Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 1994-11-01 PMC-E!? OF TLAIXE OSWECO November 1, 1994 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Mayor Alice L. Schlenker called the study session of the City Council to order at 5:40 p.m. on November I,1994 in the Municipal Court. Mayor SchIenker and Councilors Chrisman, Slammer and Holstein were present. Councilor Anderson arrived at 610 p.m. and Councilor Puskas was excused. StafFpresent included Doug Schmitz, City Manager; Jeff Co&it, City Attorney; Bob Kincaid, Assistant City Manager; &is Hitchcock, City Recorder; and Bon Bunch, Senior Planner. III. STEIDY SESSION A. Agenda Review B. Comprehensive Plan Review RonBunch. reviewed the Comprehensive Plan update on Goal 10, housing, and made the foXowing points: T&s update referenced the work in the current Comprehensive Plan and the importance citizens placed on residential character and quality of the community; It took into account the events that have occurred since 1978, such as state wide planning goal 10 and the Metro housing rule; The Metro housing rule provided Lake Oswego the opportunity for housing to develop at a density of 10 units per acre and at a 50150 single family/multi family mix; Currently Lake Oswego was at 10.6 units per acre at approximately a 50/50 single family/mu1 ti family mix; Lake Oswego did have scme low income housing, though Iess than surrounding communities had; Council could establish a policy in the Comprehensive Plan allowing secondary dwelling units on single family residential lots. During the discussion, Council looked at issues such as low income housing, “granny flats” to provide an opportunity for higher density, the need for affordable housing in the community, allowing increased density consistent with neighhorhood planning, the need for the Comprehensive Plan policies regarding density to fit into the 2040 future vision planning process, the need tc preserve the kind of community people wanted and valued as the region grew, and how to create housing options through general density policies in the Comprehensive Plan and specifics in the Zoning and Development Code. Iv. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Schlenker adjourned the study session at 6:30 p.m. City Council Minutes November 1, 1994 Page 1 of 19 Mayor Schlenker called the Executive Session to order at 6:30 p.m. purauant to ORS 192.660( lXd), Labor Negotiations. Mayor Schlenker adjourned the Executive Session at 7:00 p.m. Mayor Alice L. Schlenker called the regular City Council meeting of November 1. 1994 to order at 7:lO p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Mayor Schlenker and Councilors Anderson, Chrisman. Klammer and Holstein were present: Councilor Puekas was excused. III. CONSENT AGENDA A REPORTS 1. Reclassifying employment position ACTION: Approve reclassification 2. City of Sandy Outfall strategy ACTION: Authorize the Mayor to send a letter taking no position 3. Completion of election waiver requirements for street widenings on 65th Avenue and Greentree Road. ACTION: Accept report. 4. Emergency Medical Servcices Arbitration contract amendment ACTION: Authorize the City Manager to execute contract amendment to the International Association of Firefighters, Local 1159 1992-1994 collective bargaining agreement. B. RESOLUTIONS Resolution 94-58, A resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego authorizing the Mayor to sign an intergovernmental agreement with the University of Qregon to conduct a land use study for the North Stafford Area. ACTION: Adopt resolution. C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. September 26, 1994, study session Pulled from Consent Agenda and continued to November 15,1994. 2. September 27, 1994, special meeting ACTION: Adopt minutes as written. City Council Minutes November 1, 1994 Page 2 of 19 . 9 “. October 10, 1994, study session ACTION: Adopt minutes as written. 4. October 13, 1994, special joint meeting Metro 2040 Plan ACTION: Adopt minutes as written. 5. October 4,1994, regular meeting ACTION: Adopt minutes as written. Councilor Holstein moved for the co-t agent& pdbng Item Cl to continue the item to lYlW4. The motion was seconded. A roll call vote was taken and the motion gasaed with Mayor Schlenker and Councilors Anderson, Chrisman, Mammer and Holstein voting in favor. END CONSENT AGENDA Iv. PRESENTATIONSIBECOGNIT~ON Lake Oswego, Partners for Livable Communities - One of America’s Most Livable Communities, 1994 - Metro, Greater Portland, Oregon Mayor Schlenker showed a placque given to Lake Oswego by Metro deciering it one of America’s most livable communities in 1994. She asked that a letter be sent to Metro thanking them for the award. V. VI. VII. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA The September 26,1994, study session minutes, were continued to November 11.1994. CITIZEN COMMENT - None P-UBLIC HEARING A Supplemental Budget for f&al year 1994-1995 94-59, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego adopting a I supplemental budget resolution for the fiscal year commencing July I, 1994, approving resources and making appropriations. . 1, presented the staff report (written October 20,1994) and reviewed the budget changes to the original budget: There were additions of approximately $2.1 million dollars, and reductions of approximately $550,000 dollars. He noted that the majority of the additions were not “new” spending, but transfers and carryovers. The “new” spending included $37,000 to pay off the golf course Local Improvement District, and $275,000 for miscellaneous projects. The reductions were related to the city/school partnership funds. Mayor Schlenker opened the hearing to public testimony. No one testified. Schlenker closed the hearing to public testimony. Mayor City Council Minutes November &I994 Page 3 of 19 Coundltr Xc&t& nnov& t0 adopt BesohtiQ~ 94-59, a redution of the City Coumcil of the City of Lake Oswego adopting a supplemental budget resduation for &3cd year com~&g Judy I, 1994, approving rmeome?