Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 1990-05-21CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES May 21, 1990 I. CALL TO ORDER The Development Review Board meeting of May 21, 1990, was called to order by Chairman Foster at 7:30 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Board members present were Mr. Stanaway, Ms. Sybrowsky, Mr. Foster, Ms. Remy, Mr. Bloomer, and Mr. Greaves. Mr. Starr was excused. Also present were Robert Galante, Acting Planning Director; Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Planner; Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner; Jerry Baker, City Engineer; Mike Wheeler, Associate Planner; Cindy Philips, Assistant City Attorney; and Barbara Anderson, Secretary. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Galante, Acting Planning Director, presented a letter from Nick Bunick asking that the order regarding his development be signed this evening. Chairman Foster pointed out that they did not have a quorum present of those members who voted on that application, and therefore they could not handle the matter this evening. V. PUBLIC HEARING DR 3-90/VAR 6-90(a-b), a request by Oregon Management Group to reconsider rights of way improvements for DR 3-90/VAR 6-90(a-b), eight duplexes on eight individual lots. The Board approved the applicant’s request for eight duplexes with two setback variances on April 2, 1990. The site located between Church Street and Wilbur Street on the west side of Furnace Street, (Tax Lot 2200 of Tax Map 2 1E 10AD). Chairman Foster discussed the procedures, criteria and timeline for the hearing. He asked Board members if there were any ex parte contacts or conflict of interest. Hearing none he requested a report from staff. Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner, recommended approval of the request with conditions. These conditions included half street improvements on Church and Furnace Streets and a three foot concrete sidewalk on Wilbur Street. She mentioned confusion regarding the width of the sidewalk on Wilbur. She said that the applicant has requested that the Board reconsider the approved right-of-way improvements. Ms. Jacob noted the new exhibits 13 through 15. She asked that the sidewalk width on Wilbur be changed from three feet to five feet in order to meet the handicapped requirements. Applicant William Headlee, Oregon Management Group President, said that he asked for a reopening of the hearing in order to clarify two items for which he and the staff interpreted the Board’s intentions differently. He mentioned his work with the staff to find a solution to the confusion regarding the three foot sidewalk requirement on Wilbur. He said that he measured the sidewalk in front of the George Rogers house and it was five feet wide, not three feet wide. He asked that they be allowed to place the sidewalk adjacent to the curb instead of adjacent to the property line in order to avoid the maintenance problems with a small strip of grass between the sidewalk and the curb. He indicated that most City sidewalks were now placed adjacent to the curb. Mr. Headlee mentioned the issue of the safety factor with 14 feet versus 20 feet width of neighborhood streets. He presented a series of slides showing the existing conditions of the site and the adjacent roadways to illustrate the neighborhood’s desire to maintain their narrow vegetation lined streets. Mr. Headlee pointed out that both Furnace and Church streets were substandard roadways, according to the City Engineer. He said that the road was replaced by the City three or four years ago when a new pipeline was installed and at that time the City retained the 14 foot width. Ralph Olson, Olson Group Architect, explained that Exhibit 13, the plan they submitted, contained information which they understood the Board wanted, and how the staff interpreted the extension of the roadway, the gravel shoulder, and the walkway. He said that they felt strongly about neighborhood safety and retaining the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Olson reviewed their proposal on maintaining the character of the neighborhood through softscape and road width. He stated that Church and Furnace Streets should remain at their current width which served to regulate the traffic speeds because of the narrowness of the street, and to provide a softscape look where the landscaping came down to the edge of the road. Wilbur Street, a more fully developed road, had speeding traffic because the road was wider and could accommodate the speeds. Mr. Olson indicated that the applicant would install five foot sidewalks on Wilbur at the curb edge of the street. He noted that while currently there was no sidewalk immediately to the west on Wilbur, when that property improved, a sidewalk could be installed to continue the walking surface down Wilbur. He stated that with the landscaped material carried down to the edge of the sidewalk, the softscape feel of Furnace and Church was continued. Mr. Olson stated that they agreed with installing a catch basin on the northwest intersection of Wilbur and Furnace. He asked that the Board consider the installation of a 10 foot wide gravel strip in the center of a parking area and another 10 foot strip between the two access points. He indicated that gravel would maintain the soft casual character of the street while providing for additional off street parking. He pointed out that pedestrians would not cross from the unimproved side of the street to the other simply to walk on an asphalt walking path. He spoke to improving the five blocks of Furnace Street all at once, possibly through an LID. He said that they would sign a non-remonstrance agreement for future development at such time as the neighborhood wanted Furnace Street improved. Proponents Jaime Ellgen, Old Town Neighborhood Association Chair, said that she represented those in Old Town who have chosen to participate in the recognized neighborhood association. She concurred with Mr. Olson regarding the safety issue. She contended that widening one block of a five block street would not improve safety in the neighborhood. She said that most of the accidents in the neighborhood occurred on the improved roadways, not on the narrower streets. She asked that the road be left the way it was for safety reasons. Ms. Ellgen said that widening the street would also destroy the historic flavor of the neighborhood. She stated that the neighborhood wanted to maintain the historic nature of their community, similar to other communities in the U.S. She mentioned that five properties designated historic by the Historic Review Board were located in Old Town. Ms. Ellgen said that the neighborhood association (95% of the residents) supported the project but not the street improvements. She referenced the letter from Mary Grace Cowlings’ attorney which reviewed the history of the property. She said that this was the best proposal they have seen in terms of blending into the neighborhood. Ms. Sybrowsky asked if the neighborhood wanted an asphalt or concrete sidewalk. Ms. Ellgen said that the material was not important but preserving the