Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2000-11-06CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 6, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Douglas P. Cushing called the Development Review Commission meeting of November 6, 2000 to order at 7:03 PM in the Conference Center of Marylhurst University at 17600 Pacific Highway, Lake Oswego, Oregon, II. ROLL CALL Commission members present included Chair Cushing and Commissioners Julie Morales, Sheila Ostly and Bruce Miller. Vice Chair Nan Binkley and Commissioners Dave Powers and Douglas Kiersey were excused. Staff present were Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager; Elizabeth Jacob Associate Planner; Michael R. Wheeler, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Janice Bader, Senior Secretary. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Ostly moved for approval of the Minutes of October 2, 2000. Ms. Morales seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Morales, Ms. Ostly and Mr. Miller voting yes. Mr. Cushing abstained from the vote. Ms. Binkley, Mr. Powers and Mr. Kiersey were not present. IV. OTHER BUSINESS - Findings, Conclusions and Order None. 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 2 retaining walls and a bridge, and removal of 20 trees. The project is located along Old River Road, from Glenmorrie Drive to Southern City Limits. (Tax Map 2 1 E 11 & 14) The staff coordinator is Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner. Continued from the October 16, 2000 DRC meeting. Chair Cushing opened the public hearing and explained the procedures and time limits to be followed. He asked Commission members to report any ex parte contacts, site visits, biases City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 1 of 1 Minutes of November 6, 2000 or conflicts of interest. None were reported. Ms. Morales reported that she had listened to the taped record of the previous hearing. No one challenged any commissioner's right to hear the application. The applicant waived their right to submit a final written argument. Deliberation Mr. Cushing noted the issue of the width of the pathway had been addressed in the record and he said he assumed that a gate would be installed in the fence to provide access for property owners. Ms. Ostly opined that the minimum width of the pathway should be six feet in order to ensure it could accommodate pedestrians walking side-by-side. She indicated she favored landscaping of the area of the pump station. Mr. Miller agreed that the pathway width should be at least six feet wide, although he said he would have preferred an eight -foot width. Ms. Jacob clarified for Mr. Cushing that the fencing was to be black (see City Engineer's Comments in Exhibit 22). Mr. Cushing suggested that a reference to Exhibit 22 be included in the conditions of approval. Ms. Morales recalled previous applications where the Commission had allowed pathways to be narrowed in some areas in order to avoid trees; however, she opined that the subject pathway should be limited to six feet minimum and maximum width. Mr. Cushing observed there were no areas where the proposed width was wider than six feet and no areas where relocation of the pathway would save a tree. Ms. Ostly moved for approval of LU 00-0055, subject to the conditions in the staff report, with the following addition: Condition A(2) the appliant/owner shall provide fencing as described in the City Engineer's Comments in Exhibit 22. Ms. Morales seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Cushing, Ms. Morales, Ms. Ostly and Mr. Miller voting yes. Ms. Binkley, Mr. Kiersey and Mr. Powers were not present. There were no votes against. The applicant waived their right to object to the modified condition on constitutional grounds. Chair Cushing announced the final vote on LU 00-0055 Findings, Conclusions and Order was to take place on November 20, 2000. LU 00-0072, a request by Steve and Doris Baird for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to convert an existing single family dwelling into a Montessori School. The application also proposes to add more parking and additional landscaping to the site. The site is located at 4320 Douglas Way (Tax Lot 13800 of Tax Map 21E 8BC). The staff coordinator is Michael. R. Wheeler, Associate Planner. Chair Cushing opened the public hearing and explained the procedures and time limits to be City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of 2 Minutes of November 6, 2000 followed. He asked Commission members to report any ex parte contacts, site visits, biases or conflicts of interest. Ms. Ostly, Mr. Cushing, Ms. Morales and Mr. Miller indicated they had visited the site. Chair Cushing asked if any person in attendance desired to challenge any Commissioner's right to hear the application. No one presented such a challenge. Michael Wheeler, Associate Planner, presented the staff report (Staff Report dated October 27, 2000). He related that the applicants proposed to convert an existing 1,400 square foot dwelling on an approximately 11,000 square foot lot to a Montessori school for up to 12 children. He reported that all necessary public facilities were available to the site. He advised that the Code requires the proposed use be processed as require conditional use. He said the proposal satisfied the criteria of most Comprehensive Plan policies. He advised that although citizen comments had expressed concern regarding noise generated by the proposed