Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2000-02-23CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES February 23, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER The Development Review Commission meeting of Wednesday, February 23, 2000 was called to order by Chair Julie Morales at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego. II. ROLL CALL Commission members present included Chair Morales, Vice Chair Nan Binkley, and Commissioners Douglas Cushing, Douglas Kiersey, Sheila Ostly, Bruce Miller and Dave. Powers. Staff present were Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager; Michael R. Wheeler, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Janice Bader, Senior Secretary. Ms. Morales welcomed newly appointed Commissioner Dave Powers to the Commission. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Ostly moved for approval of the Minutes of January 19, 2000. Ms. Binkley seconded the motion, and it passed with Ms. Morales, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Cushing Ms. Ostly, Mr. Miller and Mr. Powers voting yes. Mr. Kiersey abstained. There were no votes against. IV. OTHER BUSINESS - Findings, Conclusions and Order None V. PUBLIC HEARING AP 99-13, the applicant, WRG Designs, Inc., is appealing the Planning Director's decision [LU 99-0029] approving a minor partition request to divide a 1.28 acre lot into three parcels, including two flag lots. The property is located at 1501 Country Club Rd., Tax lot 2900 of Tax Map 21E 4DB. The staff coordinator is Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner. Continued from the February 7, 2000 DRC meeting. Mr. Pishvaie related the applicant's request that the hearing be rescheduled for March 6, 2000. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 1 of 8 Minutes of February 23, 2000 Mr. Cushing moved to continue AP 99-13 to March 6, 2000. Ms. Binkley seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Morales, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Cushing, Mr. Kiersey, Ms. Ostly, Mr. Miller and Mr. Powers voting yes. There were no votes against. LU 99-0002, a request by Mr. Donald F. Cameron, (neighbor to the north) for a hearing regarding the applicant's request to remove eleven (11) trees in order to construct a new single family dwelling at 2306 Mayors Lane (Tax lot 401 of Tax Map 21E 16CB). The staff coordinator is Michael R. Wheeler, Associate Planner. Continued from the February 7, 2000 DRC meeting. Ms. Morales opened the public hearing the explained the procedures and time limits to be followed. She asked commissioners to report any ex parte contacts, site visits, biases or conflicts of interest related to the application. All Commissioners reported they had visited the site. No one challenged any commissioner's right to hear the application. Michael R. Wheeler, Associate Planner, pointed out that the staff memorandum of February 18, 2000 included exhibits that had been received after the previous hearing. He recalled that the applicant's original application to remove 11 trees to accommodate a new dwelling had not adequately identified trees on the site. He advised that illustrations subsequently submitted by the applicant and his arborist were of different scales and were not comprehensive; however, Exhibit 31 specified which trees were to be removed and which were to be saved. He advised that the current site plan illustrated the extent of proposed slope alteration. He clarified that the current proposal was similar to the original proposal in that it proposed to remove 11 trees. He pointed out that the most recent plan substituted a north side tree for a tree that was within the dwelling envelope. He opined that the applicant's materials still did not present a clear enough illustration of the proposal for staff to evaluate its impacts. He related that the applicant's arborist's report included recommendations for tree protection during construction but did not offer any recommendation to revise the dwelling footprint to reduce environmental impact to the trees. Mr. Wheeler summarized the proposal's deficiencies: 1. Offsite impacts had not been properly illustrated and discussed. Trees shown in Exhibit 31 along the perimeter of the proposed driveway would likely need to be removed for construction of a required public turn -around that had been required as a condition of approval of the minor partition to serve property directly to the west. 2. Adjustment of the proposed dwelling (an evaluation required by the Tree Code) had not been discussed. He advised that the dwelling footprint could be pivoted to the north in order to reduce the impact to an 18" maple that was within four feet of the dwelling's south wall. He noted the modification would not affect a tree that was 22 away from the north side. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of 8 Minutes of February 23, 2000 I The driveway was excessively wide. He explained the proposed 26' -wide driveway together with a required 5' wide construction impact zone would take up the full width of the property where it abutted Mayor's Lane. He advised that the driveway and construction of a planned retaining wall would adversely impact three trees in the vicinity. He suggested the driveway width be reduced to 12' to 15' width to reduce impact on the trees. 