neighborhood character was. Chairman Foster asked how wide the grass verge was between the sidewalk and the curb in front of the George Rogers House. Mr. Headlee said that he thought it was three feet but he only measured the five foot sidewalk. Chairman Foster said that he observed a eight to nine foot space between the edge of the pavement and the curb on the north side of Church Street in which cars could be parked off the street. Mr. Headlee said that was true in some locations. Chairman Foster mentioned installing a concrete sidewalk on the south side of Church Street to match the north side. Chairman Foster asked Mr. Headlee if he would sign a non-remonstrance agreement for Furnace and Church streets. Mr. Headlee said yes. He explained that even if they improved the street now, it would simply be torn up in the future and that it was more economical to wait. Staff confirmed that the sidewalk on Furnace and Church was to be asphalt while the sidewalk on Wilbur was to be concrete. Chairman Foster commented that this development would be brand new, and that he thought that an old unimproved street would be incongruous with it. Ms. Ellgen said that the new development was designed to blend in well with the neighborhood. Chairman Foster asked when the neighborhood would improve the streets, given their concern to preserve the historic character of their area. Ms. Ellgen said, speaking for herself, that she would never improve it. Chairman Foster indicated that he thought they would see a substantial change in character with this new development. Ms. Ellgen mentioned that the sidewalk on the north side of Church Street was in terrible shape. Tom Glover, 425 Furnace, Lake Oswego, 97034, concurred with the previous comments. He said that when cars sped down from George Rogers Park on the improved street, they were forced to slow down for the right turn onto unimproved Furnace Street. He contended that improving Furnace Street would exacerbate the safety problem by making it easier for cars to speed. He agreed that Furnace was a self-regulating street and fit into the historic character of the neighborhood. Walter Durham, Jr., spoke for himself, the McDermotts and Murray Fraser, owners of the property. He mentioned the vacation of the alleyway that the Board was going to recommend to Council. Chairman Foster explained that this Board did not hear vacations. Mr. Galante explained that the vacation recommendation would go to Council for a hearing. Opponents Marguerite Leach, property owner, stated that she owned the property on Furnace Street directly across from the project. She disagreed that Furnace was not a hazardous street, citing examples of cars going over the bank on her side of the street. She suggested that the street be improved to provide for adequate parking, though not to increase the driving lane. She said that she did not object to a straight asphalt sidewalk at the curb but noted the need for drainage on that side of the street. Ms. Leach reviewed the development history of the area. She mentioned that this was a street with no stop signs, in contrast with stop signs on so many other streets in the City, and a preferred raceway for the young people who did not care about the condition of the road. She said that drivers could not see people walking on the street because of the topography and that this block was essentially a blind block. Ms. Remy asked if cutouts for parking along the gravel area would help. Ms. Leche said that those were hazardous in the winter when people slid into them because the streets were iced. Chairman Foster asked for testimony from those neither in favor nor against. Hearing none he called for rebuttal. Mr. Headlee indicated that he did not see a need for rebuttal. Chairman Foster closed the hearing for Board Deliberation. Board Deliberation Mr. Headlee answered several questions from Chairman Foster regarding the drainage. He indicated that he would install the catch basin on the southeast corner of the project Chairman Foster asked questions regarding the turnouts. Mr. Headlee said that they did not propose a sidewalk behind the turnouts on either Church or Furnace, just the 10 foot gravel turnout between the two driveways. Chairman Foster asked for staff comments on Mr. Headlee’s proposal. Mr. Galante said that staff has not had an opportunity to review the submittal. Staff continued to recommend half street improvements. He acknowledged the concern regarding neighborhood character and explained that the Board did have some discretion regarding the applicant’s request if adequate traffic safety could be provided for. Chairman Foster noted the Board issues of a five foot sidewalk built to the curb edge on Wilbur Street, and a catch basin installed on the southeast corner of the property. The Board discussed the sidewalk on Wilbur. They agreed that the sidewalk on Wilbur needed to match what was already there. Therefore the sidewalk should be built back from the curb with the verge landscaped and maintained, and the width should be five feet. The Board discussed Furnace and Church Streets. Mr. Stanaway noted the arguments that improving Furnace Street would make it unsafe but pointed out that not dealing with an issue did not solve the problem. He expressed concern about parked cars forcing people to walk in the street. Ms. Sybrowsky said that she would abstain from the deliberations, as she had not been at the original hearing. Ms. Remy said that while it was better to have people walk on a pathway, she thought it unlikely that they would do so for one block. A pathway on Furnace was an unnecessary expense while a pathway on Church would be beneficial. She said that she could understand why the residents wanted to keep the “look” of their neighborhood but felt that they could accommodate off-street parking, possibly through a cutout. The Board discussed whether or not there was sufficient room on Church Street for a pathway and cutouts. Mr. Stanaway expressed a concern to separate vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Mr. Bloomer noted the neighbors’ arguments to maintain the character of the street and not install the half street improvements. He agreed that some type of path was needed along Church Street. Chairman Foster spoke to making improvements along Furnace Street because the character of the neighborhood would change with this development. He concurred with the staff recommendation to build an asphalt walk along Furnace and Church Streets. Mr. Stanaway raised the issue of a street built to City standards abutting a substandard street. Chairman Foster said that the City Engineer and the applicant should work out the details. Ms. Remy supported leaving a space for future sidewalk improvements on Furnace but saw no need to put the improvements in at this time. Mr. Stanaway suggested a compromise of a six foot pavement improvement to the street, a five foot wide gravel shoulder, and a landscaped strip to the property line (to allow a sidewalk in the future). Jerry Baker, City Engineer, said that a standard shoulder was three feet (if gravel), and a standard roadway 20 feet minimum. He did