use, the use was similar to surrounding uses, including Lake Grove Elementary School and school district shop facilities. He related that the Fire Marshal had determined the proposal complied with the Fire Code. He advised that the application included a memorandum from the staff that addressed the impact of anticipated traffic associated with the school. He advised the existing house could be considered a nonconforming dwelling and be allowed to remain because the structure had apparently not complied with the side yard setback requirement since it was constructed and no changes were proposed to the structure's outer configuration. Mr. Wheeler addressed conditional use criteria for institutional uses (see page 8 of the staff report). He advised that a conditional use was allowed where it was compatible with other uses in the zone and the Commission could impose conditions to ensure adequate compatibility. He advised that the proposal complied with requirements of the underlying R-7.5 Zone, including setbacks, lot coverage and the height of the existing dwelling. He related that the use was to meet special conditions applicable to schools. He advised that the site was to be physically capable of accommodating the proposed use. He noted that the applicant had indicated the dwelling's residential character was to be retained and the site was large enough to accommodate 12 students. However, he said the applicants had not adequately demonstrated compliance with applicable parking, circulation and tree protection standards, particularly regarding vehicle turning radius and the adverse impact of proposed paving on trees. He stated that the functional characteristics of the proposed use could be made to be reasonably compatible with other uses in the vicinity, including residential uses and shop facilities. He noted the applicants intended to operate the school Monday through Friday between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM. He suggested the Commissioners address the following: minimizing noise; the size and location of screening and drainage improvements in the parking/loading area; and protection of trees. Mr. Wheeler discussed the Code's special criteria for schools. He advised that the proposal met the requirement of one acre of land for each 75 pupils (extrapolated to .16 acres for 12 students) because the .26 -acre site was larger than the minimum requirement. He advised the rear yard of 3, 090 square feet was well in excess of the requirement of 75 square feet per child (extrapolated to 900 square feet for 12 students) outdoor play area. He advised that pathways were to be provided to provide safe pedestrian access to schools and there was a City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of 3 Minutes of November 6, 2000 pedestrian pathway along the frontage of the site that connected with Waluga Park and Boones Ferry Road. He noted that the existing gated fence around the rear yard met the requirement for a site -obscuring fence around the play area. He also noted that the applicant proposed fencing around the front yard and he advised that fence would be required to comply with Code height requirements. He related that the Engineering staff had found that although Douglas Way was only 19 feet wide (short of the City's 20 -foot minimum width standard) and featured no curbs, gutters or sidewalks, it was appropriate and acceptable for the site (Exhibit 23). He advised that the applicants' proposed looped drive was not adequate in dimension or function and could impact a 20 -inch diameter Douglas fir on the east side of the site, and the proposed parking was inadequate in width and number. He explained that although the applicants' arborist's report recommended a minimum distance of 12 feet be maintained between trees and the edge of pavement, the applicants proposed only a two -foot separation from the 20 -inch Douglas fir tree. He noted the front parking was configured in a manner that placed two substandard width spaces within the required yard setback. He explained that building design standards did not apply to the application because the applicants did not propose any changes to the dwelling. He recommended a condition that the applicants were to sign a nonremonstrance agreement regarding the formation of a Local Improvement District (LID) to install streetlights. He advised the presence of a pathway satisfied transportation standards. He said that off street parking and loading standards required the school to provide four parking spaces. He observed the plan to locate two of the spaces within the front setback did not meet the standard. He clarified for Mr. Cushing that it might be possible to relocate the spaces on the site and in locations outside the setback area. He advised the existing landscaping (84% of the site) met the Park and Open Space requirements. He observed that although the proposal required no water quality detention or treatment facilities, a drainage plan was required to show that runoff would drain into a positive system. He noted the applicants relied on pre -application comments from the staff that the 24 additional vehicle trips per day generated by the use would not significantly impact the capacity of Douglas Way (Exhibit 23). He stated that because the site was generally level, it could easily satisfy maximum grade and slope requirements; however, asphalt or concrete was required instead of the gravel driveway material proposed by the applicant. He