4. The proposal had not discussed whether the dwelling floor plan could be reversed so the garage was subordinate to the face of the structure as it was viewed from the street. He suggested the driveway be located along the west property line and serve a side -loading garage. He said such a plan would accommodate the turn -around on the adjacent site and would reduce the number of trees impacted, including trees at the entry to the site. 5. Although Exhibit 31 showed no impact to trees to the west of the site, staff believed they would be significantly impacted by construction of the driveway and might have to be removed for the turn -around. Mr. Wheeler recommended that the hearing be continued to enable the applicant to address the deficiencies of their proposal and the alternative plans suggested by the staff. He pointed out that letters received just prior to the hearing from the Palisades Neighborhood Association and residents attending the hearing had been included in the record as Exhibits 37 — 41. He also pointed out the location of the turn -around on Exhibit 1. He clarified for Ms. Binkley that if the dwelling footprint was slightly pivoted to the north the height of the resulting structure would not have significant impact. Ms. Binkley noted that Exhibit 19 showed a previous proposal featuring a different building footprint that seemed to have been designed to deal with the steep slope and minimize the driveway. Mr. Wheeler explained that plan had been created during the property partition in 1990, when the applicant had been required to inventory trees on the site and show any impacts of the partition, based on a hypothetical dwelling footprint. He advised that the applicant was not obligated to use that plan AApplicant John Barnes, President, JB&B Construction, Inc., P.O. Box 1784, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, requested that the hearing be continued to enable him to review the Tree Code and the staff memorandum he had received that day. Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, clarified that the Tree Code provisions that were in effect at the time the original application was filed were to be applied to the proposal, and not the recently adopted new Tree Code provisions. Mr. Cushing moved to continue LU 99-0002 to March 6, 2000. Ms. Binkley seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Morales, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Cushing, Mr. Kiersey, Ms. Ostly, Mr. Miller and Mr. Powers voting yes. There were no votes against. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of 8 Minutes of February 23, 2000 LU 99-0069, the applicant, Oregon Department of Transportation, is requesting approval to reconstruct the Childs Road Bridge between Bryant Road and Sycamore Avenue. This site is located in the Public right-of-way (Tax Map 21E 20). The staff coordinator is Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner. Ms. Morales opened the public hearing and explained the procedures and time limits to be followed. She asked the Commissioners to report any ex parte contacts, site visits, biases and conflicts of interest related to the application. All Commissioners reported that they had visited the site. No one challenged any commissioner's right to hear the application. Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner, explained the hearing was to evaluate a conditional use permit application for a major facility, the Childs Road Bridge. He explained the applicant, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) proposed to reconstruct the bridge, which was within an R-10 residential zone and a Sensitive Lands Resource Area that included a tree grove and a stream corridor (Oswego Canal). He clarified that the nearby wetland area would not be affected by the project. He advised that some features of the existing bridge were substandard, including its width, lack of sidewalks and weight bearing ability. He noted a major residential development east of the bridge and a significant wildlife open space area was to the west. He noted the project was included in the City's Public Facilities Plan short-term projects listing. He clarified this was to be a Clackamas County project within the City's jurisdiction and the County was to be responsible for bridge maintenance and upkeep until the facility was transferred to City ownership. He said the project had been designed by the state and the county and would be paid for by Federal Highway Replacement and Rehabilitation Program funding that would be administered by ODOT. He explained that the project was to be reviewed by state, county and local jurisdictions. Mr. Tracy recalled a 1992 design, which called for a 50' wide bridge with standard highway construction details that included sidewalks and railings had been made less intrusive due to public input. He advised that public reports that the bridge would serve as a flood -control feature for the Lake were not correct. He clarified that the Lake Corporation, the City Engineer and ODOT had discussed how it might serve as a flood - control facility; however, the reconstructed bridge could not have a greater hydrological impact than the current bridge if federal funding was to be used. (See also the Hydrology Report included in the staff report.) He explained the applicants had not designated a protection area between the bridge and the tree grove because they planned to fully restore the area to its natural state after construction. He noted that one 11" diameter maple tree was to be removed from the grove to accommodate sidewalk grading, but the area would be replanted with red alder and Douglas fir trees. He recommended a condition of approval that a 6' tall chain link fence be maintained along the perimeter of the project during construction. He noted that although the bridge would bisect a stream