not recommend deviating from the standards if they did not know how the whole design district would develop. He said that non-remonstrances were a traditional means of doing business but pointed out that an analysis of the situation was needed before he could make any recommendations. Chairman Foster moved for the approval of DR 3-90/VAR 6-90 (a-b) with the conditions set by staff, and the following revisions: on Wilbur Street, to require the applicant to construct a five foot concrete sidewalk set back on the property line with a landscaped grassed edge placed between the sidewalk and the curb for the full frontage of the property on Wilbur Street; on Furnace Street, to require a six foot wide extension of Furnace Street with a three foot shoulder and a landscape treatment to the gravel edge worked out with the staff; on Church Street, to require that improvements be made with a five foot concrete sidewalk against the property line with a six foot wide asphalt extension with the gravel shoulder against the sidewalk. Ms. Remy seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Stanaway, Mr. Foster, Ms. Remy, and Mr. Bloomer voting in favor. Ms. Sybrowsky abstained. Chairman Foster moved to add to DR 3-90/VAR 6-90(a-b) a non-remonstrance agreement to be written by the City staff to include improvements on Furnace Street when they were appropriate and other improvements were made in the district. Ms. Remy seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Stanaway, Mr. Foster, Ms. Remy, and Mr. Bloomer voting in favor. Ms. Sybrowsky abstained. DR 5-90/VAR 12-90 (a-b), a request by MKF International for approval of 14 multi-family dwellings in two duplex, two threeplex and one fourplex structures. Also the applicant is requesting approval of two variances as follows: (a) a Class II variance to the hillside protection and erosion control standard which requires that land over 50% slope shall be developed only where density transfer is not feasible [DS 16.020(7)]; and (b) a Class II variance to the hillside protection and erosion control standard to exceed the minimum 70% area free of structures and impervious surfaces [DS 16.020(7)(a)]. The applicant proposes to construct multiple family dwellings on land in excess of 50% slope. The applicant suggests that density transfer is not feasible. The site is located west of Botticelli, north of Melrose Street on Tax Lot 8400 of Tax Map 2 1E 5BC. Continued from April 16, 1990. Chairman Foster reviewed the hearing procedures and criteria. He asked the Board members to declared any ex parte contacts, conflicts of interest or bias. Hearing none, he asked for the staff presentation. Michael Wheeler, Associate Planner, pointed out that the additional materials needed for this application for multi-family structures concerned the variances, not the general scope of the project. He mentioned the previous two staff reports on this application. Mr. Wheeler explained that first variance question was whether or not the areas that exceeded 50% slope could be avoided. If they could be avoided, then the Board would not grant the first variance. If the Board did grant the first variance, then the second variance question was whether or not the applicant would be allowed to exceed the 30% maximum coverage of slopes greater than 50% by impervious surfaces and structures. Mr. Wheeler reviewed the materials submitted by the applicant to fill in the missing information in his application. He said that staff had concluded that the application did not satisfactorily support the variance criteria, and on that basis recommended denial. He recommended analysis of any materials presented this evening that might address the missing elements. If those particular criteria could be satisfied, then staff recommended approval with the conditions specified in the staff report. Applicant Doug Staples, MKF International, mentioned that this 1.72 acre site was split off from the existing project and never built, despite plans to do so. He reviewed the graphics submitted to staff earlier. He pointed out the existing streets and trees. He said that this site configuration allowed them to preserve a stand of oak trees at the bottom of the property. He mentioned that this site plan was virtually identical to the original Casa Del Sol project (they added a view corridor and changed the unit sizes). Mr. Staples reviewed the site topography, pointing out the flat spots at the bottom and in the middle of the street with the rest in fairly steep slopes. He reviewed the grading plan, mentioning that the units would disturb the original contours very little. He reviewed the lighting plan, noting that it worked in concert with the existing lighting. He said that they proposed to use the existing utilities without modification. Mr. Staples described the living units, explaining how they maintained the character of the Casa Del Sol project and other nearby housing. He reviewed the landscaping plan, pointing out its continuity with the Casa Del Sol landscaping and its preservation of 80% of the existing trees. He said that they agreed with the staff recommendation to replace some of the taller trees on the west side with shorter trees to allow viewsheds. Mr. Staples reviewed the reasons for requesting the variances. He explained that the existing steep slope was actually fill left over from the first phase of the project. They proposed removing the fill and restoring the original contours of the land (which had a lesser slope). They were at 41% coverage, 11% over the 30% allowable building area on slopes greater than 50%. He said that they were at 34% of the allowed 70% coverage on slopes between 20-50% and therefore they no longer needed the second variance. He presented alternate plans to demonstrate what happened when they tried to build some where other than on the steep part of the slope. Primarily this meant removing 80% of the trees instead of preserving them, removing the existing street and utilities at a cost of $86,000, increasing the amount of impervious area by 30%, and losing long range views from the upper units. Mr. Staples referenced two similar projects, The Gables at Kerr and Jefferson Parkways and Casa Del Sol. He noted the similarities in slope, grading, and units per acre with Casa Del Sol. He mentioned that The Gables was built on steeper slopes then proposed for this project. He presented samples of the roof tile and colors proposed for the project. Chairman Foster asked staff to verify whether or not this project needed the second variance. Mr. Wheeler clarified that the applicant still needed both variances. The first variance was to allow density transfer, and the second variance was to allow 11% coverage beyond the maximum allowed for 50% or greater slopes. Staff did not include a third variance request because they had not had sufficient information to determine whether one was necessary for the building area on slopes between 20% to 50%. The materials provided simply removed the need for a third variance. Chairman Foster asked if the applicant had tried to get under the 11% by building one less unit. Mr. Staples explained that