Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2008-04-07 (02) OF LAKE OSwfCO City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes OREGOK April 7,2008 L CALL TO ORDER Chair Bill Tierney called the Development Review Commission meeting of April 7, 2008, to order at approximately 7:00 p.m, in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners present besides Chair Tierney were Vice Chair Sheila Ostly and Commissioners Alby Heredia, Krytsyna Stadnik and Don Richards. Commissioner Nan Binkley was not present. Staff present were Hamid Pishvaie, Assistant Planning Director; Jessica Sarver, Association Planner; Johanna Hastay, Associate Planner,Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Janice Bader, Administrative Support. III. MINUTES Ms. Ostly moved to approve the Minutes of March 3,2008. Ms. Stadnik seconded the motion and it passed 3:0. Chair Tierney abstained. Ms. Stadnik moved to approve the Minutes of March 17,2008. Ms. Ostly seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. IV. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER LU 07-0041, a request by Mark Beirwagen Ms. Stadnik moved to approve LU 07-0041-1667, Findings, Conclusions and Order. Ms. Ostly seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. V. PUBLIC HEARING LU 08-0009, a request by Rick Carlson for approval of a Major Modification to an approved development permit(LU 04-0030, an 8-lot Planned Development)to revise Condition A(7)(b) affecting Solar Access Code compliance for future Lots 1 and 7. The applicant proposes to designate Lot 1 as a solar lot and Lot 7 as exempt from solar access standards. Location of Property: Future Lots 1 and 7 of Carman Grove Estates Planned Development(Tax Lots 702, 800, and 900 of Tax Map 21E 0713D). City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page I of 6 Minutes of April 7, 2008 Chair Tierney opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedure and time limits. He asked the Commissioners to report any ex parte contacts (including site visits), biases and conflicts of interest, and to identify any known present or anticipated future business relationships with the project or the applicant. Mr. Richards reported he had visited the site. Each of the Commissioners present declared their business or occupation as follows: Ostly (real estate appraiser); Stadnik(civil engineer); Heredia(real estate broker); Richards (arborist and landscape architect); and Chair Tierney(utilities inspection business). No one present challenged any commissioner's right to hear the application. Staff Report Johanna Hastay, Associate Planner, presented the staff report(dated March 28, 2008). She said the applicant was requesting that a previously approved solar lot designation exemption be switched from Lot 1 to Lot 7. She advised that the result would still comply with the solar access standards because 80% (7 of the 8 lots) would still be solar lots. She corrected the staff report to clarify that Lot 5 provided a Protected Solar Building Line. She recommended approval of the application. When invited, the applicant declined to testify. Deliberations Ms. Stadnik moved to approve LU 08-0009. Ms. Ostly seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. Chair Tierney announced the final vote would be held on April 21, 2008. LU 07-0098, a request by Wes Lewis for approval of the following: • A 6-lot single-family residential subdivision; • Determination of a Resource Conservation (RC) protection Area, and • Removal of 22 trees. Location of Property: 1790 Skyland Drive (Tax Lots 800 and 801 of Tax Map 21E 14CB). Chair Tierney opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedure and time limits. He asked the Commissioners to report any ex parte contacts (including site visits), biases and conflicts of interest, and to identify any known present or anticipated future business relationships with the project or the applicant. Ms. Ostly related that the applicant's consultant had also worked for her. Commissioners Heredia, Richards and Chair Tierney each reported he had visited the site. Each of the Commissioners present declared their business or occupation as follows: Ostly(real estate appraiser); Stadnik (civil engineer); Heredia(real estate broker); Richards (arborists and landscape architect); and Chair Tierney (utilities inspection business). No one present challenged any Commissioner's right to hear the application. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of 6 Minutes of April 7, 2008 Staff Report Jessica Sarver,Associate Planner, presented the staff report (dated March 26, 2008). She explained that the Resource Protection (RP) and Resource Conservation (RC) Overlay Districts had been delineated during the recent annexation process. She said the sloped site was 4.44 acres in the R-15 Zone. It featured an existing house that was to remain on Lot 2. She said the proposal met minimum and maximum density standards and the proposed Resource Conservation Preservation Area(RCPA) was appropriate because it protected over 50%of the tree grove; it protected the most sensitive of the resources on the site; and it was connected with adjacent resources. She said all proposed lots met the zone's size and dimensional requirements. Two of them were to be accessed via vacated Skyland Drive. The others were to be accessed by a new private street off of Eastridge Drive. She advised that the three proposed flaglots were subject to the Flaglot Ordinance, which determined house orientation, limited building height and required buffering landscaping and fencing. She said staff found the height of the existing house was afew inches over the averaged flaglot height limit, but a small adjustment could be allowed because it did not significantly impact the neighborhood. She said a turnaround was not required at the end of the new street because the road configuration allowed emergency vehicles to drive all the way through the site. She pointed out where bollards would be used to restrict access to parts of Skyland Drive to only emergency access. She said the trees to be removed were in the path of the driveway and sewer line and allowed to be removed for development purposes. She said most of them were in the interior of the site, where removal would not impact the character of the neighborhood, or the windthrow-resistance of the rest of the grove. She said newly planted trees would mitigate tree removal. Ms. Sarver recommended approval of the application subject to the conditions of approval listed in the staff report. She pointed out the record contained written testimony from a resident of Marylhurst subdivision who was concerned the project would exacerbate an existing drainage problem. However, she advised that the applicant proposed to control runoff on site and the City Engineer agreed with the plan. During the questioning period, the Commissioners indicated.they were still concerned about the impact of runoff on downhill properties. Staff acknowledged that the Code- required RCPA construction setback was only five feet, which they thought might be too close to a house. They confirmed that the RP and RC Districts overlapped. Applicant Ken Sandblast,Planning Resources, Inc., 7180 SW Fir Loop, Ste. 201,Portland, Oregon, 97223, explained that property owner, Dr .Wes Lewis, had engaged the services of a professional biologist, who had worked with staff to delineate the resource districts during the annexation process. He pointed out the applicant had positioned building envelopes outside of the proposed RCPA, where the resource was of lesser quality. He reported that the applicant had worked with the neighborhood association and the water district; positioned and designed the utility crossing to have the least impact on natural resources; and designed surface water management system to control stormwater flow. He pointed out the proposed accesses and location of bollards. He explained the applicant wanted the houses on the flaglots to face the view to the north(as most neighborhood homes did) and he did not want to have to obscure the view and fence off a part of City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of 6 Minutes of April 7, 2008 Skyland Drive that served other properties by installing fencing. He said the new houses would feature fire sprinklers and the applicant had begun to remove invasive species. During the questioning period, Mr. Sandblast clarified the stormwater system would address most runoff on site by trapping it in underground infiltration chambers. Mr. Boone advised the Commissioners that the City Engineer and the Building Division had the authority to review and approve such systems. Staff advised the Commissioners that the DRC did not have authority to approve an exception to the fencing requirement, for flaglots but the applicant could use the variance process or obtain a waiver from the neighbors. Chair Tierney asked Mr. Sandblast if the applicant wanted to ask the DRC for an exception to the flaglot fencing requirement, in case neighbors did not waive it. Mr. Sandblast deferred his answer. Staff reported that they had found the south sides of flaglots 1 and 2 were the most parallel to a street(Green Bluff), thus, according to the Faaglot Ordinance, that side was to be their front property line. They said to designate the west side as the front line could result in insufficient lot depth on Lot 1. Mr. Sandblast disagreed that and indicated that he believed the Ordinance allowed more flexibility to set the lot orientation. Staff observed that the best solution to the issue of which side was to be the front was to obtain a wavier of the landscaping and fencing requirement from the neighbor. There was no testimony from either Proponents or Opponents Neither For Nor Against Bill Howe, 1875 Skyland Drive, contended that the site's property line was the centerline of the former