~ mm3 making appropriations. Councilor Chrisman seconded the motion. A roll ~a.3 vote was taken and the motion paaaed with Mayor Schlenker and Councilors Anderson, Chrisman, Slammer and Holstein voting in favor. B. AP 94-03, three appeals of an approval by the Planning Commission of an application for elderly housing application - ODPS l-9WFD 2-9WSD 6-92 by the Holly Orchard Neighborhood Association, Mt. Park Homeowners Association and Pfeifer Farm Homeowners Association. Mayor Schlenkcr explained that this was a quasi-judicial hearing on the record and reviewed the C!LXXX~ procedures. Mayor Schlenker asked the Council to declare any ex parte contact or potential or actual conflicts of interest None were declared. There were RO challenges to any Councilors’ right to hear the application. Mayor Schlenker allowed procedural questions from the citizens, to which the following answers were given: 0 Each neighborhood association listed as appellants had 15 minutes to speak; 0 Since Mr. Gregg raised an issue with the Pianning Commission’s approval involving the additional parking requirement, he would he allowed additional time as necessary (up to the 45 minutes given to the appellants) to address the issue, and the appellants wouId be allowed extra time during the rebuttal to respond to that Issue; l Anyone wishing to cede their time to another speaker must be present at the hearing; l The only exceptions to the rule that any one testifying tonight must have testified before the Planning Commission would be for a different representative for one of the neighborhood associations, and Mr. Gregg’s attorney speaking for Mr. Gregg; . . tiPlshvaie. presented the staff report (written June 23,X194), ’ D and made the fi>llowing points: l Reviewed that the definition of “special use housing“ was a multi family type of project specifically designed for occupancy by people who were 58 years or older (depending on the type of financing received for the project); 0 The Planning Commission approved the application subject to 16 conditions; l Three components comprised the applicant’s proposal: l Approval of the overail development plan and ODPS schedule: - Reviewed the criteria for an ODPS; l A planned development (PD) overlay: - Reviewed the criteria for a PD; 0 Application for a minor lend partition request to legalize tax lots 10600 and 10601 (approximately 10 acres) which had been illegahy created in 1979: - Lot 10601 contained several natural resources including a pond, Distinctive Natural Area #31, a non-essential wetland, a drainage swale and several large walnut trees scattered over the property; l The appellants identified 10 issues as listed on pp. 4 and 5 of the staff report with analysis of each issue on pp. 5 to 11; l Issue #l: development impact on site hydrology: l Appellants’ requested that any decisions take into account downstream results; City Council Minutes November 1,1994 Page 4 of 19 l l%8aI- -* -..w ~ommxs:2:: .“-a,” waa.(r L---A rL-c the existing spring wouid not ba impacted, and that the existing drainage swale would be realigned and enhanced to provide better drainage functions; l The Commission adopted the conditions proposed by staff tu deal with design issues related to the stream realignment; 0 The applicant’s proposed storm water quslity and detention facilities would make the rate of release of storm water after development equal to ths rate of release prior to development; l The Commission found that, if the plan required by the Division of State Lands (DSLJ %o mitigate the stream and wetland was not adequata, both the site plan and the density could be modified in order to meet the basic requirements; l The Commission found that the storm drain line along the west property line did have adequate capacity to accommodate the project; l Staff had required the developer of Heifer Farms to construct a specific overflow channel off of Pfeifer Way to handle any drainage that might come from development of this site; Q Issue #2: Neighborhood pathway: 0. Appellants requested that consideration should be give:n to an inter-neighborhood pathway between Country L-me and Orchard Drive; * The Commission found that, since these two streets would meet in an emergency access along the west property line, that access point would provide an adequate pathway between the two neighborhoods; l Issue #3: sensitivity to the historic home and resources on the eitu: l In 1992, the Council removed the subject property from the historic landmark list; l Of the features that had histxic association, the Commission found that the spring at the northeast corner would be protected as would the 26” walnut tree along the east property line; l The Commission found that the proposed access to the site ofTCarm.an Drive would be facilitated by the access easement on Wilmot’s historic site proposed in 1992; l The Commission felt that how the design of the development would relate t&e historic Wilmot property should be addressed during each phase at the design review approval stage; l The Commission found that the required half street improvements on Carman Drive would be sensitive to the historic trees on Wilmot’s property, requiring the applicant to hire a professional arborist to evaluate and make recommendations regarding the trees; l Essuz #4: violation of the streams and wetlands regulations: l After review of the substantial evidence in the record, the Commission found that the project did achieve the needed balance between the natural and the built environment; 0 The Commission found that the applicant adequately addressed the wetlands issue, and specifically required that both the site plan and the density be modified as needed to provide adequate mitigation for the wetlands; l Issue t5: violation of the subdivision ordinance: l The Commission found that this ordinance (dealing with public streets) did not apply to this application, as no public streets were proposed; l The Commission found that the proposed setbacks for the perimeter roads (varying from 11 feet to 50 feet) did provide adequate buffering from adjacent properties: 0 In response to concerns raised by the neighbors, the Commission did impose a condition