if they dropped the density below the 14 units (out of an allowed 17), the project became economically unfeasible. He said that if they placed units elsewhere on the site, then everything else changed also. These were the prime spots on the site. Chairman Foster asked if the City Engineer had reviewed the plans. Mr. Wheeler said that they routed them through staff and received no adverse comments, other than conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Staples said that they accepted all the staff conditions. Proponents Bob Ericsson, Mountain Park Home Owners Association, Executive Manager, expressed their support for the project based on their review of it. They recommended approval with the variances. Opponents Mr. Wheeler summarized a letter submitted by Karen Sorenson for entry into the record. Ms. Sorenson requested denial of the application until a traffic study could be completed for the area. She cited the recent Council decision to approve the Dominion Apartment project south of this site near Kruse Way as changing the traffic patterns. Mr. Galante explained that staff recommended approval of the Dominion application because the Westlake PUD was being built out at less than the approved densities. He referenced the Code provision (49.090) that allowed this project as a completion of the already approved Mountain Park PUD. Chairman Foster called for those neither in favor nor against the proposal to testify. Hearing none, he asked the applicant to present rebuttal. Rebuttal Mr. Staples pointed out that by constructing only 14 of the allowed 17 units on the site, they were creating less traffic on Melrose than they could. He said that during their review staff brought up no issues regarding traffic on these private streets. Chairman Foster then closed the hearing for Board deliberation. Board Deliberation The Board expressed concern regarding slope stabilization and meeting the intent of the Hillside Erosion Protection standards. Mr. Wheeler reviewed the standards, noting the intent to minimize disturbance to slopes. He said that the narratives, Exhibit 10, and the testimony this evening indicated that this project would stabilize the slopes. Mr. Galante concurred, citing the landscaping plan to preserve trees and the soil stability on the similar Casa Del Sol project. Staff confirmed that 50% of the slopes were manmade, resulting from grading during the construction of the adjacent streets. Chairman Foster pointed out that erosion was less than normal on a manmade hill because the soil was more compacted. Chairman Foster supported approving the application and granting the variances. He said that the applicant has demonstrated hardship for the minimum variance necessary, and has made a good attempt to save trees. In addition, the applicant has agreed to all staff conditions. Ms. Remy concurred. Ms. Sybrowsky disagreed on granting the second variance. She said that the applicant could have provided more information besides a simple statement that changing the site design was not cost effective. She expressed concern that weaknesses could be overlooked because staff lacked the time to review the new materials adequately. Mr. Wheeler said that based on the testimony tonight he thought that the applicant addressed the issues staff raised such that the variance could be granted. However without a careful analysis of the alternatives, staff could not determine whether or not this was the minimum variance. The Board discussed whether or not to continue the hearing for more evidence and staff review. Chairman Foster and Mr. Bloomer held that further analysis would only verify that it was the minimum variance necessary. Ms. Sybrowsky conceded the point but spoke to getting the confirmation of the analysis. The Board discussed which issues the staff should review. Ms. Sybrowsky asked for review of the 11% variance and erosion issues. Mr. Stanaway asked for review of the comparison of like properties. Ms. Remy moved to continue DR 5-90/VAR12-90 (a-b) for staff review of the material received this evening and per deliberations by this Board, including review of the 11% variance request, the erosion issues, and the comparison of like properties. Ms. Sybrowsky seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Stanaway, Ms. Sybrowsky, Mr. Foster, Ms. Remy, and Mr. Bloomer voting in favor. The Board discussed when to place this item on the agenda. Ms. Remy moved to amend her motion to continue the hearing to the date certain of June 13, 1990, at 7:30 p.m. Chairman Foster seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Stanaway, Ms. Sybrowsky, Mr. Foster, Ms. Remy, and Mr. Bloomer voting in favor. SD 12-90/VAR 9-90, a request by W. D. Wilkins for approval of a minor partition to create two parcels from 20,500 square foot lot. Parcels are each proposed to exceed the 10,000 square foot minimum required by the R-10 residential zone. In order to achieve this the applicant is also requesting a 5 ft Class II variance to the 25 ft. special street setback required for Pine Valley Road. The special street setback is usually met through a required dedication of right of way necessary to provide for future street widening. The applicant wishes to have this requirement waived. The site is located at 260 Pine Valley Road, Tax Lot 2500 of Tax Map 2 1E 10BD. This item is continued from the April 16, 1990 meeting. Chairman Foster reviewed the hearing procedures and criteria. He asked the Board members to declared any ex parte contacts, conflicts of interest or bias. Hearing none, he asked for the staff presentation. Michael Wheeler, Associate Planner, reviewed the previous Board direction to the applicant to review the site plan with regards to trees and grading. He noted Exhibits 11 and 12 submitted by the applicant. He mentioned the issues raised at the previous meeting, including the variance to the special street setback (necessary to divide the parent parcel into two buildable sites), access, setback from the road, and housing styles. He cautioned the Board that to review the design or materials composition of the structure itself exceeded the authority of the Board, because that was found only in the Building Design standard, and that standard was not applicable to this request. Applicant Douglas Wilkins, noted the three items requested by the Board: 1) tree survey, 2) grading plan, and 3) meeting with the neighbors. He reviewed the items changed to accommodate neighbor concerns, including changing the circular driveway and realigning the driveway so that it did not line up with the driveway across the street. He held that the position of the house was the best position to save as many trees as possible. Ralph Olson, Olson Group Architects, referenced the comparison of like properties submitted, demonstrating that most houses where located within 20 feet of the road. He reviewed Exhibit 12, the grading plan, which showed tree locations within the proximity of the building envelope. He addressed the Board’s concerns regarding the trees, noting which trees would be removed or preserved. Mr. Olson pointed out that Exhibit 11 demonstrated the elimination