Skyland Drive because the roadway had been split down the middle and given to the adjacent property owners when it was vacated. He referred to the Fire Marshal's Office Memorandum in Exhibit F-10 and wanted to know if the Fire Marshall actually wanted that entire former roadway to be posted"No Parking." He explained that land was owned by neighbors who had to use it for parking. He said he would be happy to sign a waiver so the applicant would not have to build a fence that impeded views. He reported that the neighborhood did not have or want streetlights, and he objected to staff- recommended Condition B(10)(b), which required a streetlight on vacated Skyland Drive whenever the City decided that was in the public interest. He said he could agree to allow the owners of Lots 1 and 2 to install a streetlight if they wanted one. He pointed out page 6 of the staff report should be corrected to indicate that it was Lots 3 —6 that were to be served by an access easement from Eastridge Lane.. not Lots 1 and 2. Staff agreed. Mr. Howe explained that neighbors did not want to see the former Skyland Drive used by more traffic than the two houses that had historically used it to access the applicant's site. He pointed out an adjacent, undeveloped, triangular,parcel he and his wife owned. He wanted assurance that the conditions of approval to be applied to the applicant's development would not require it to have streetlights, or render it un-developable at some point in the future. Staff explained that the Code required a private street that served multiple lots to meet City street standards, including called for streetlights. They said they knew the neighborhood did not want street lights, so they had fashioned the related conditions of approval to only require installation if the City determined that was in the public interest. They anticipated that upcoming"Dark Sky"legislation would reduce the amount of street lighting the Code required. They said they were not recommending the entire length of City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 6 Minutes of April 7, 2008 Skyland Drive to be lit, but that lights be installed at the intersections where each of the two access drives met Eastridge Lane. Mr. Howe stressed that the vacated roadway was outside the City and on private property. When Chair Tierney wanted to know if the roadway had also been annexed, staff pointed to a section of that roadway that had been annexed. They cautioned that if it were true that the applicant only owned half the roadway that could raise issues as to whether or not the proposal met zone standards. Mr. Howe had a document that he said showed he owned half of the roadway. He recalled that all parties and staff agreed there should not be a streetlight where the former roadway entered the site, and he asked them to remove the requirement for a streetlight there. Staff explained the findings had to show the project met the street light standards, and if the applicant did not own the entire former roadway, staff had to determine whether the applicant's site was actually 4.4 acres. They clarified that the upcoming legislative process to change the City policy regarding street lighting standards would offer all interested parties notice and an opportunity to testify, and that the City Council had delegated the authority to require a street light to the City Engineer. Mr. Howe explained that he interpreted the Fire Marshal's Office Memorandum in Exhibit F-10 to require "No Parking"signs along the former Skyland Drive. Staff said staff-recommended conditions of approval meant the signs had to be posted along the sections of the site's internal private accesses and the portion of Skyland Drive (likely only along Lot 1) that a fire truck would use to reach each lot on the site. Mr. Howe indicated he could accept that. Staff said the parcel Mr. Howe owned and had asked about was still in the County and subject to any county resource-related regulations, but had no City protective designation. Mr. Howe indicated that his questions were not intended to delay the approval process. Mr. Pishvaie then observed the document Mr. Howe had submitted was a"Mutual Private Roadway and Utility Easement,"which showed the entire former roadway was part of the site. He also noted the survey in Exhibit E-3 also showed that it was part of the site. Rebuttal Mr. Sandblast recalled Mr. Howe had testified that the neighbors would sign a wavier of the flaglot rear and side yard fencing and landscaping requirement, so there was no longer an issue related to the allowable orientation of the flaglots. He said the applicant supported Mr. Howe's request not to require"No Parking" signs along the former Skyland Drive easement. He indicated that the applicant was willing to agree to Condition B(10)(b)that would obligate the owners of Lots 1 and 2 to install a streetlight on vacated Skyland Drive if the City determined that was in the