of approval requiring extensive landscaping in both size and quantity along the east and west property lines; City Council Minutes Page 5 of 19 November 1.1994 * Issue R6: use of private streets in the development: l The Commission found that all the streets proposed for this development were appropriate and adequate to the type of private street system commonly used in multi family developments, as dictated by this particular design; 0 Issue #7: length of development schedule: * Appellants contended that a five year construction schedule placed undue hardship on the neighboring developments - a 12 month construction schedule should he approved; e There were no specific city standards for establishing a time table for any given project; l Reviewed stafFs and the developer’s interaction to arrive at the five year schedule; 0 The Commission found that five years was necessary for a project of this size as well as to allow the developer to make revisions based upon the initial marketing results; l Issue #8: increased traffic in the neighborhood: 0 The Commission reviewed several traf5c reports which the thon City Traffic Engineer had found to be adequate; l The Commission found that all adjacent intersections and streets had adequate capacity to handle the traffic impact of this development; l There were no other traffic reports or studies presented thot would lead +he Commission to make other findings; 0 Issue #9: increased density in the neighborhoods: l Appellants contended that the project was too dense and out of character with the adjacent single family subdivisions, and that the 56 unit project approved in 1979 was a more appropriate density; 0 The Commission found that special use housing was en outright permitted use in an R-5 zone, and was governed by provisions in the zoning ordinance taking into account a variety of concerns; 0 The Commission found that these concerns (adequacy of public facilities, shopping centers, buffer landscaping, parking, age limitations of the residents, etc.) were adequately addressed by the applicant; l The proposed density of 73 units represent& only 686 of the allowed density of 103 units; l The Commission found that the 19’79 approval had been granted under an entirely different set of rules and regulations (i.e., the density changed from Duplex Residential-3.75 to R5); l The Commission found that the 73 unit density was a preliminary finding at this time, subject to revision if the applicant could not demonstrate adequate wetlands mitigation; 0 Issue #IO: violation of comprehensive plan objectives and policies; 0 The apphcant identified two issues dealing with two of the conditions of approval imposed by the Commission: 0 Condition 2.6 dealing with encroachment in the wetlands: - The applicant requested that he not be required to do full wetland mitigation as a part of Phase 1 but rather do-proportional mitigation as part of each phase; - Both the Commission and the staff disagreed, finding it important to provide the entire wetland mitigation during Phase 1 to allow for proper monitoring of the mitigation; - Request to construct a view platform in the upper marsh area; - The Commission found that the wetland was too small to allow any manmade structure without reducing the wildlife habitat values of the marsh area; 0 Condition 2.9 dealing with the half street improvements on Carman Drive: City Council Minutes November I, 1994 Page 6 of 19 e The appkxnt contended tiat the c&y’s requirement that he constPvct a half street along both his property’s fromage and the Wilmot historic tintago was unfair and would have a severe impact on the historic frontage; - The Commission found that city policy required city improvements as part of any development application, particularly minor land partitions; - The Commission found it imperative to improve this segment of the road to accommodate the additional tra.fIic this development would generate in the Car-man Drive street system; - If improvement was not provided along the historic site frontage at this time, it was unlikely to be improved at all. due to the probability that this historic site would never be developed; l StaErecommended that Council uphold the Commission’s decision. Mayor Schlenker opened the hearing to public testimony. %I!2hnschick. 14 Ho0 c -- stated that he was filling in for Donald Burns who was recovering from surgery, and made the following pojnts: 0 . 0 . . . . . . d * . e . Supported quality housing plans for retired-persons in the developm% of the historic Carman Farm; Presented slides showing the original 54 unit Pony Hill development; Read from the August 14,1978 Planning Commission minutis describing Mr. Gregg’s original plans; Contended that Mr. Gregg was attempting to provide a different type of ownership pattern and density for Lake Oswego than what was originally approved; Mr. Gregg had indicated that he would foNow the same restrictions as Mountain Park, including 20 foot setbacks and 24 foot streets with mountable curbs and a properly aligned sidewalk along the east side; The current proposal’s density of 73 units had 12 foot setbacks and would support the 130 to 146 vehicles of those living there; Apartment and partly retired communities made more per day trips than other developments; Due to the lack of services within walking distance, there would be more delivery services by off development services; It was not fair to place a street right behind houses that already had a street right in front of them, and that were designed with living quarters facing the open area; This design ignored the existence of the adjacent developments of Mountain Park, Pfeifer Farm and Holly Orchards; The adjacent communities did not want to endure the noise and inconvenience of construction over a five year period; Stated that Mr. Gregg told the Commission “not to tinker with his plan”; Cited Comprehensive Plan policies, stating that the design failed to meet the criteria: l General policy 3 (planned trafIic flow, speed routing to decrease high noise levels in residential recreation areas); l General policy 3 (toassure density