corridor (Oswego Canal), expansion of the bicycle and pedestrian facilities would be the minimum allowed. He noted that a bridge would provide an environment that was more sensitive to fish and wildlife than a culvert. He said the original bridge plans had been modified to specify that no riprap was to be used along the streambed. He said all City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 8 Minutes of February 23, 2000 demolition and construction work was to be accomplished from the bank and not from the stream corridor; the applicant proposed to restore the area; and no materials or vehicles were to be staged within the resource district. He clarified the parking area for the Canal Acres Natural Area would be used for staging, as long as it did not restrict pedestrian access to the park. Mr. Tracy advised that a conditional use was to be compatible with the surrounding uses and conform to the purpose and requirements of the underlying zone. He advised the proposed use would be reasonably compatible with adjacent uses. He noted the bridge was an established use and was to be reconstructed within the exiting public right-of-way. He said the design had been achieved as a result of public input and would feature colors similar to the natural environment. He noted the project would accommodate increased pedestrian and bicycle travel, but would not generate increased vehicle traffic. He clarified that no changes were to be made to existing driveways or fire access roads. He noted the grades of approaches to the bridge were to be lowered. He advised the project would be subject to the Tree -Cutting Ordinance that was in effect at the time the application had been filed, and not the newer Emergency Tree -Cutting Ordinance. He explained that 10 trees were proposed to be removed to accommodate the bridge improvements: one tree within the tree grove and four trees on the southeast side of the bridge would be severely impacted by grading; and five ash trees on the northwest corner within Bryant Woods Park were proposed to be removed. He advised that the applicant had not sufficiently justified the removal of the latter five trees, but he acknowledged that it those trees could make the installation of a sidewalk more challenging. He recommended approval of the application, subject to conditions recommended in the staff report. Mr. Tracy related that the proposal had received preliminary approval from the Division of State Lands and the Army Corps of Engineers and was awaiting approval from the National Marine Fishery Agency. In answer to a question from Ms. Binkley regarding DRC authority to hear the matter, he clarified that the hearing was being held to provide a forum for public comment regarding the conditional use, and the DRC had authority to impose conditions related to the project design and landscaping plan that would reduce the impact on the surrounding area. Mr. Boone advised the project was to conform to all applicable local ordinances, and the DRC should apply the City's criteria to the proposal. Mr. Tracy further clarified that the DRC was to apply the City's Sensitive Lands stream corridor and tree grove protection standards to the project. He pointed out for the Commissioners that the design included 6" -wide railings, a 5' -wide sidewalk, and 14' - wide travel lanes. He noted that some riprap would be used outside the stream channel and would be held together by piles driven into the bank. AApplicant Rick Keene, Oswego Canal/Childs Road Proiect Coordinator, ODOT, 123 NW Flanders, Portland, OR 97209, recalled that the project had been redesigned and River Run Park had been improved to provide mitigation for impacts to fish habitat after the Oregon Fish & Wildlife Department indicated there could be fish in the canal. He said City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 5 of 8 Minutes of February 23, 2000 bids were scheduled to be let the following April, but might be delayed an additional year. He requested that the condition to install a chain link fence not be imposed because the applicant had created an erosion -control plan for the area. He requested that a condition to plant an additional 10 white oak trees not be imposed. He said ODOT's plan met the National Marine Fishery Service requirement that 1.5 trees be planted for every tree removed and the additional trees would add to the cost of the project. He requested that the applicant not be required to mitigate for the existing informal 18" -wide path. He explained that would mean that a 700- to 800 -square foot mitigation area (required by the National Marine Fishery Service) would have to be relocated closer to the river and would have a greater impact on vegetation. He said the applicant would create a rock embankment around the bridge according to National Marine Fishery Service requirements. He noted that the new structure would feature a sidewalk, new guard railings and road connection improvements. He said a traffic detour would be in place during construction and the project would take four to six months to complete. Mr. Keene clarified for Ms. Morales that the guardrail shown in Exhibit 9 was simply an artist's conceptions of a cross-section of the bridge; however, Exhibit 8 illustrated the actual plan for the 36" to 42" guardrail, which was to be bent at each end of the bridge. Ms. Morales noted the gaps in the railing were 4" wide, and were larger than what the Uniform Building Code (UBC) allowed. Staff advised that the Uniform Building Code did not apply to this project; however, the project would have to comply with the