public interest in the future. He anticipated that the legislative process would give the affected parties an opportunity to influence that decision. He agreed the staff report needed to be corrected to show that only Lots 1 and 2 were to be accessed via the former Skyland Drive. He discussed the issue regarding whether the application showed the correct property boundary along former Skyland Drive. He said to the best of his knowledge the former roadway belonged to the applicant, because land for the roadway had been originally taken from the parcel the applicant owned, and it had subsequently been returned to that parcel. He noted the site had been surveyed by a professional land surveyor and was City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 5 of 6 Minutes of April 7, 2008 guaranteed by the title insurance report. He pointed out Exhibit E-3 showed the street vacations in 1969 and 1982. He said the document Mr. Howe had referred to was likely an access easement that allowed shared access over the former roadway. However, he explained it did not matter whether or not the former roadway was half owned by adjacent property owners, because when the lots were configured,the land in the roadway was not counted, and the lots still complied with R-10 zone standards and density standards. He noted both the applicant and Mr.Howe did not want the decision delayed. Staff Comments W. Boone observed that the document Mr; Howe had submitted during his testimony was a maintenance agreement signed by six property owners. Staff entered it into the record as Exhibit F-13. Mr. Boone observed that the title report in Exhibit F-12 and the subdivision report in Exhibit E-9 seemed to support the applicant's position that the former roadway was completely within the applicant's site. Mr. Pishvaie confirmed that. the Preliminary Plat in Exhibit E-4 demonstrated that all lot sizes would still exceed the zone's minimum lot size, even if the access easement area were not included in the calculations. No one requested additional time in which to submit additional testimony and evidence. Chair Tierney closed the public hearing. The applicant waived his right to additional time in which to submit a final written argument. Deliberations Ms. Stadnik noted that language on page 6 of the staff report should be corrected to read: The applicant proposes to access Lots 3—6 from a shared driveway accessed from Eastridge Lane. Lots 1 and 2 shall be accessed from the former Skylands Drive Ms. Ostly reasoned that the applicant must have worked out most issues with the neighbors because no one was present to oppose the application. Chair Tierney observed he proposed a`-`straight" subdivision, rather than a Planned Development. Ms. Ostly moved to_aparove LU 07-0098. Ms, Stadnik seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. Chair Tierney announced the final,vote would be held on April 21, 2008. VI. GENERAL PLANNING &OTHER BUSINESS(None) VII. ADJOURNMENT There being not further business Chair Tierney adjourned the meeting at 8:55 pm. Respectfully submitted, anice Bader Administrative Support III WrcVninuteMpril 7,2008.doc ® City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 6 of 6 Minutes of April 7, 2008 Page 1 of Bader, Janice From: Pishvaie, Hamid Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 12:10 PM To: Bader, Janice Subject: FW: T1048 LAKE OSWEGO Attachments: Exhibit E Print.jpg; Exhibit D Print.jpg; 270526 T-1.1 T-1.jpg; 270526 T-1.1 T-1.pdf Janice -here is the information for the power point presentation we talked earlier today. I anticipate 4 pages of slides, with the following titles: 1. Collocated telecom Facilities in Public Rights of Way 2. Example of a Collocated Telecom Facility, with a pole mounted cabinet 3. Example of a Collocated Telecom Facility, with a pole mounted cabinet 4. Site plan showing proposed Collocated Telecom Facilities around Oswego Lake Thanks, S. Hamid Pishvaie Assistant Planning Director Development Review Division City of Lance Oswego (503)635-0294-phone (503)635-0269-fax From: Jennifer Aguon [mailto:jennifer.aguon@pbtelecom.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 11:50 AM To: Pishvaie, Hamid Cc: Shawn Van Giesen; Mike Kavanagh Subject: T1048 LAKE OSWEGO Hamid, Photosimulations (Exhibits D and E) and Overall Node plan attached per your request. I have attached both .jpg and .pdf formats for the Node Plan. I'm pretty sure PowerPoint supports .pdf and it may look a little cleaner. Jennifer Aguon Project Designer PB Telecom, Inc. 303 Battery St Seattle, WA 98121 Office: 206.838.9275 ext.26 Fax: 206.838.5021 Define, Design, Deliver This message contains information that may be confidential or private,and is intended solely for the recipient. If you are not the intended recipient,please delete it and notify us immediately by telephone(206.838.9275)or fax(206.838,5021),and please do not copy or send this message to anyone else. 6/17/2008