according to site conditions) - maintaining the existing densities; l General policy lD (proposed density to maintin adequately screening and privacy) - six foot fencing failed to do so based upon the proposed street locations; l General policy 2 (to reduce or eliminate impacts on adjacent areas) - the addition of four streets running north-south and the closing of Daniel Way could put more than another 150 cars on the street; Asked for common sense and fairness. City Council Minutes November 1,1994 Page 7 of 19 Xr. Condit ciarified the order of testimony for appellants and individuals in favor of the appeal. . . && M. Soot. wve. P&&- Fa. Oa’ Ass- Ym , testified and made the following points: 0 Reviewed his background as a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering with n professional engineering license as providing him with same qualifications for rooding the technical traffic reports; 0 Based on the trench around his house, he disagreed with the hydrology reports stat;ng that the water problems in Pfeifer Farm have been solved; Q Addressed the Commission’s findings as they related ta trmspmt.ation: l Finding Xl - the transportation study (Exhibit 301 was deeply flawed: l The data cited from section 260 of the Trip Generation Report of the Institute of Transportation Engineers UTE) was applicable ti retirement communitres for people 65 years of age or older, not elderly communities for people 55 to 68 years of age or older; * This transportation study should not be accepted as valid because conclusions could not be drawn from the ITE report statistical sampling (which the ITE writers admitted was insufficient for retirement communities); l Finding #2: 0 This study looked only at the CarmanIKruse Way traffic generated by the 73 unit development and ignored the additional 3800 daily trips generated by the 200 to 400 cars of the 300 to 500 units put on line since the Jdy 1992 traffic study was done (Exhibit 2). Mr. Condit stated that an objection was raised to this testimony; Exhibit 2 was not presented at the Planning Commission, and therefore was not admissible here. Mr. Soot continued his testimony: l The transportation study was arithmetically incorrect because it defined evening rush hour trafI% as approac’hing the Carman Drive/Ruse Way intersection from the north when the traffic actually came from the south; * Finding %3 - the internal streets were only 20 feet wide as compared to the narrowest street in the adjacent developments at 27.5 feet; l Finding #4 - Granting of the special use housing provision: 0 Code 48.549 required an applicant for special use housing to provide any of three alternatives for the elderly to get access to vital services, none of which were provided in this plan; 0 The only paved pathway that went all the way to the services went down to the Boones Ferry&use Way intersection at a 17% grade; 0 There was no bus service within a quarter mile of the development; l Tri-met did not provide bus service to the elderly unless they were physically handicapped; 0 There was no contractual commitment with the Carman Oaks facility to provide bus service to this new development. . . sen. 4080 SW Colts Foot b&lly Orch~w testified on the wetlands and drainage and water quality and made the following points’ l They wished to preserve the wetlands and water quality and drainage on the site; l The proposed plan failed to show earnest descriptions, diagrams and schematics that complied with codes and standards; l Contended that this was an essential wetland, as found by the Planning Commission in May 1993 (per the criteria in Code 4.0351, despite Mr. Gregg’s hydrologists altering their conclusions to classify it as a non-essential wetland; City Council Minutes November 1,1994 Page 8 of 19 l As an essentiai wetland, it might be subject to the 1988 Federal Clean ‘Water Act’s guidelines which were tied into the City’s reimbursement from the federal government for water and sewage treatment; * The major stream corridor on the wetland met the criteria in Code 3.015 W5; l Mr. Gregg violated Code 4.040 by faibng to provide and implement a wedand schematic that could be considered for evaluation in regard to mitigation of the 27,000 square feet of wetlands; 0 Reviewed the current schematics and diagrams to demonstrate how they failed to show schematically, architecturally and mechanically how the mitigation would be accomplished. Mr. Condit stated that there was an objection to Dr. Jensen’s review of the diagrams as not being in the record. An audience member directed attention to p. 439 of the record. Dr. Jensen continued: 0 In the first diagram, Mr. Gregg stated that he would recreate a 12,000 square foot marsh with the 1760 square foot stream corridor for a total of 13,000 to 14,QOO square feet, l To increase his mitigation to the reqtired one to one ratio, he would include the ponds and enhance the scrub brush area; but the ponds were refiltration ponds for water quality, and, according to the Code, could not be used as wetland mitigation; Even if they were allowed as mitigation, he still fell over 3000 square feet short of meeting the one to one mitigation; The scrub brush area was not wetlands and did not count. l Reviewed the specifics of how his diagrams failed to show that his stream corridor would have a 13 foot bed, a 4 to 1 grade, and 25 foot setbacks from the edge of the wetland on either side. * The Planning Commission stipulated that Mr. Gregg’s plan be altered to reduce density to allow for proper mitigation, if necessary. 