of the loop driveway. He cited other properties in the immediate vicinity that did have loop driveways. He mentioned rock walls to be installed to protect tree root structures, and the grades on the driveways. Mr. Olson said that they concurred with all staff recommendations except Condition 4b. He said that Condition 4b required the house long axis orientation to be from east to west, instead of north to south as planned. They did not think that they could make an east to west orientation work. He noted their compliance with other conditions. Chairman Foster asked if the applicant looked at any other configuration that might not require as large a variance to the setback. Mr. Olson said that the variance requested was the minimum necessary, citing the discussion under Item C (page 8). He said that staff analysis supported their request. Mr. Bloomer asked why the applicant impinged on the setback. Mr. Olson said that the configuration of the lot was a function of dividing the lot into two parcels while containing most of the large rock outcropping on the upper portion of the lot. He said that the house design resembled the Wilkins’ current but larger home on Pine Valley. Ms. Sybrowsky asked if the setback was created in order to save trees. Mr. Olson said that the setback was set by the City some time previously when they set the right-of-way for a wider road. He noted that the staff report indicated that there was no possibility of widening Pine Valley Road in the future. He said that for all practical purposes, the setback existed only for these two parcels because the other already improved lots did not comply. Opponents Helen Beckers, Pine Valley Road, indicated that she owned Lot 26 and was the adjoining property owner. Ms. Beckers spoke to retaining the 25 foot setback to preserve the sight distance around the curve of Pine Valley Road. She mentioned the increase in speeding traffic on Pine Valley coming from Iron Mountain Blvd. She expressed concern at having two driveways on the curve. Those Neither In Favor Nor Against Bill Fuller, 259 Pine Valley, Lake Oswego, a neighbor, said that his concern regarding the hobby workshop was addressed at the last meeting. He reiterated his concern that this project’s driveway not be located directly opposite his driveway. He held that because the Wilkins’ driveway was at an angle to the road, drivers would use his driveway to turn into Mr. Wilkins’ driveway or to back out of it, given the narrowness of Pine Valley. Chairman Foster asked for staff’s opinion on the driveway. Mr. Wheeler said that as long as the applicant provided for an outside wheel turning radius of 25 feet and an inside radius of 15 feet, the configuration should be safe. He clarified that without the variance to the special street setback, there would not be a house at this location. Chairman Foster called for rebuttal, hearing none he closed the hearing for Board deliberations. Board Deliberation Mr. Stanaway noted the issues clarified by the testimony, including the grading and tree survey. He asked staff if the driveway on the corner did present a safety issue. Mr. Wheeler said that staff found no clear vision concerns in the proposal. Mr. Stanaway asked if staff concurred with the applicant’s request to remove Condition 4b and c regarding the axis orientation for solar access. Mr. Wheeler noted an alternative included in the conditions for designing a solar building line to which both parcels had to comply. The applicant could comply with the condition as written or with the alternative. Ms. Sybrowsky declared that she would abstain from the vote. Ms. Remy raised a concern that the request for a variance indicated that they were building too large a house on the lot. Chairman Foster explained that without the variance, they could not subdivide the lot or build a house at all. Mr. Bloomer held that the house was not designed for the site. Chairman Foster said that he thought that it was appropriate to build a house on this site. He spoke for granting the variance because it was the minimum necessary. He noted that Mr. Wilkins has resolved all the neighborhood issues. Ms. Remy noted Mr. Fuller’s issue regarding the driveways opposite each other. She upheld Mr. Fuller’s concern as a valid concern, especially in an established neighborhood where the people had a right to say what happened in their neighborhood. The Board discussed the issue of the driveway. They requested Mr. Olson to explain the exact location of this driveway in relation to Mr. Fuller’s. Mr. Olson said that this driveway was offset by 9 to 10 feet from the opposite driveway. He said that he did not believe traffic entering or leaving Mr. Wilkins’ driveway would use Mr. Fuller’s driveway. Mr. Stanaway pointed out that moving Mr. Wilkins’ driveway further down hill would remove more trees. Ms. Remy did not support the driveway location. Mr. Stanaway moved to approve SD 12-90/VAR 9-90 based upon the findings, reasons and conclusions in the staff report and the Board deliberations subject to the conditions stated in the staff report with the following changes, that under the conditions 4 b & c, that in addition to that we add “or a solar building line be drawn,” and to request staff to prepare the findings, conclusions & order for adoption at the subsequent meeting. Chairman Foster seconded the motion and it failed with Mr. Stanaway and Mr. Foster voting in favor, and Ms. Remy and Mr. Bloomer voting against the motion. Ms. Sybrowsky abstained. Ms. Remy moved for continuance of SD 12-90/VAR 9-90 to June 4, 1990, for deliberation and voting. Chairman Foster seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Stanaway, Mr. Foster, Ms. Remy, and Mr. Bloomer voting in favor. Ms. Sybrowsky abstained. DR 7-90, a request by Lake Oswego School District 7J for approval to construct an elementary school on this property. The site is located at Tax Lot 600 of Tax Map 2 1E 6AC. Chairman Foster reviewed the hearing procedures and criteria. He asked the Board members to declared any ex parte contacts, conflicts of interest or bias. Hearing none, he asked for the staff presentation. Hamid Pishvaie, Dev. Review Planner, submitted two exhibits. The first was a letter from Gary Evans of the Parks Department reinforcing the department’s desire to have a soccer field as part of the cooperative agreement between the School District and the City with the understanding that a suitable site is available. Exhibit 22 was a letter from Mr. Kavido requesting that his letter regarding traffic concerns on Melrose in the conditional use application be part of the record. Mr. Pishvaie noted that the Planning Commission approved the conditional use application with three conditions. The applicant is to obtain the necessary permit from the Division of State Lands, he is to work with staff regarding the capacity at the Melrose pump station for sewer services, and the school district and the City are to work together in coordination with the Traffic Control Board to address the needs of the neighborhood and to discuss the recommendations of the traffic consultant. Mr. Pishvaie noted that the Division