American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials standards. They also noted the railing was atop a solid wall. Mr. Keene advised the design was a standard type of design for bridges. Mr. Tracy summarized the staff's recommendations for the Commissioners. He recommend that trees just beyond the impact area be protected from damage during construction by a chain link fence. The fencing was to be in four sections, and not an enclosed perimeter fence. Mr. Keene requested that condition not be imposed because the project planned to utilize a silt fence that would define the project perimeter and would serve the same purpose as the chain link fence. He explained that because contractors were to work within a specified boundary, a fence beyond that boundary would not be necessary. Mr. Pishvaie pointed out that Exhibit 7 delineated the project impact area. Mr. Tracy described the recommended locations of tree protection fencing. Mr. Pishvaie noted the applicant proposed three-foot high black fabric fence. He advised that the staff's experience was that a chain link fence was the best type of tree protection. Mr. Keene recalled that after the applicant and the City's landscape architect had agreed on a landscape design that also met the requirements of the National Marine Fishery Service, the staff had recommended additional white oak trees be required. He said he saw no reason for the additional trees, because the agencies that required the Canal Zone mitigation area had approved the plan without them. He said the National Marine Fishery Service and the City had agreed that the mitigation area was to be between the trail and the bank of the Tualatin River. He noted it was a long and narrow area that currently included blackberries and Hawthorne trees. He noted that more valuable trees City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 6 of 8 Minutes of February 23, 2000 were growing closer to the Canal. He opined that the existing path had been informally created by walkers over the years and could be reestablished over time by walkers or a contractor with a compacting device. He explained some other area would be impacted in order to avoid impacting the path. Mr. Cushing noted the applicant's contractor, W&H Pacific, had indicated they planned to preserve the existing pedestrian path. He observed that pedestrians might create a new walking path that would do more damage to the area. Mr. Keene indicated that he did not desire to change the mitigation area to where it would impact more valuable trees. He also indicated that some trees were to be planted in the area of the existing path. Mr. Tracy clarified that the staff report had discussed a concern that the proposal would remove a path that connected with the path on the applicant's drawing (and which was not shown on the applicant's drawing) and then ran to the river bank. He recommended that no trees be planted on the walking path, because they would be trampled. He said that staff believed the applicant had not proposed sufficiently dense plantings to mitigate the impact on a stream corridor. He related that both City and County staff had reviewed the proposal while on the site. None. None. Proponents Opponents Neither for nor Against Richard A. Schmidt, 165 SW Tualatin Loop, West Linn, 97058, stated that he resided along the Tualatin River. He indicated his concern that the bridge might exacerbate flooding conditions in the area, particularly during a 100 -year flood. He asked if the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) had approved the plan. Mark Schoening, City Engineer, advised that the City participated in the FEMA flood insurance program and was locally responsible for implementing that program according to FEMA standards. He said the City found the structure would not affect the floodway or the floodplain and met FEMA standards. Arne C. Nyberg, 5638 SW Dogwood Road, Rivergrove, requested that the record be held open for seven days to allow time for additional testimony from the City of Rivergrove. He said that the Hydrologic Report should be corrected to indicate that the channel work was to be accomplished between the dates of June 1St and September 30th. He explained that he was concerned about the impact of the project on the City of Rivergrove because his home had been under water during the 1996 flood. He asked that plans for storm water drainage from the roadway and the bridge be addressed. He City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 7 of 8 Minutes of February 23, 2000 questioned whether it was necessary to drive pilings as deep as 9 feet underground. He asked how thick the riprap would be. He asked that plantings be used to soften the impact of the riprap. Mr. Cushing suggested that the Commission allow the City of Rivergrove to comment on the application by noon Wednesday, March 1, 2000, and that the applicant be allowed until the following Friday to respond. Mr. Cushing moved to continue LU 99-0069. Mr. Powers seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Morales, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Cushing, Mr. Kiersey, Ms. Ostly, Mr. Miller, and Mr. Powers voting yes. There were no votes against. VI. GENERAL PLANNING The staff and commissioners discussed their future agenda. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Development Review Commission, Chair Morales adjourned the meeting at 9:05 PM. Respectfully submitted. Janice Bader Senior Secretary 1:\dre\minutes\mintemp.doc City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 8 of 8 Minutes of February 23, 2000