0 They felt that Mr. Gregg should show proper till mitigation now; 0 It should be stipulated that he could not abandon the project (in the event he tried to when he could not properly mitigate the wetlands after beginning Phases 1 or 2). l Recommendations that the Holly Orchard Neighborhood Association would like to impose, in addition to those already imposed by &e Commission: -The wetlands should be reiterated ai an essential wetland with a major stream corridor with all applicable codes and building regulations followed; Mr. Gregg should devise the full wetland mitigation plan and schematic now, including filtration methods and drainage plans with secondary plans or failsafes, and 25 foot setbacks; The full wetland mitigation should be done at Phase 1; There should be safeguards imposed by the City to insure that Mr. .Gregg complies with the requirements, should the Division ofState Lands decide to grant variances or special setbacks; The ponds should not be considered as wetlam%; The slope and grade of the stream should be no greater than 3 to 1 with a 4% grade; Mr. Gregg should be limited to only one road crossing the stream, instead of the three crossings he currently has (Code 3.020); Mr. Gregg should have a description ofhow he would further insure that water treatment and drainage would be performed, including alternate methods should those fail. . . 4100 ColtsFootLane.Jvor@ summarized the letter from the Holly Orchard Neighborhood Association, and m&e the following points: l Expressed concern that the Planning Commisuion had approved a proposal which did not comply with the Comprehensive Plan or applicable ordinances; City Council Minutes November 1, 1994 Page 9bf 19 0 me 73 unit density was the most significant underlying factor that would resuh, in the negative impacts, citing land slope, hydrology, atrnofFand construction impacts; a me Planning Commission review did not consider neighborhood idantity, bistorjc rural landscape character, stability and unique qualities; l me applicant did not present a detailed traffic analysis utilizing current data about &sting streets and intersections both on and off the site and including projected traffic impacts; * Holly Orchard Neighborhood Asschation concluded that the Planning Commission failed to evaluate fully the density of this proposal in accordance with tho referenced plan policies; l Asked for the City’s cooperation to get the applicant to resubmit a proposal to lower the density to a level that met al1 applicable Comprehensive Plan and Code requirements. Mr. Condit stated that s-reviewed the list of people who signed up to testify. I-& reiterated that only those who testified before the Planning Commission could testify before the Council. , vGnmm. expressed sympathy with Mr. Gregg’s position but felt that this development was an attempt to put “a square peg in a round hole.” He reviewed the history of his family’s business, noting that their commercial business in an old rock quarry in south Lake Oswego had been grandfathered in when zoning was implemented because it was not in an appropriate location for a commercial business. He askod for adequate buffering from whatever was developed on the other side of the holly trees, He said he thought Mr. Gregg’s concept was great, but felt that it would be more appropriate in a more commercial setting than in a neighborhood setting. or of Pf&f& Farm 4045 Pfeifer Court attempted to present slides of the siti. Mr. Condit said as an objection, and tha.t the slides were inadmissible because they had not been shown at the Planning Comm&iorL hearing. Ms. Estes read a written statement and made the following points: * Her property ran along the west border of the proposed project and was in the area that would be most impacted; l Contended that the roads of the proposed development cannot be developed to reduce or eliminate the impact on the surrounding area in keeping with requirements contained in the Comprehensive Plan; l The road runs too close to the perimeter of Heifer Farms and Mountain Park residents’ homes. Mr. Condit reported an objection to the pictures that were attached to Ms. Estes’ handout. Ms. Estes stated that she told the Council not to look at the pictures. Ms. Estes continued: l The fence along the perimeter of the Pfeifer Farm subdivision is only about 20.5 feet from the houses themselves, and the road will run right along the fence. l Fences, trees or shrubs will not contain the impact of the noise during the day and night nor the glare of car lights. The fence provides little visual protection, as one can see right through the slats. City Council Minutes Novem’ber 1.1994 Page 10 of 19 0 The slope of the land means that the road will be higher than the houses in the Pfeifer Farm subdivision. This added to the problem of glare and noise, IDA there were no natural batiere on the Pfejfer Farms’ side. 0 The slope and contour of the parcel make it like an amphitheater which will only exacerbate the noise factor and the long construction schedule. 0 She stated she supported development of the site, but not this proposal. r Court stated that he is the president of a general contracting firm in Portland, and generally supported development and construction. He did not think this was a successfu? development plan. He noted that a fairly logical progression of land uses exists from the commercial properties on &use Way to the multifamily dwellings between Kruse Way and Carman Drive to the single family homes on the north side of Carman Drive. He stated that the proposed development is a dramatic departure from existing development, and that the density is not the same as for the surrounding neighborhoods. He noted that the density is driving the design of the streets; they have to be on the perimeter of the property to accommodate the density. He agreed that it is unreasonable to live next door to a fairly modest development for five years of construction traffic, noise and danger to the numerous children living in the area. He expressed concern that the applicants’ needing five years to absorb 73 rental units in the current market indicates a very low demand for the product. He would like to see the property used in an optimal way but did not think that this was the way to do it Waldman. 