of State Lands process was already underway. He mentioned that during staff discussions with the applicant, the applicant revised the mitigation plan for the wetland fill already approved by the state. In addition the new stream corridor mitigation plan showed re-establishment of the original stream channel. However the applicant has not yet addressed the wetland standard for the two existing wetlands on site, and at this time staff felt that no mitigation could be adequate. Mr. Pishvaie stated that the Acting City Engineer met with the District’s consultant and found that the pump station was adequate to serve the site. He submitted the consultant’s report as Exhibit 36. Mr. Pishvaie reported the discovery today that the Mountain Park PUD had a common area tract along Kingsgate Road (Exhibit 1) over which the District needed to obtain access and utilities easements. He mentioned that the adequacy of the pathway system to allow kids within a one mile radius to walk to school has not been addressed. He pointed out the possible need for a variance to the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control standard because the site would disturb 65% of the 20-50% slopes. Staff recommended a condition of approval requiring filing for a Class 2 variance. Mr. Pishvaie said that the applicant has already agreed to the staff recommendation regarding the relocation of the pathway and utility lines away from the soccer fields and wetlands. He noted that the issues remaining outstanding were the wetlands (were the wetlands proposed to be filled essential?) and pedestrian access to the neighborhood. He distributed the list of conditions of approval to the Board. Applicant Jim Shell, Deputy School Superintendent, reviewed the need of the District to build this school in response to the accelerated enrollment surge over the last four years. They needed it in place for the 1991/92 school year in order to maintain the community’s high educational standards. He reviewed the District’s process to develop the plans to address environmental, safety, design, and energy issues as well to meet state recommendations. He stated that the school would hold 500 students and provide opportunities equal to those existing in the other eight elementary schools. John Meadows, Project Manager, mentioned the difficulties of the site, including a stream corridor, wetlands, mature trees, and slopes. He explained that they purposely put the building on the steepest part of the site and went to two stories in order to preserve as many of the site’s natural resources as possible. He proposed that they fill about .2 acres of wetlands and mitigate the loss by 1.5 times in new wetlands. He stated that the play field was the minimum size needed for this size of school. He noted the stream corridor buffer that ranged from 25 feet to 100 feet wide. Mr. Meadows explained that a building placed on a steep slope functioned as a retaining wall and minimized soil erosion, providing soil stability. He said that if necessary, they would return for a variance. Mr. Meadows commented that they had a revised plan for wetlands mitigation, authorization to obtain a fill permit from the Corps of Engineers, and an oral agreement with the Division of State Lands that the wetlands boundary and fill permit was possible. Mr. Meadows mentioned the proposed path to connect with the existing path that went through the neighborhood, linking to the play fields and down to Melrose. He stated that a midblock pedestrian crossing was a safety concern. He pointed out how this resiting of the path saved trees and increased the wetlands. This path would also connect directly to the school building. He commented that the school wanted to serve its internal needs and discourage neighborhood traffic to the school site and thus proposed removing the pathway section connecting to the neighborhood. Mr. Meadows stated that their survey showed that the building was outside the stream corridor. He recommended that the fence proposed along Melrose be six feet high rather than four feet high to keep stray balls off Melrose. He asked that the fence proposed between the wetlands and the playing fields be four feet to preserve the educational value of the wetlands and to address safety concerns by keeping the children out of the wetlands. Mr. Meadows stated that the sewer issue had been resolved. He reviewed the proposed storm drainage system that used both surface and piped drainage to help the water quality of the wetlands and to preserve more trees. He stated that the wetlands at the fence would be left in their natural condition but the understory of the trees in the buffer would be cleared out for aesthetic and security reasons. In response to Board questions regarding the play field, Mr. Meadows said that they planned to accommodate all school functions on site. He explained that they needed this size playing field for the flexibility to handle 500 elementary school students and to provide soccer practice fields for junior high and high school students. In addition, it could accommodate community play. He stated that it was one of the smaller fields in the District at about 100,000 square feet of play area. Ms. Sybrowsky asked that the District provide findings for the record on how they reached the 500 student figure, and how this school would adequately serve the neighborhood and future growth of the area. She asked that District also explain how they handled a two story building in light of fire safety concerns. Mr. Meadows said that two stories were not a hazard. He mentioned that the building was handicapped accessible with elevators, fully sprinkled, had extra wide corridors and extra entrances/exits, and that more than half the classrooms had outside doors. He stated that they were in full compliance with all fire codes and standards. Ms. Sybrowsky disagreed with discouraging pedestrians from the neighborhood into the school. She said that she saw the school as part of the community. Integrating it with the neighborhood was valuable. Mr. Meadows pointed out the proposed path that went down to Melrose. He commented that the upper segment would probably be eventually built to connect the existing path and play fields. Mr. Greaves stated that he did not think testimony regarding the size of the school (as requested by Ms. Sybrowsky) spoke to any of the relevant criteria for Board review of the application. He said that the issue of how the school worked with the community was an issue between the School Board and the City Council. Ms. Sybrowsky reiterated that she saw the school as serving the community. Therefore size and adequacy were important issues that should be addressed. She commented that they had been issues of concern to the Board earlier. She said that while she did not think the school was too small, she wanted the findings to justify the Board’s approval of this size. Mr. Stanaway asked if the building was designed for expansion. Mr. Meadows said that while there was some capacity beyond the maximum target of 500 students, the building was not designed to be expanded. Stan Geiger, Scientific Resources, presented