr. Cushing asked Mr. Handy what kind of access he felt the City should provide. Mr. Handy answered that he would prefer to have use of a staircase down to the beach and a lockable gate for residents' use. Mr. Cushing observed the gabion wall did not extend beyond the northerly boundary of Mr. Handy's property. Mr. Handy explained there was a sheer cliff in that area that obstructed access to the beach. He pointed out the area of two reflective poles where his family accessed the beach. He acknowledged that a retaining wall was necessary, as the roadway was collapsing into the river; however, he requested that beach access be provided for residents who owned property along the river. Rick Brinkman, 4320 S Callaway Drive, West Linn, OR, testified that he had run and biked along the pathway area for the past 16 years. He expressed his concern that features the residents had requested had not been included in the project. He said he would prefer to walk and run on the roadway, as it currently existed. He urged the DRC to preserve the recreational value of the site. None. Neither for nor against. Rebuttal Mr. Schoening clarified for the Commissioners that the project featured an asphalted pathway because the City's Transportation System Plan had identified it as a paved pedestrian pathway. He further clarified that it was primarily intended for use by pedestrians (and perhaps children riding bicycles) but not for commuting cyclists (who could use the roadway). He also advised the City was required to provide an all-weather surface (typically asphalt or concrete) for the use of all residents, regardless of their physical abilities. Mr. Schoening explained that the City Maintenance Department checked the pump station every week. He noted the proposed design reduced the area where a maintenance vehicle (a pickup truck, which sometimes pulled a trailer containing a generator) currently accessed the site. He also advised that City guidelines would allow the width of the pathway to vary from the minimum requirement of 5 feet up to 10 feet. Mr. Shell related that the proposed design had been presented to the Council during an April 2000 meeting, and the Council had instructed the applicant to proceed with the design for a 6 -foot wide pathway that could vary in width to avoid impacting trees. He noted the neighborhood association had been afforded an opportunity to speak at the meeting. He explained the temporary chain link fence was to be used to protect trees during construction City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 10 of 10 Minutes of October 16, 2000 and would then be removed. He advised that the final geotechnical report had already been prepared and would not require changes to the project plan. He stated that an arborist had been retained; he was to prepare a full report prior to the issuance of building permit; and he was to be onsite during construction. He explained that a one-way drive through the area of the pump station would allow maintenance trucks to pull through the area instead of backing out of it. He said Willamette River Greenway standards allowed utility maintenance access and the applicant believed that the installation of a grasscrete driveway would be preferable to the use of concrete or asphalt. He further clarified that the pathway would change from asphalt to grasscrete as it passed the area of the station. Ms. Binkley commented the grasscrete surfaces posed a hardship for occupants of wheelchairs. Mr. Shell explained the purpose of the proposed retaining wall at the Handy property was to prevent flooding. He clarified for Mr. Cushing that the Army Corps of Engineers had approved the project, and he anticipated that the Division of State Lands would approve the project after clarification of some information. He said he did not anticipate the agency would change the project. He said he believed the applicant's plan would make the pathway area safer. Mr. Schoening and Mr. Shell clarified for Ms. Binkley that the speed bumps would remain on the roadway and the pathway would be routed so there were no bumps in the path. Mr. Shell acknowledged that the applicant would agree to a condition to install a gate in the railing at the Handy property. He cautioned that due to the physical constraints of the area access there could not be made to accommodate persons with disabilities, it would be within the 100 -year flood plain, and the Army Corps of Engineers would have to approve the plan. He clarified for those whose testimony had referred to a large maple tree below the retaining wall that it was actually a large cottonwood tree. Mr. Owen also clarified the 44 -inch diameter tree near the gabion wall was a cottonwood tree. He advised that the wall could be constructed without hurting the tree. Mr. Cushing noted the tree was not flagged to be removed. He asked if allowing the pathway width to vary so that it could be reduced to 5 feet in some places would save any of the trees that had been proposed to be removed. Mr. Owen opined that a maple tree in the area where grasscrete was proposed might be saved if the pathway was narrowed two feet; however, he recommended that it be replaced by another tree. He also clarified for Mr. Cushing that trees removed from the immediate area of the pathway could be replaced by planting new trees close by, except for trees in the location of retaining wall at the Handy residence. Mr. Bartz asked for additional time in which to submit the 10 -year-old "as built" plan for the pump station. Mr. Cushing announced that the hearing would be continued to November 6, 2000. He clarified that the record would be held open until 5:00 PM on Tuesday, October 24, 2000, to receive additional written testimony or evidence; and written rebuttals to that testimony would be allowed until the following Friday. The Commissioners indicated they desired that a report regarding the April 2000 Council action regarding the project be included in the record. Mr. Boone recommended that parties City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 11 of 11 Minutes of October 16, 2000 submitting additional written testimony indicate the source or criteria for their arguments regarding access, parking restrictions, Old River Road Ad Hoc Task Force recommendations, etc. He also listed some objectives of the Willamette River Greenway Plan: • Significant fish and wildlife habitats were to be protected. • Significant natural and scenic areas were to be protected. • Natural vegetation was to be protected or enhanced to assure scenic quality, protection of wildlife, protection from erosion and screening of uses from the river. • Public safety and protection of public and private property (especially from vandalism and trespass) was to be provided to the maximum extent practical. • Public access was to be provided to and along the river for pedestrian, bicycle and water uses. Mr. Boone observed the applicant had not waived the 120 -day time limit. The applicant agreed to submit any final written argument by Friday, November 3, 2000. Ms. Binkley moved to continue the hearing until November 6, 2000. Mr. Powers seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Cushing, Ms. Binkley, Ms. Ostly, Mr. Powers and Mr. Miller voting yes. Ms. Morales and Mr. Kiersey were not present. There were no votes against. VI. GENERAL PLANNING None. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Development Review Commission, Chair Cushing adjourned the meeting at 9:10 PM. Respectfully submitted. Jean Hall Senior Secretary 1:\dre\minutes \ 10-16-00. doc City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 12 of 12 Minutes of October 16, 2000