advised the existing bikeway satisfied development standard requirements. He also advised that Systems Development Charges would apply to the development when a building permit was granted. He stated that if the applicants installed an additional fence on the west side of the site it would be allowed to be 4 feet in height within 10 feet of the public right of way and up to 6 feet tall elsewhere. He observed that although the applications did not propose to remove any of the 25 trees on the site, the proposed parking and circulation plan improvements could impact their health and survival (Parking Plan in Exhibit 8). Mr. Wheeler concluded that the applications did not comply with all applicable criteria. He encouraged them to address deficiencies in the parking and circulation plan in order to meet Off Street Parking requirements; adequately separate the paved area from the trees; and provide a drainage plan to direct runoff from the site to a positive system. He recommended the application be denied unless the applicant addressed the deficiencies. He related that the City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 4 Minutes of November 6, 2000 staff had recommended conditions to address the deficiencies. He clarified for the Commissioners that the applicants had not discussed the findings in the staff report with the staff. He also clarified the front yard setback was 25 feet and the existing driveway came within 3 feet of a tree. He recalled other recent applications in which arborists had recommended a tree protection radius of 10 feet. He clarified for Mr. Miller that the Code did not contain interior space requirements for students; however, such requirements may be imposed by the state. He advised Ms. Ostly that the Code required that parking spaces were to be independently maneuverable. Applicant John Shonkwiler, 13425 SW 72nd, Tigard, OR, 97223, appeared on behalf of the applicant. He held the applicants had satisfied all applicable criteria. He noted the neighborhood was a unique mix of uses, including public and commercial uses. He pointed out that the petition in Exhibit 15 showed that adjacent property owners were in favor of the proposal. He explained that because staff had not recommended the applicants' original site plan - which would not remove any trees - the applicants would propose alternate plans to relocate the two spaces in the front yard setback to outside the setback and shift the parking spaces closer to the house and utilize parking within the garage. He explained those plans might impact one or two trees. He then addressed the recommended conditions of approval (page 18 of the staff report). He noted the school was to operate only during daytime hours, so a nonremonstrance agreement for participation in a future LID to install street light improvements [recommended condition A(2)] was not justified for the use. He clarified that recommended condition A(3)(b) was to only apply to trees that would be impacted by construction. He also clarified that the landscaped front yard was not to be a play area. He confirmed for Mr. Cushing that the Commission could condition approval upon a maximum occupancy of 12 students. Mr. Shonkwiler advised that the number of vehicle trips generated by the school might not increase as estimated because many parents of future students at the applicants' school also transported children who currently attended the elementary school. None. Proponents Opponents Ron Hall, Chair, Waluga Neighborhood Association, 15194 Quarry Road, Lake Oswego, 97035, testified that the Association had initially agreed with the application, but is currently opposed to it. He attributed their change in position to the fact that the City had advised the conditional use permit would apply to the site after a change of ownership, unless it is not used for a period of six months in which case it reverts back to residential use. He recalled that the applicants had indicated to the Association that the conditional use permit would not apply after a change of ownership of the site. He related that the future Waluga City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 5 of 5 Minutes of November 6, 2000 Neighborhood Plan would document resident's concern about a continuing loss of residential properties in the community. He pointed out that a petition included with the Association's letter to the City showed that all of the site's Douglas Way neighbors had rescinded their support of a conditional use permit (Exhibit 32), because they opposed the plan for a parking lot at the front of the site. He stated the Association would not support the removal of more trees to accommodate the proposed parking lot. He also indicated the area did not have adequate pathways. He noted the applicants would be allowed to use the site for a Montessori school without a conditional use permit if they also resided there; however, they actually resided elsewhere. Mr. Wheeler explained the state had deregulated "family daycare providers" and allowed residents to care for up to 12 children in their home with no other City conditions imposed upon the use (including buffering, landscaping, parking and signage). He also confirmed that if the proposal for conditional use for 12 students were approved, the school would be limited to 12 students. It would also be subject to any state regulations that applied to that use. Bruce Goldson, 4260 Country Woods Ct., Lake Oswego, 97035, testified that he lived