his findings regarding the wetlands. He said that the wetlands of concern were not essential, as they did not qualify as a natural groundwater recharge area, or as a water storage area, nor have they been identified by the City as a distinctive natural area. He said that it was an isolated seep that provided nesting habitat and could be an educational resource for the school. He reviewed the revised wetland mitigation plan to restore the hydrology to the ash tree area with revegetation and recreation of stream channels in the area that used to be a wetland. He said that the plan addressed the state and City concerns to preserve trees. Ms. Sybrowsky asked how the site could be used as an educational resource. Mr. Geiger said that depended on what the teachers wanted to do but a stream wetland included features like insects, plant growth, etc. Ms. Sybrowsky asked if there were state guidelines for controlled access to wetlands by children. Mr. Geiger said that there were no state guidelines for keeping people out of wetlands. He pointed out that the heavy vegetation in the area would normally keep the kids out. He commented that limited access was necessary in order to protect the area but held that a carefully managed field trip into the wetlands was possible. In response to a series of questions from Chairman Foster regarding the wetlands, Mr. Geiger said that he thought a fence on the school side was adequate, reiterating that the heavy vegetation kept kids out. He confirmed that transplanting plant materials and soils from the other site to enhance this wetland were part of the mitigation proposal. He explained that they needed some way to direct water to the swale on the south side of Melrose and to control the water levels. They would have to work out with staff exactly how they would do that, and a berm was a possibility. Mr. Stanaway asked if there would be a problem with adequate drainage of the play field since there was wetland in that area under five feet of fill. Mr. Geiger referred the question to a soils engineer. Mr. Greaves mentioned that the conditions recommended bringing clean water from the field area over to the wetlands to help provide hydrology in that area. Mr. Geiger recommended investigation to see whether or not there was sufficient water to merit that kind of expense. Ed Welker, Traffic Engineer, stated that he did the traffic study. He said that in his opinion there were adequate pedestrian ways and sidewalks within a one mile radius to provide safe access to the school. He pointed out that the City’s policy was sidewalks on only one side of the street, and therefore street crossing were necessary to get to sidewalks. He reviewed the three locations in this area that lacked sidewalks at this time (although they would be provided as the properties developed). He recommended sidewalk reconstruction between the path on Westlake on the south side of Melrose to connect to the existing sidewalk at the site. Ms. Sybrowsky asked if the staffs' concern about stop signs (page 17) had been satisfied. Mr. Welker said that while he recommended putting in a three way stop at Fosberg and Melrose, it was up to the City’s traffic control commission to make that decision. Ms. Remy asked about a stop at the corner of Kingsgate and Melrose. Mr. Welker stated that he did not think a stop was necessary there. He pointed out that once Jefferson Parkway opened, traffic would shift from Melrose and Kingsgate to Jefferson Parkway. He said that there was adequate access to the south side of Melrose for the children. Chairman Foster asked for Mr. Welker’s opinion on a path down the east side of the site, past the wetland area going down to Melrose. Mr. Welker said that he did not have an opinion on that, although he was concerned that a pathway continued down to Melrose would require a hazardous midblock crossing. He commented that without a pathway facility on the east side, people were not prone to cross the street at that location. He explained that the liability of a midblock crossing outside a legal crosswalk was the pedestrian’s responsibility. The Board asked about the upper segment of the pathway, connecting the school to the path. Mr. Welker did not recommend reinstating that segment because of the midblock crossing hazard. Mr. Greaves pointed out that the Planning Commission has already decided on this issue and required that the upper segment of the walkway be eliminated due to safety and tree preservation issues. Proponents Phil Bash, Westlake resident, said that he supported the school district. He reiterated that the playing field was one of the smallest in the District. He submitted several charts illustrating the enrollments at District schools and the amount of play space available at each, and the square footage of playing space available per student. He contended that without the soccer field added on to the 82,000 square foot playing field at this school, there would be a significant disparity between the quality of physical education opportunities available here as opposed to other District schools. He held that the wetlands were not a concern here, and cited a report that indicated that the wetlands were drying out because of watershed changes from upstream development. Bob Ericsson, Mountain Park Home Owners Association Executive Manager, stated that the Association supported the school siting and development. He reviewed several community issues. He explained how the school access points would increase the traffic problem on Kingsgate and asked for ongoing monitoring and control at the site until something permanent could be arranged to reduce speeding. He said that they supported the traffic engineer’s recommendations for access and street layouts to a future development north of Sterling Heights. Mr. Ericsson contended that there would be pedestrian traffic feeding into the school and using a midblock crossing unless something was done to stop it. He recommended a pedestrian overpass in lieu of a pedestrian signal at a midblock crossing. He asked that the six foot fence along Melrose was connected up to the wetlands fence. Don Eckmann, 5697 Charles Circle, stated that he was a citizen member of the District’s staff and citizen committee that worked with the architect to achieve a school design that gave first priority to the education of the children. He pointed out the amount of time and effort already put into this plan, and encouraged the Board to move as quickly as possible to maintain the schedule. Chris Walker, 13612 SW Knaus Rd, representing youth soccer, baseball, and football, testified in support of the proposed site of the playing field. He said that it was a minimum size but could be used after school hours as a practice field. He mentioned the increase in players in youth sports and the need for additional play fields. Opponents None. Those Neither In Favor Nor Against None. Rebuttal Bill Korach, School Superintendent, stated that the District has carefully looked at the size of this school as part of its long range plan for the District. They felt that 350 to 500 students was the ideal size for an elementary