4069 Pf&%r Couxt . read from a prepared statement and made the following points: l Agreed with the previous testimony; l Contended that Mr. Gregg’s traffic report was misleading because it did not take into account Pfeifer Farm and was based on old information; l General policy 2 (p-44, Comp. Plan) mandated addressing noise control in land use planning: 0 The closeness of the streets to existing homes was a noise control consideration; * The slope of the development site meant that the plant buffering would not prevent noise from the higher elevation from being disruptive, and would allow headlight glare into the homes and backyards; l The proposed five year construction plan was noisy and stressful to the surrounding neighborhoods with young children; l Heifer Farm, with 46 large homes, was completed in two years; l Pive years was unreasonable and unfair; 0 The units would be difficult to rent to seniors who would not want to put up with the noise and debris either; 0 General Policy 4 (p. 79, Comp. Plan) provides for residential streets which enhanced residential livability: - Streets in front of homes and right in their backyards did not enhance residential livability; l General Policy 1 (p. 75, Camp. Plan) dictates that the City must relate density to site conditions and facihties: l The slope of the land should be taken into consideration, as the steeper the slope, the lower the densities that were permitted (Mr. Gregg was not necessarily entitled to 73 units simply because it is zoned R-5); 0 The plan fails to provide adequate screening and privacy based upon proposed street locations, fencing and landscaping; * Zoning Code: l With the additional parking spaces, the plan may not meet the criteria of the Zoning Code 48.140 which provides for maximum lot coverage of 50%, excluding parking; City Council Minutes November 1,1994 Page li of 19 b The plan vioiated the setback requirements in the Zoning Code 48.160 which requires setbacks to be at least the height of the building, 0 Development Ordinances and Standards: . With the additional parking spaces, the plan might not meet the requirement for open or park space of at least 20% of the gross land area, and 20% landscaping (8.620, 9.020); a Zoning Code 48.2G.549 stated that the development must comply with the “moderate income” housing requirement: l Continded that the City ylas setting itself up for either an empty complex (when Mr. Gregg couldn’t rent at his projected fees) or granting Mr. Gregg nn exception to the moderate income requirement; l The record now shows that the rents cannot be anywhere near the levels originally projected by Mr. Gregg who, as an experienced developer, must have known what he could charge before planning this project. Councilor Anderson commented that, according to the record, the Planning Commission found that the development met the open space requirement. Ms. Maxwell asked how, with the additional parking spaced required by the Planning Commission, would they know if the pIan meets that requirement without Mr. Gregg redesigning it? 14405 PfXfW&& testified that the drainage engineering approved by the City for PfeZer Farm was not fundtioning satisfactorily. Several of her neighbors have spent thousands of dollars trying to deal with the problems caused by the underground springs in the area. She questioned whether the city approved standards for the proposed development would provide truly adequate and sufficient drainage, since those same standards had been inadequate for where she lived. Qave w. 4043 O&a.& Drive, testified that this proposed development was insensitive to the existing neighborhoods and could have been designed to be consistent and blend in with them. He agreed that the density should be consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods, and that the hydrology in the adjacent developments was not handled properly. He thought that this land was probably wetter. He opposed the inter-urban pathway proposed, and felt there should be discussions with the neighborhoods about it. . . Mike 4034 Colts, testified and made the following points: 0 Cited his previous written testimony, Exhibit 46; l Did not oppose the proposed development for senior housing, but thought that it was incumbent upon the City to insure that such a development preserved the livability of the existing neighborhoods and complied with the Comprehensive Plan; l The proposed density of 73 units was inconsistent with the existing density designations and contrary to Comprehensive Plan policies: o General Policy 3 - “maintain substantially developed single family neighborhoods at existing density designations” (p, 181); * Drew a diagram to illustrate the densities of the surrounding neighborhoods (Holly Orchards at RlO, Mountain Park at R7.5, Pfeif’er Farm at R-5 but built out between 7.5 and 10); l Applying the densities of the surrounding neighborhoods to this parcel gave densities of 50 units at R-7.5 and 33 units at R-10; * 73 units did not maintain the existing densities; l It was out ofcharact~r, would create detrimental impacts on the adjacent neighborhoods, and would increase traffic volumes in the area; City Council Minutes November 1,1994 Page 12 of 19 l The number of units and the amount of roadways planned make it impossible to meet either the wetland criteria specified in the staff report or by the Division of State Lands; 0 ‘Rough there is no written standard for the correct number of phasoa for development, there is the “reasonable man” standard: 0 It was not reasonable tc expect the adjacent residants to endure five years of construction. 