near the site. He observed that the proposal was contrary to the draft Neighborhood Plan. He worried about a slow intrusion of commercial uses into the residential area and the proposal's impact on trees at the site. He said the plan for a parking lot in the front yard did not fit the area's residential character. He agreed with allowing daycare facilities in resident's homes when no improvements were required. He pointed out there was no positive drainage system in the area and dry wells were not effective. Cindy Maddox, 4735 Heritage Lane, Lake Oswego, 97035, testified she had served on the Association Board and as an officer of the local Parent Teachers Association. She stated her concern about the safety of students traversing Douglas Way. She noted the applicants had not provided a traffic study and she opined the proposal would significantly impact traffic. She stressed that residents desired to keep the area from becoming a commercial area. None. Neither for nor Against Rebuttal Mr. Shonkwiler observed the applicants and the Association had a problem with communications. He suggested that the Association utilize their Neighborhood Plan to address their concern about the reduction in the number of residential properties within the area. He stressed that his clients were bound by the requirements of the R-7.5 Zone. He explained that although the City did not provide for a sunset agreement for a conditional use, the applicants had offered to place a conditioning covenant in the deed to the site that specified that a future owner could not continue the conditional use. He pointed out the City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 6 of 6 Minutes of November 6, 2000 arborist's report had advised the applicants to address a condition where the 20 -inch diameter Douglas fir tree was growing out of a lotting tree stump. He explained they would need to address the tree's condition separate from any other factors. He also explained that the applicant had proposed a larger parking area because the City required it. He advised that because the Code allowed "tandem" parking, the applicants could allocate two garage spaces for the teacher and teacher's assistant and provide for tandem parking behind those spaces. He said the only other space that would be necessary would be a small landscaped hammerhead turn -around area at the back of the parking area. He said that was the practical solution. Mr. Pishvaie clarified for Ms. Morales that the possibility of tree removal meant that additional notice was required to comply with the Tree -Cutting Ordinance. Mr. Boone advised that a tree -cutting permit not be made a condition of approval. He advised that the applicants should agree to continue the public hearing to allow notice for the tree removal. Mr. Wheeler advised that the Code allowed tandem parking in residential, single family or planned development developments; however, the current application would change the site's use from residential to institutional. He presented a sketch suggesting a new configuration for parking that included the two garage spaces and replaced the two proposed exterior spaces with one space directly south of the setback line and as far away as possible from the 36" Douglas fir tree and a second space that was centered between the 36" Douglas fir tree and the 30" fir tree and perpendicular to the driveway. He clarified for Ms. Morales that the site was not required to provide a handicapped space because the capacity of the site did not meet or exceed a specified threshold for public access. The Commissioners acknowledged that if the applicants submitted another plan that required removal of trees, the 14 -day notice required for tree removal was to be accomplished. Mr. Shonkwiler stated that the applicant would waive the 120 -day rule. ilPlihPratinn Ms. Ostly moved to continue LU 00-0072 to December 4, 2000. Mr. Miller seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Cushing, Ms. Morales, Ms. Ostly and Mr. Miller voting yes. Ms. Binkley, Mr. Kiersey and Mr. Powers were not present. There were no votes against. AP 00-0015 ILU 00-00341, an appeal by Wis and Susan Macomson of the Planning Director's decision to approve a two -parcel minor land partition request. The applicants, Raymond and Delal Lehman had proposed to divide a 28,498 sq. ft. parcel into two parcels approximately 15, 129 sq. ft. (parcel 1) and 10,134 sq. ft. (parcel 2) in area. The site is located at 635 Iron Mt. Blvd. (Tax Lot 2100 of Tax Map 21E 3CB). The staff coordinator is City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 7 of 7 Minutes of November 6, 2000 Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager. Chair Cushing opened the public hearing and explained the procedures and time limits to be followed. He asked the Commissioners to report any ex parte contacts, site visits, biases or conflicts of interest. Chair Cushing, Ms. Ostly, Ms. Morales and Mr. Miller indicated they had visited the site. Chair Cushing asked if any person in attendance desired to challenge any Commissioner's right to hear the application. No one presented such a challenge. Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager, presented the staff report (Staff Memorandum dated October 23, 2000). He explained the appellant's notice of appeal of the Planning Director's decision had requested a hearing, but the document had not specified any issues for the Commission's consideration (Exhibit A). He pointed out a letter from the Treasurer of the Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association (Exhibit C) which indicated that the development should not be approved until the issue of drainage was resolved. He noted a report by former staff member, Morgan Tracy, that supported the Planning Director's decision. He said that the applicants had requested a minor land partition that would result in one flag lot (Parcel 2). He advised that the City currently allowed flag lots that met special criteria. He observed the new lots would be located in a developed neighborhood zoned R- 10 10 (10,000 square foot minimum lot size) and the Flag Lot Ordinance required that the area of the pole section of the site not be included in the lot area calculation. He clarified that a notation on Parcel 2 showed lot size of 10,134 square feet, which was the area of the flag portion only. He said the area of the pole section was approximately 3,200 square feet (page 4 and 5 of the staff report). He said each parcel features approximately 12 trees. He explained that Parcel 1 was a developed lot with an existing house and fully complied with the zone's requirements for setbacks, lot coverage and height requirements (page 5 of the staff report) and would be subject to requirements related to alteration of structures. Parcel 2 would be subject to new construction requirements for a larger setback, smaller lot coverage and shorter building height. Mr. Pishvaie advised that the applicants had adequately addressed Flag Lot Ordinance provisions related to shared access, tree preservation, building orientation, fencing, and screening, special setbacks and building design and height limitations (pages 5 — 8 of the staff report). He advised the height of the house on the flag lot could not exceed the average height of the existing houses on abutting lots of 16.2 feet. He related that the staff supported a plan for a shared driveway because such an arrangement would protect trees. He said the location of the driveway did not create a setback issue for single-family residential use. He recalled that the City believed it had resolved drainage problems along Iron Mountain Road when it replaced a culvert there in 1997; however, Engineering staff recommended that the applicants consider a drainage system for the site, or drain the site via a culvert under the road to nearby wetlands. He noted issues cited in citizen comments included tree protection, compatibility of the flag lot with the surrounding neighborhood, minimum lot area requirements for the flag lot, drainage and fencing. He said the staff report showed that all of these issues had been adequately addressed (page 11 of the staff report). He clarified that no trees were proposed to be removed from Parcel 1, but it might be necessary to remove three trees from Parcel 2 to accommodate a future house. He advised that the staff City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 8 of 8 Minutes of November 6, 2000 reviewed site plans when building permits were requested to determine if any modifications to the plan would be necessary to maximize tree preservation. He said both parcels could comply with requirements of the Code. He recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions listed on page 14 — 16 of the staff report. He clarified for Mr. Cushing that although the Flag Lot Ordinance did not include a specific standard that addressed compatibility with the neighborhood, requirements regarding the placement of the building and garage helped to ensure maximum privacy and protection for existing homes and the building permit process also addressed similar issues. He clarified for Mr. Miller that building height was measured from the ground to the midpoint of a pitched roof, or to the eave of a flat roof. Applicant Bruce Goldson, Compass Engineering, 6564 SE Lake Road, Milwaukie, OR 97222- 2138, stated the application met Code requirements and the recommended conditions of approval. He said the lots were roughly equal in size and both exceeded the minimum lot area and dimension requirements of the zone. He said a shared driveway would provide access to both lots. He said all utilities were present. He said the Code allowed flag lots in residential areas. He pointed out two nearby lots that had been previously divided (although not into flag lots). He noted the appellants had not yet listed their concerns regarding the application. He recalled that the Engineering staff had concluded that drainage was no longer an issue in the area and he said the applicants were not aware of any drainage problem. He explained that applicants did not have a specific house plan in mind for the flag lot, but they anticipated that as many as three trees might be removed to accommodate a house. He pointed to the tree likely trees to be removed, including a small cedar tree growing underneath a larger fir tree. He clarified that no trees were proposed for removal from Parcel 1. He indicated he did not understand why there would be an issue related to notice. He said the fencing that had been recommended as a condition of approval had actually been constructed by a neighbor to ensure his pets stayed in their yard. He clarified for Mr. Cushing that the applicants would agree to extend the shared driveway, as the staff had recommended. He estimated the distance from the current edge of the pavement to the property line was 7 to 8 feet and he was certain a swale could be easily accomplished