Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2001-09-17CALL TO ORDER City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes September 17, 2001 Chair Douglas P. Cushing called the Development Review Commission meeting of September 17, 2001, to order at 7:03 PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Commission members present included Chair Cushing, Vice Chair Nan. Binkley, Julie Morales, Bruce Miller, Sheila Ostly and Bill Tierney. Commissioner Dave Powers was excused. Staff present were Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager; Paul Espe, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Janice Bader, Senior Secretary. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. IV. OTHER BUSINESS - Findings, Conclusions and Order LU 01-0012, an request by Doug & Jenny Delano Mr. Cushing related that the staff had advised him that the applicants had agreed to install a sidewalk on the opposite side of the street from the applicants' east property line at the location of an apparent intersection without waiting for the formation of a future Local Improvement District. Ms. Ostly moved for approval of LU 01-0012-1497, Findings, Conclusions and Order. Ms. Binkley seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Cushing, Ms. Binkley, Ms. Ostly, Mr. Miller and Mr. Tierney voting yes. Ms. Morales abstained from voting and Mr. Powers was not present. There were no votes against. V. PUBLIC HEARING LU 01-0038, Douglas Dillavou and Helen Pesci are requesting approval of the following: 1. An 8 -lot single family residential planned development. 2. Delineation of the Resource Conservation District boundary according to the City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 1 of 9 Minutes of September 17, 2001 provisions of the Sensitive Lands Overlay District. 3. Removal of approximately 32 trees to accommodate the proposed right-of-way and building envelopes. The property is located at: 13301 Knaus Rd., Tax Lot(s) 300 and 500 of Tax Map 21E 04BD. The staff coordinator is Paul Espe, Associate Planner. 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 or conflicts of interest. Commissioners Binkley, Morales, Ostly, Miller, Tierney, and Cushing 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. Paul Espe, Associate Planner, presented the staff report dated August 31, 2001. He pointed out exhibits in the record that discussed issues related to the application: Exhibit G8, a letter from Marlin J. DeHaas, DeHaas & Associates (storm water issues); Exhibit G7, a memorandum from Kent and Joan Myers (storm water issues); Exhibit F9, a letter from Barry Smith, NCARB, PC, the project architect (natural resource protection). He distributed topographical Exhibits E13 and E14 to show the location of protected natural resources on the site. He explained that to establish an open space tract in the area of conservation easement it would require a reduction in the sizes of Lots 3-8; however, the lots could still be between 16,000 and 18,000 square feet in area. He estimated that the smallest lot would accommodate a 3,600 square foot footprint, which could result in a 6,000 square foot two-story house. He recommended that the proposed pedestrian pathway be relocated from its current location to a location between Lots 4 and 5 and 15 feet from the west property line of Tract A, where there would be a better opportunity for the access to connect with Goodall Road. He suggested this requirement be made a part of staff recommended Condition A(7). He recommended that Condition B(1)(b) provide the pathway was to meander in order to minimize impact on trees and terminate 15 feet away from the western property line of Tract A. Mr. Espe noted the neighbors were concerned about storm water management because they had observed that the existing detention pond on the west side of Knaus Road in an open space in the Leslie Commons subdivision was inadequate and tended to overflow during heavy rains (Exhibit E2). However, he reported that the City Engineer had found that the amount of additional surface water draining into the system from Lots 1 and 2 and the right of way of Leslie Court would be negligible. Staff acknowledged that the City's storm water master plan needed to be updated to conform to the City's more recent regulations that addressed natural resources. Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager, confirmed that it was not unusual for properties to rely on onsite storm water facilities, such as drywells. Even Boone, Deputy City Attorney, observed the development plan called for very large lots, the application showed the applicants owned drainage rights from the site to the offsite detention pond, and the Engineering staff had found the additional drainage would have a negligible impact on the facilities. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of 9 Minutes of September 17, 2001 Mr. Espe estimated that potentially 20 residents of the development could use the pedestrian access way in open space Tract A to access Goodall Road and Lake Oswego High School. He said the pathway would increase pedestrian safety in the area. He described some alternative routes that he estimated would increase the travel distance to the school. He observed that future developments in the area might trigger the construction of sidewalks. Mr. Pishvaie pointed out the pathway would also provide a connection between the termination of the project's cul de sac and the open space. Staff advised that the landscaped easement along Leslie Lane should not be counted as open space because it was an entry feature, it was not contiguous with Open Space Tract A, and the site included enough natural resources to justify creation of an open space tract. Mr. Boone advised that LODS 8.035 (4) prioritized woodland and tree grove areas for open space. Mr. Pishvaie pointed out that Exhibits Ell and E12 illustrated the configuration of the open space area and showed which existing trees were to be preserved. Mr. Cushing observed that Exhibit Gl, a letter from Juan and Kay Phamdo, referred to a sketch of their future house that he did not find in the hearing package. Staff explained that the proposal did not address a requirement for minimum number of lots because the R-15 zone did not have a density requirement. Applicant Barry Smith, NCARB, PC, Architect, 620 SW 5t" Avenue, Ste 604, Portland, Oregon, 97204, related that the applicants desired to create a minimum density development of estate -sized lots, rather than to develop as many lots as possible on the site. He recalled that the applicants and staff had discussed opportunities to connect streets through the site at pre -application conferences, and the site's steep topography (Exhibit E9) and natural resources challenged a connection between Leslie Lane and Goodall Road. He proposed a conservation easement to benefit natural resources and wildlife, and he anticipated that fencing and traffic would be discouraged there. He explained that the housing market would determine the type of houses to be constructed on the site, but the applicants envisioned houses that were suitable for the large lots they planned there. He anticipated that if the staff recommended requirement for an open space tract was imposed and the development's lots were reduced in size, the applicants might have to seek variances to setback and lot coverage regulations in order to construct houses. He related that the applicants intended to protect as many trees as possible in the hope that houses could be designed around them; however, if it became necessary to remove trees that were outside of the delineated RC District, a lot owner would need to obtain a tree cutting permit. He asked that they only be required to protect those trees within the delineated district. He related that the applicants' arborist had advised that all of the trees that were outside of the proposed conservation easement were good candidates for removal. Mr. Smith indicated that the applicants preferred to create a conservation easement instead of an open space tract. He said the applicants had exceeded the requirement to protect 50% of the platted RC District. He explained that the applicants proposed to create swales for storm water storage in the landscaped entry of the development because they were aware of drainage problems in the area. He said the entry was to be planted with native species to give the appearance of a forested area with wetlands. He said the applicants agreed with the staff suggestion to relocate the public pedestrian pathway City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of 9 Minutes of September 17, 2001 through the site, but they did not want to improve the path and would also agree to sign a nonremonstrance agreement for a future Local Improvement District or create a deed restriction and escrow account related to future improvement of the pathway. They did not want to encourage people to access and walk around within the natural area or make the eight property owners responsible for enforcement there. He argued that creation of a conservation easement would be a better mechanism for protecting and preserving the open space because an easement would outlive the homeowners association and survive through changes in zoning regulations. He said the easement would allow the developer to create large lots for houses that featured master suites on the main floors. He worried that staff recommended individual tree easements would reduce some of the lots — particularly Lots 2 and 3 to a size that was unbuildable. He said that although the applicants desired to keep those trees, they were close enough to building areas that they might have to be removed later via the City's tree -cutting permit process. He confirmed for the Commissioners that he had originally desired to fulfill open space requirements by including two development entry landscape easements; however, he then proposed an alternate solution to increase the conservation easement area to 20% of the site. He explained that the purpose of his September 17, 2001, letter to the Commission was to demonstrate what would happen to the lot sizes if the conservation easement became an open space tract. He clarified that the building envelopes would be 60 feet by 80 feet, or 4,800 square feet. He observed that some of the newer nearby subdivisions featured smaller lots. Staff advised that nearby lots were 10,000 square feet in size as required in the R-10 Zone. He clarified that enforcement of the easement area was the City's responsibility. Douglas Dillavou, 1338 Timberline Drive, Lake Oswego, 97034, testified that he had built houses in the City since 1979. He said the site was special because of its natural resources and views. He said that he proposed to construct seven houses on the besides the existing house instead of 25 houses he would have been allowed to build there. He explained the conservation area would protect resources and meet the City's 20% open space requirement. He clarified that