4083 Colts Foot Lane . read From her prepared staternont and made the following points: l Cited her previous testimony on p. 470; 0 Did not h&eve that the density of the proposed development was in the best interests of the neighborhood or that it complied with thlz Comprehensive Plan; l lhe proposed plan would not maintain the neighborhood at the existing densities (General Policy 31: l The highest density of the surrounding subdivisions is in Pfeifer Farm at 46 units on 13 acres; * This plan proposed 73 units on 8.75 acres, twice the density of surrounding neighborhoods; l Mr. Gregg calculated his density allowance in the R-5 zone on the totA 8.75 acres without subtracting the land that would be used in streets, public rights of way, wetlands or open space; l If a similar proportion of the number of units to the total acreage of Pfeifer Farm were used, this development should have 31 units; 0 Contended that Mr. Gregg did not intend to provide “special use housing” for low to moderate income elderly ifhe was charging $1200 - $1500 a month rent: 0 Such rates would require an income of $60,000 a year. Ms. McNulty asked to testify as an individual. Mr. Condit stated that, if the Planning Commission had allowed Ms. McNulty to testify both as an appellant representative and as an individual, the Council might be bound to allow her to do the same. However, if she was allowed to testify, Mr. Gregg had to have an adequate opportunity to respond. Ms. McNulty stated that she would wait till the rebuttal. Ms. Hitchcock read for the record the names of the people who submitted letters tonight, all of whom were in favor of the appellants: l Donald Burns lo/27 l Denise Jensen lo/31 l Michael and Molly M.ikola.itis lo/31 l written testimony by Holly Orchard U./l l letter from Wilma McNulty 11/l l Mr. Soot’s testimony of 1lA * letter by Trish Estes 1Yl 0 letter from Barbara Maxwell l letter from Dana Waldman l letter from Sally Brown. She noted that the letter from l&h Estes contained photographs which were not admissible. Steve A&l,900 SW FifI,h Ave.&&l& asked for a copy of the letters submitted into the record. Ms. Hitchcock stated that she gave copies of the letters to Mr. Gregg before the hearing. City Council Minutes Novem’ber 1.1994 Page 13 of 19 Mayor Schlenker recessed the meeting for a break at 9:26 p.m. She reconvened the meeting at 9% p.m. Mayor Schlenker reviewed that *Sle hearing would end at lo:60 p.m. with a continuation to a time and date certain to hear the rest ofthe opponent’s testimony and the deliberation. The Council did not wish to split the testimony of the opponents, and discussed when the hearing could be reconvened. Councilor Holstein moved to contiue tie public hearing to a dab md time ce&sin of They, November 30, at 6.90 p.m. in the City Council Chambore. Councilor Anderson seconded the motion. Mr. Abel requested a full council to hear the matter. Dr. Jensen contended that getting all the appel!ants together again at a Inter date to help with the rebuttal was an excess hardship; since hearings of this sort were known to take a long time, she had hoped that the Council would have allowed more timo now. She requested that the time he extended tonight, stating that a recess gave Mr. Gregg an unfair advantage to prepare his rebuttal. Mr. Schmitz noted that this hearing was continued from July to tonight at the request of the appellants. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Schlenker nnd Councilors Anderson, Chrisman, Klammer and Holstein voting in favor. Mr. Condit reviewed the procedure for the appellants’ rebuttal. VIII. BUSINESS PROM THE CXJNCIL A City Councilors Mayor Schlenker reported that she and the City Manager met with W & M Pacific to begin the process for tbe I-51217 interchange, noting that there would be a number of. public meetings. Also, the steeting committee would probably be expanded to include more businesses and neighborhood associations in the full sub-transportation area analysis. Mayor Schlenlcer thanked the Council for the opportunity to represent the City at the Coa!ition on Sub&nce Abuse in Washington, DC. Councilor Anderson thanked her for the good job she did representing them. Councilor Slammer noted the meeting between MACC and the Mayor and the Council later this week to present a questionnaire to help them explore ways to use their technology to help the cities within their jurisdiction. Councilor Holstein reported that Lake Oswego’s sister city of Mordialloc, Australia, ceased to exist as of Octxhr 15; the State of Victoria split it and merged it with two different cities. It will probably take a year or two before a new sister city relationship can be established with one of the new cities. B. Appointments to the Library Advisory Board and Natural Resources Advisory Board City Council Minutes November 1, 1994 Page 14 of 19 Councilor Holstein moved t.~ appoint Sally Parks e0 the Eihary Advbxy Board with a term expirhg &me 80,1995, with Beverly Shaff a8 ANtmmte3 BP lgmd M0rtba Dean as Alternate #i$ and Stadey 8. Ascbenbrenner to the Natural l3esmmes Advisory Board with a term expiring June 30% If@@, tith @Bristine Both as3 Akternzati 51 cnnd hold Sisver as AIternate #Z. Councilor Anderson seconded the motion. A roll call vote was t&en and the motion passed vrith Mayor Schlenker and Ccuncilors Anderson, Chrisman, Slammer and Holstein voting in favor. Ix. REPORTS Clarification on West Bay Ittic Changes Mr. Schmitz reiterated his declaration that he lived in the potential impact area; Mr, Kincaid has been handling the matter from a staff perspective. . . &I, presented the staff report and made the following points: One of +&e things that came out at the public information meeting was the discrepancy between the Neighborhood Traffic Advisory Board @ITAB) original recommendation on the South Shore/West Bay intersection and the staffs understanding of what the Council had adopted (Exhibit 1, p. 101); NTAB’s recommendation (Exhibit 2) had been to prohibit both a left hand turn and a right hand turn but Exhibit 1 (which was what the Council had adopted) showed only the prohibition of a left hand turn; S-felt that, if they (as the professionals) disagreed on what had been adopted, it was likely Council had also misunderstood what had happened; Staffput down the speed bumps in order to see ifthey did in fact slow down traffic before implementing the no left turn option and evaluating the effect of that attempt to reroute traffic (a completely different effect from slowing down traffic); By putting down the speed bumps first, staff gained the time needed to receive clarification from Council on the turning movements; The three options were: * The original NTAB recommendation (Exhibit 2) that precluded both a left turn and a right turn; l Exhibit 1 that still allowed a right turn but prohibited the left turn: - Another configuration was a curb down the middle of the road to preclude the leR turn but allow the right turn; * Remand it back to NTAB for further study