there. He clarified it should be moved as far east as possible to avoid impact on trees. He presented photographs of the backyard of Parcel 1 for the record and the trees that might have to be removed. He explained the new property line had been positioned to preserve the existing mature landscaping there. None. Proponents Opponents Wis Macomson, 655 Iron Mountain Boulevard, Lake Oswego, 97034, read his letter into the record. He alleged the staff review had not adequately considered the issues of drainage and height. He referred to Exhibit 16, which he said related to Country Club City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 9 of 9 Minutes of November 6, 2000 Boulevard and did not address the issue of drainage at the site. He said the recent culvert improvement still allowed water to flow on the street. He contended that the applicants' building height calculations were based on insufficient estimates (Exhibit 6). He said the Zoning Code provided that height was to be measured from a point on the ground to the average height of a gable (of a pitched or hip roof). He said the surrounding houses featured low-pitched roofs and he contended that the measurements showed an average height that was too high. ft requested that the application be denied. He clarified for Ms. Morales that he owned Tax Lot 2200, his house was 12 feet in height, and his lot sloped upward from the property line. He clarified that he was concerned about drainage onto Bayberry Road. Susan Macomson, 655 Iron Mountain Boulevard, Lake Oswego, 97034, related that the neighborhood was a wonderful place to live. She pointed out the staff had not addressed the issue of flooding on Bayberry Road, which she explained was an ongoing problem there. She said the staff report overestimated the heights of homes in the area. She worried that when the new house was built trees would be removed from the site. She said residents understood that any new owners in the neighborhood would be required to join a Local Improvement District (LID) (sewer) and she stressed that the owner of the new flag lot should join the LID. She said the staff had failed to address any of the resident's concerns. She requested that the partition should either be denied, or the City should set an absolute maximum height, protect the trees from a developer who might remove them, and resolve the issue of drainage on Bayberry Road. She confirmed for Mr. Cushing that none of the residents had engaged a professional to measure roof heights. Sarah Chaplin, 1290 Andrews Road, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, stated that she owned Tax Lot 2500. She said the contour map in Exhibit 16 did not indicate that Tax Lots 2400 and 2500 had been filled prior to construction of houses there and their elevation varied due to a series of terraces and a pit. She explained that drainage from the proposed flag lot ran in a west to east direction along the fence line of Tax Lot 2400 and 2000 and into a corner of her property. She asked that any plan for a swale on the site address drainage along the fence line. She agreed that the existing lawn within the area of the proposed flag lot absorbed some runoff water. Scott Benge, 1300 Andrews Road, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, testified he lived immediately north of the site. He held that if a house was constructed on the flag lot, the owners should be assessed a portion of the LID charges for sewer service. He acknowledged that he did not know the height of his house, but he would be willing to have a professional measure it to resolve the height issue. Mr. Cushing advised that the Commission did not have authority to resolve the issue of participation in the LID. Mr. Cushing also pointed out that Exhibit 6 showed Mr. Benge's house height at 22 feet. Mr. Benge explained he had a daylight basement home that was one story in the front. The staff explained the height measurement was taken at the side of the buildinc with the hiuhest roof elevation. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 10 of 10 Minutes of November 6, 2000 Sharon Tupan, 680 Iron Mountain Boulevard, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, stated she resided across the street from the site. She said she was an attorney and her husband was a geologist and their comments regarding the application could be found in Exhibit 15. She said they were concerned that the disturbance of natural resources had not been minimized by the application, as provided in the Flag Lot Ordinance LOC 48.19, and the staff had not proposed sufficient resource protection. She indicated that drainage should be addressed because it would adversely impact other properties. She opined the applicants would have observed drainage problems in the area due to seasonal flooding on Iron Mountain and Bayberry Roads. She said the staff findings did not show the existence of wetlands and staff had acknowledged that the applicants would have a future option to direct runoff into the wetlands. She said the City had not adequately addressed the issue of drainage. She said that no study had been accomplished to show the infiltration capacity of a proposed swale on the site. She said the staff report failed to acknowledge the difficulty of construction of a culvert under the roadway due to the high level of the water table under Iron Mountain Boulevard. She requested that the application be denied. She clarified for Mr. Cushing that she was referring to a wetland