most of the surrounding area was outside of the City limits. He said he had opted not to repeat the actions of some property owners who removed trees from their properties under a County permit before they annexed their properties to the City. He said the development was designed to be sensitive to the area while meeting the City's requirements, and he felt the staff report required too much from a property owner and presented a worrisome example for other property owners because it also required the additional individual tree protection easements. None. Proponents Opponents Peter Barran, 13590 Goodall Road, Lake Oswego, Oregon, 97034, stated that his residence was on Tax Lot 1900 and he had lived there since 1987. He said surface water runoff was a problem in the area that had increased since some trees had been removed behind his property. He explained that he had installed a french drain to control water around his house. He questioned whether the applicants' plan adequately addressed runoff and he said he should not have to bear its impact and the cost of additional water City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 9 Minutes of September 17, 2001 management facilities. He said the City should require the developer to provide a plan prepared by a professional engineer and allow Mr. Barran to comment on it before it was accepted. He recalled that dry wells that had been installed in the past tended to overflow. He said the development's runoff would tend to run toward his property. He clarified for the Commissioners that his property was 2.6 acres in size and was not within the City. He pointed out that failed dry wells could be found to the north and east of his property. Debby M. Raddvich, 13600 Goodall Road, Lake Oswego, Oregon, 97034, testified that she was concerned about surface water runoff. She also asked that the applicants be required to plant 25 new trees to replace the trees that were to be removed from the open space area. She testified that she was opposed to the proposed pathway because she did not desire pedestrians to cross over or congregate on her property. She worried that if a pathway user started a fire, she would not be able to see it in time to address it because her barn would block her view of the pathway area. She also worried that pedestrian activity might result in local horses getting out onto the roadway where they could get hurt by vehicles. She clarified for the Commissioners that her property was approximately 3 acres in size and the proposed pathway would lead up to her property line. Kent C. Meyers, 13580 SW Goodall Road, Lake Oswego, Oregon, 97034, indicated that he felt the City was more concerned about protecting trees than protecting people. He referenced his letter to the Commission (Exhibit G7). He said he did not want the proposed pathway to lead trespassers to the back of his property where he kept horses. He asked for a better surface water management plan for the proposed development, and he explained that runoff from the Country Commons development had caused erosion of his land and killed two large Douglas fir trees. He held that the concept of imposing a grid of streets throughout the community was a very sterile concept and implementation would adversely impact environment and wildlife habitat. He added that he was not opposed to the applicants' proposal to develop eight lots, but the requirement of a tree protection easement went too far. Mr. Cushing asked Mr. Meyers how he felt the area would be accessed if the proposed pathway was not constructed and his property was eventually also divided into eight lots. Mr. Meyers advised against any assumption that he would eventually divide his property into eight lots. He asked what the City was going to do about water runoff. Mr. Cushing explained the Commission was required to judge the application according to City standards, and the Commission decision could be appealed to the City Council, or ultimately to the Land Use Board of Appeals. He also advised Mr. Meyers that the Planning Commission had the authority to hear proposed changes to the City's surface water regulations. Neither for nor Against Marlin DeHaas, DeHaas & Associates Consulting Engineers & Surveyors, 9450 SW Commerce Circle, Wilsonville, Oregon, 97070, stated that he represented Einar Nordahl, who owned a residence on a 5 -acre parcel at 13755 Knaus Road. He related that Mr. Nordahl was not opposed to the project, but desired to testify that the City was not following the Comprehensive Plan's public facility plans for extension of sanitary City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 5 of 9 Minutes of September 17, 2001 sewer and storm drainage facilities. He questioned the staff's statement that the City's existing plans needed to be updated. He clarified that because the plans were based on the area's topography, they would not need to be significantly changed. He said that if the City's master plan for storm drains and sanitary sewer facilities was followed, primary lines to serve the area would be extended through the Nordahl tract to serve the Leslie Lane project, and there would be no need for the applicants to install their own facilities. Mr. Cushing observed that because the area included both properties that were within the City and properties that were outside the City, this precluded a solution to annex the entire area into the City where it would be subject to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. DeHaas opined the City should