school in terms of support facilities and program needs. A larger school caused difficulties that the District did not want to create in Lake Oswego schools. Ms. Sybrowsky asked if there were projections for portables. Mr. Korach said that it was unlikely that they would use portables on this site because of lack of space. He concurred that eventually the student enrollment in the area would outgrow the school but they had some other options. Ms. Sybrowsky commented that volunteers often had difficulty finding parking space in a school that was at capacity. Mr. Welker reviewed the parking plans for the site, including 85 on site spaces and on street parking. Board Questions Mr. Pishvaie distributed the revised mitigation plan (Exhibit 37). Chairman Foster asked for staff opinion on Mr. Ericsson’s request to control traffic on Kingsgate. Mr. Pishvaie said that staff reviewed different alternatives but could do nothing until the parcel north of Sterling Heights and the rest of Kingsgate were developed. At that time they would reconsider the street issues. Chairman Foster asked if staff agreed with a four foot fence along the wetland. Mr. Pishvaie said that the police recommended a six foot fence for security reasons but Planning agreed with the applicant on a four foot fence. He explained that the fence on Melrose was at six feet for stray ball and security reasons. Ms. Sybrowsky asked if there was concern at having a heavily wooded area adjacent to a school. Mr. Pishvaie said that the police were very concerned with the security of the entire site. They asked that the understory be removed to allow passive surveillance and to install the fences along the wetland and Melrose. Mr. Greaves pointed out that the play field area was bordered by two streets and more visible than play fields at other facilities. Chairman Foster asked about the Class 2 variance to the hillside protection standard. Mr. Pishvaie explained that if the District minimized the disturbance to the slope below 65%, then a variance was not necessary. However if they maintained their current plans which included over 65% disturbance to the slope, then a variance was necessary. He said that there was precedence to approve an application with a condition of approval requiring a variance if it turned out to be necessary. Ms. Sybrowsky raised the issue of the pathway not connecting to the neighborhood on the south end at Kingsgate. Mr. Pishvaie said that he and Andy Harris were concerned that the pathway not extend all the way to Melrose in order to save additional trees. He mentioned that DSL had not wanted a pathway there either because it affected the mitigation plan. He pointed out that unless the path tied to another path, it served no purpose. Ms. Sybrowsky spoke for a pathway all the way around. Mr. Pishvaie commented that they had conflicting interests between pedestrian access and allowing as much wetland mitigation as possible. Mr. Greaves reviewed the exact locations of the pathways in order to clarify the staff recommendation. He reiterated the Planning Commission requirement to eliminate the pathway section that affected many trees. Ms. Sybrowsky held that a pathway around the school was a community asset. Mr. Greaves pointed out that this site was not flat and would not make a good jogging trail. Chairman Foster closed the hearing for board deliberations. Board Deliberation Chairman Foster said that his concern about the character of the building has not been addressed and he could not support the application. He held that this design looked more like a factory than a school. He expressed concern about the flat roof and the school not looking like a house that fit into a neighborhood of single family houses. He pointed out that the new fire station had the peaked roof of a house to fit in better with the neighborhood. He stated that this school had no charm. Chairman Foster said that he liked the colors. He noted the work done to preserve mature trees. He felt that the drainage and wetlands concerns had been satisfied. He felt that the District could work out an access arrangement with Mountain Park. He stated that the traffic and access requirements were satisfied. He supported including a variance to the hillside standard as a condition of approval. Mr. Stanaway commented that the building design was progressive in nature. He said that setting the school into the hillside and facing one story to the neighborhood was an attempt to deal with the neighborhood compatibility issue. He said that the building design provided learning opportunities for children. He stated that with this large of a building, a “homey” appearance was difficult to achieve. Mr. Bloomer said that the building design did not concern him. Monumental public buildings were important to have in a community as well as residential buildings. He said that the building fit into the neighborhood. He noted the thorough analysis of all the issues by the applicant. Ms. Sybrowsky stated that she thought that the site caused more problems than the design of the building did. She expressed concern about traffic , wetlands, safety, and a small playing field. Ms. Remy said that she did not object to the building design. She held that a stop sign at Kingsgate and Melrose was imperative because of the children crossing between the park and the school. She expressed concern at the security of the wooded area but pointed out that installing a fence prevented the wildlife from getting in and out of the wetland. Chairman Foster commented that the Board could only recommend installation of a stop sign to the Traffic Control Board; they had no authority to require one. Mr. Pishvaie pointed out that the Planning Commission has already imposed a condition requiring the City and the District to coordinate with the Traffic Control Board regarding pedestrian access and the recommendations in the traffic report. The Board discussed what recommendation to make to the Traffic Control Board. They agreed to recommend a stop sign at Kingsgate and Melrose. Mr. Pishvaie reviewed the additional conditions of approval suggested by the Board. These included a locked gate on the fence to control access to the wetland area and a Class 2 variance to the hillside protection standard if necessary for compliance. He pointed out that they did not propose to fence the south side of the wetlands which would allow access by wildlife. Mr. Stanaway moved for approval of DR 7-90 based upon the findings, reasons, and conclusions in the staff report and the supplemental staff report and based upon the Board deliberations, subject to the conditions stated in the staff report and supplemental staff report with the additions, and to request staff to prepare findings, conclusions, and order for adoption at a subsequent meeting. Ms. Sybrowsky seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Mr. Stanaway, Ms. Sybrowsky, Mr. Bloomer voting in favor. Mr. Foster and Ms. Remy voted against the motion. VI. GENERAL PLANNING - None VII. OTHER BUSINESS - Findings, Conclusions and Order VIII. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Foster adjourned the meeting.