between Country Club Road and Iron Mountain Boulevard and she felt the issues included seasonal flooding and the impact of a culvert on the wetland area. She said she could not determine whether the drainage problem had improved over the years because she had resided in the area only five years. She recalled for Ms. Morales that flooding occurred directly across from the wetlands at Bayberry Road. She confirmed for Ms. Ostly that backed up storm drains along the roadway could resemble a flood. Margaret Reeder, 675 Iron Mountain Boulevard, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, explained that residents had purchased homes in the neighborhood because of the large lots there. She objected to a reduction in the size of the lots at the site. She opined there was no need for more houses in the neighborhood. She clarified that her physical address was along Andrews Road, but her mailing address was Iron Mountain Boulevard. Mr. Macomson read aloud the portion of the Code pertaining to height measurement. Neither for nor Against Joe Calpin, 483 D Avenue, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, stated he was Ms. Reeder's son- in-law. onin-law. He recalled constant flooding at Iron Mountain Boulevard and Bayberry Road, despite the City's attempts to improve the condition. He noted that a drain near Ms. Reeder's lot flooded frequently. He questioned the Commission's position that they could not resolve issues related to an owners financial responsibility to the LID. Rebuttal Raymond Lehman, 635 Iron Mountain Boulevard, Lake Oswego, 97034-1731, stated that he would participate in the LID. He said his family intended to construct a one-story City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 11 of 11 Minutes of November 6, 2000 home on the flag lot and use the profits from that property to remodel his existing home. Mr. Goldson explained that the applicants had not had access to surrounding properties to measure building heights, but they believed their staff who had estimated the heights was very experienced and had accurately represented the heights. He said he had not been advised by either the City or the applicants that there was a drainage problem on Bayberry Road. He opined that development of the new lot would provide features such as gutters, a seepage trench and a swale to mitigate runoff He said runoff along the street was a City issue, but the applicants' project would not increase runoff. He said a registered land surveyor had accomplished the contour map. He was not certain how the water drained to the north or how the fill affected drainage, but he acknowledged that runoff generally ran down Iron Mountain Boulevard. He said the applicants would not direct water onto an adjacent property. No one requested that the record be held open for an additional seven days to allow additional testimony or evidence. The applicants requested that the record remain open until 5:00 PM on Monday, November 13, 2000, for a final written argument. Deliberation Mr. Pishvaie clarified for Ms. Ostly that the height of a structure was always measured by the vertical distance, between the ground and the eave of a flat roof, or mid point of a pitched roof along the sides of a structure and measurements were taken on all sides of the structure. He pointed out the application indicated "estimated" heights of 14 to 16 feet. He advised that the Commission could condition that an accurate survey of nearby building heights be provided to ensure a more accurate measurement. He advised that although the Code did not specify at what point in the lot partition or development process the maximum building height was to be established, staff had interpreted the Code to mean that the maximum height was to be established at the time of the lot creation. He explained that even if a neighbor subsequently added a second story to his home, the allowed height of the house on the flag lot would not change. Mr. Boone advised that if the Commission imposed a condition that the applicants were to survey the heights of surrounding houses, the condition should be limited to those properties the applicant had permission to enter. Mr. Pishvaie explained that the City Council had adopted a flag lot ordinance that provided that the "pole" area of the flag lot could not be included in lot size calculation in order to make the lots more compatible with others in the area. Ms. Ostly moved for continuance of AP 00-0015 [LU 00-00341 to November 20, 2000. Ms. Morales seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Cushing, Ms. Morales, Ms. Ostly and Mr. Miller voting yes. Ms. Binkley, Mr. Kiersey and Mr. Powers were not present. There were no votes against. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 12 of 12 Minutes of November 6, 2000 VI. GENERAL PLANNING Block 136 Mr. Pishvaie reported that the developer of Block 135 desired to modify some aspects of the building design, including the approved building height and design. The Commissioners indicated to staff that the developer was either to build according to the approved design or submit a request to modify the approved project. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no ft rther business before the Development Review Commission, Chair Morales adjourned the meeting at 10:15 PM. Respectfully submitted. Janice Bader Senior Secretary 1:\dre\minutes\11-06-OO.doc City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 13 of 13 Minutes of November 6, 2000