adopt an annexation policy, and he requested that he be appointed to any committee that was formed to study annexation policies. RPhnttal Mr. Smith acknowledged there was some public opposition to the requirement to provide a public pedestrian pathway over the site. He also acknowledged a need for a comprehensive storm water management system to serve the entire area. He explained that onsite storm water management facilities would have to be of significant size; however, it was fortunate that public improvements would handle drainage to the east and the landscaped areas would also help to control runoff. He agreed that the applicants would need to plan the development and buffer it in a way that would not impact downhill properties. He said that he was not sure how that was going to occur, but he believed that the applicants and the City staff could work that out. He clarified that although the application illustrated 32 trees that were not specifically preserved, the applicants only planned to remove 12 trees from area of the cul de sac. He confirmed he understood that one-to-one mitigation planting would be required. He clarified for the Commission that the applicants intended to also be the builders of the houses on the site. No one requested that the hearing be continued to allow additional evidence or testimony. The applicants waived their right to additional time in which to submit a final written argument. Chair Cushing closed the public hearing and opened deliberations. "AihPratinnc Staff clarified for the Commissioners that the difference between the staff recommendation regarding open space in LU 01-0012 and their recommendation for treatment of open space in the current application was due to the larger size of the lots proposed for the site, and the fact that those large lots would more easily accommodate the lot coverage requirement. They further clarified that the Code allowed more flexibility for configuring open space in a Planned Development. Mr. Cushing observed that it would be possible to create a condition that would describe the conservation easement and the terms of its use, and he asked staff why they did not find such an easement to be acceptable. They explained that owners of properties that contained the easement might take full use of the easements for their own properties and what they planted there might not be consistent with the existing vegetation. They also advised that because the easement would not be fenced, its use would be a challenge to enforce and residents might attempt to extend fencing along their property lines and through the City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 6 of 9 Minutes of September 17, 2001 easement area. They explained their experience was that easement areas were more vulnerable to encroachment and harder to maintain as natural areas. Mr. Boone advised that there was not a significant functional difference between a conservation easement and an open space tract; however, he observed that property owners sometimes perceived that they could do more with an easement that what could legally be done with it. He said that the City would have the authority to enforce a conservation easement if the homeowners association that was charged with enforcement did not enforce it. He also advised that conditions of approval could prohibit fencing over the easement. Ms. Binkley suggested that the conditions of approval specify both a buffer and a setback requirement for either a conservation easement or an open space tract. She also noted that Mr. Smith's September 17, 2001, letter to the Commission (Exhibit F9) proposed to eliminate the entry area open space tracts. Mr. Cushing recalled that Mr. Smith also proposed to redraw the conservation easement area to meet City requirements. Mr. Boone advised that all drainage management plans were to be approved by the City Engineer. Mr. Pishvaie reported that the City Engineering staff had found the applicants' plan to be satisfactory. Ms. Morales indicated she favored removing the provision for the pathway. The Commissioners asked the applicants' representative for his perspective. Mr. Smith explained the primary reason the applicants proposed the conservation easement was to ensure the lot sizes could be larger, but also to protect a resource area that could be linked to other resource areas along the ridge. He said he did not desire to see fencing along an open space tract. He indicated the conservation easement would act as a privacy screen behind the lots and make them seem more spacious. Chair Cushing asked if anyone else desired to testify regarding the issue of the conservation easement. No one responded. Mr. Boone clarified for the Commissioners that a property owner was in 100% control of an easement and was required to manage it as provided for in the deed restrictions. He said an open space tract would be funded and managed by all eight lot owners. Staff clarified for the Commissioners that even if the easement area were called a "tract," the Planned Development Ordinance would still allow lot coverage to be averaged over the entire project. Ms. Binkley observed that some trees that were outside the main conservation easement area were circled to indicate individual tree easements. The Commissioners noted that if those easements were not included in the conditions of approval any future proposal to cut them would require the applicant to submit to the City's tree -removal permitting process. The Commissioners considered conditions that would protect the most significant trees outside of the conservation easement, particularly the cluster of Douglas fir trees at the entry; the large Sequoia trees on Lots 2 and 4; and a Sequoia/cedar cluster on Lot 3. They examined the site plan to see whether there would be room for housing shapes that would avoid the larger trees and still meet the setback requirements. Mr. Cushing suggested a condition that the development's CC&Rs were to charge the homeowners association with enforcement of the prohibitions and conditions related to the conservation easement. Staff advised that the illustrations of tree locations in the exhibits were not the result of a precise tree survey. Ms. Ostly moved for approval of LU 01-0038, subject to the conditions in the staff report, modified as follows: City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 7 of 9 Minutes of September 17, 2001 The applicants' request for a Conservation Easement was to be allowed, with a prohibition against irrigation, planting, and fencing within the easement area. The homeowners association was to be charged with enforcement of the prohibitions related to the easement. • The Douglas fir trees on Lot 1; the large sequoia trees on Lots 2 and 4; and the sequoia and cedar trees on Lot 3 were to be protected. • Condition A(7) was to provide that the project's CC&Rs were to provide for funding & construction of a future pedestrian pathway along the west property line going toward Goodall Road. • Condition B(1)(b) was to be deleted. The references to open space tract in A(1), A(2)(a) and A(4) were to be replaced by "conservation easement." No fencing, landscaping, irrigation was to be permitted within the easement, and the project's CC&Rs were to provide that the homeowners association was to enforce that prohibition. • Condition A(2)(e) was to be added to provide for a 25 -foot rear yard setback from the conservation easement on lots that contained the easement (Lots 3 — 7). Ms. Binkley seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Cushing, Ms. Binkley, Ms. Morales, Ms. Ostly, Mr. Miller and Mr. Tierney voting yes. Mr. Powers was not present for the vote. There were no votes against. Chair Cushing announced the final vote on the findings conclusions and order was to be held on Octoberl, 2001. Chair Cushing announced a five-minute break in the meeting and then reconvened it at 9:50 PM. *Ms. Morales left the meeting. LU 00-0016, Blue Sky Plannim, Inc., is requesting approval of a 4 -lot single-family residential planned development. The applicant is also requesting approval to remove six trees. The property is located at: 5664 Carman Drive, Tax Lot 1900 of Tax Map 21E 7 BD. The staff coordinator is 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. Commissioners Cushing, Binkley, Ostly, Miller and Tierney reported that 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 dated July 27, 2001. He reported that the maximum density allowed on the site was five lots, and the applicant proposed four lots. He advised that approximately one-half of the 2 -acre City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 8 of 9 Minutes of September 17, 2001 site featured wetlands, and the proposed development would impact approximately 1,700 square feet of wetlands. He reported that the Division of State Lands had already reviewed the plan and found it acceptable. He said the staff recommended approval of the application, subject to recommended conditions of approval on pages 15 — 21 of the staff report. He confirmed for the Commissioners that the existing front building would remain in office use until approval of the final plat, then it was to revert back to a residential unit. Applicant Mark Dane, 13005 SW Foothills Boulevard, Lake Oswego, 97034, stated that he represented the property owners, Gail & Judy Oldham. He reported they would agree to all conditions recommended in the staff report. He said they intended to retain the existing house structure in developing the site and the existing business would return to residential use when the four -lot single-family detached subdivision was approved. Staff pointed out that recommended condition D(2) provided that the applicants were required to provide written evidence that the existing commercial use on Lot 1 had ceased operations. Mr. Dane clarified that it was not yet certain whether the commercial building would be used as a base for construction activity. Additional Testimony and Rebuttal No one requested that the hearing be held open to allow additional evidence or testimony. The applicant waved his right to additional time in which to submit a final written argument. Deliberation Ms. Ostly moved for approval of LU 00-0016, subject to the conditions in the staff report. Mr. Tierney seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Cushing, Ms. Binkley, Ms. Ostly, Mr. Miller and Mr. Tierney voting yes. Ms. Morales and Mr. Powers were not present for the vote. There were no votes against. Chair Cushing announced the final vote on the findings, conclusions and order was to be held on October 1, 2001. VI. GENERAL PLANNING Mr. Pishvaie introduced Steven Lashbrook, the City's new Community Development Director. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Development Review Commission, Chair Cushing adj ourned the meeting at 10:10 PM. Respectfully submitted. Janice Bader Senior Secretary 1:Adre\minutes\09-17-01.doc City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 9 of 9 Minutes of September 17, 2001