with better instructions to NTAB from Council. Councilor Anderson asked if there was the possibility of putting in another speed bump within the area. Mr. Kincaid explained that, due to sight distance and grade requirements, there was no other appropriate location for speed bumps in that area. Mayor Schlenker asked if the speed bump issue was irrelevant to tonight’s discussion because they were in the six month testing period; Mr. Kinsaid said yes. She noted that the issue before the Council was the determination of the intersection due to the confusion on the issue. Councilor Anderson moved EO remand it back to the N2’A.B for h&her study, noting that there seemed to be more options available than what was presented. City Council Minutes November I,1994 Page 15 of 19 -, _ f , * Councilor Holstein stated that he had understood the presentation as what-was shown in Exhibit 1, stopping left turns; Exhibit 2 was more of a street closure situation, which the Council was against as much as possible. In response to a question from Councilor Klammer, Mr. Kincaid explained the differences between the two types of speed bumps used in the City. Mayor Schlenker seconded the motion on the floor. 3700 Um, reported that NTAB noticed that the staff recommendation for a no left turn (Exhibit 1) was different from the NTAB recommendation for a no left or right turn in (Exhibit 2) when they approved their meeting minutes. He noted that only about 90 cars a day turned right. Councilor Anderson stated that he would not have approved a no left or right turn under any circumstances. Councilor Klammer and Mayor Schlenker concurred. Vice Ch&, stated that, if Council remanded this back to NTAB, NTAB would send it right back to Counci; because they did look at the different options available before deciding on their recommendation. He noted the creativeness of drivers rendered ineffective a median prohibiting a left turn but allowing a right turn. NTAB was trying to eliminate the cut through traffic which was the vast majority of traffic through there. The Council discussed how they could conect the record, either by remanding it back to NTAB or reopening the hearing to accept testimony from those who had testified on the issue before. Mr. Condit advised the Council that, in order to correct the record, they should reopen the record to allow testimony from those who had testified before: however, they would not have to remand it back to NTAB if they did not take any new information. He stated that he thought that the people at the hearing had understood that Council was adopting the NTAB recommendation, and that Council did not need to reopen the hearing if they intended to keep that recommendation; but if Council had not understood what the NTAB recommendation was, then they should accept new testimony. J&c Fow&&04 We-, noted that ‘9% was a test and asked that Council allow ehe test to happen, as stated in the NTAB recommendation. He pointed out that, due to the current ordinance, no more speed bumps could be put in the neighborhood but NTAB was discussing changing the ordinance. He noted that the NTAB recommendation had been a counter proposal from the neighborhood given to the City’s proposal to make West Bay a one way street. Mayor Schlenker notid that Council had not understood the NT& recommendation and should have requested a map for clarification. They were attempting to correct their error, an error pointed out by the citizens. Mr. FowIer stated that he had pointed out at the public information meeting that the map was incorrect. He asked for the agenda checklist to be amended of%cially to reflect that Mr. Kin&d did not recommend option 3 but rather intended to place all three options before the Council !as Mr. Kincaid had stated to them in the hall). He stated that a recommendation for Option 3 opened up the impact area issue (which was already addressed in Section 32.037 of the ordinance). If the impact area expanded as a result of the six month testing period, it might include the City Manager’s residential area but at this point it did not do so. City Council Minutes Page 16 of 19 November 1, 1994 Mr. Condit reviewed that the Council decided to install the device temporarily and monitor whether or not traffic increased or decreased substantially on adjacent streets; if it did so, then the impact area would be expanded to include those streets impacted. Mr. Fowler asked. that the system implemented through NTAB be allowed to work. He commented that the neighborhood did not intend to divert traffic to ancillary streets but. that they needed the six month test period for the devices to find out what would happen. He explained that a timeline was devised to implement the speed bumps and the diversionary device in order to limit the impact. 4350 West -Raad, confirmed that the no left turn, no right turn proposal was made in response to the City’s “no entry” option of a one way on West Bay between Virginia and tie end. He stated that the neighbors had heard the Council’s deliberations focusing on the no left turn only but had not had an opportunity to correct the misperception. He apologized for not being more forceful in bringing that to the Council’s attention at the time. He stated that they had understood that Council was adopting the NTAB recommendation. He asked that Council not remand this to NTAB but rather let the test peticd go forward. Mr. Condit reiterated that, if the Council was going to change its decision to something other than the NTAB recommendation, they needed to provide those who had testified before t,he opportunity to testify again. He noted that the Council could accept either verbal or written testimony. Councilor Hammer commented that originally he had supported NTAB’s recommendation but he had understood it to be only a no left. turn from South Shore onto West Bay. Councilor Anderson withdrew his motion. He concurred with Councilor Klammer that he had not been aware that they were approving Exhibit 1; he was not sure that Exhibit i was the right answer. Councilor Holstein moved to peopen the lo earing on West Bay amI ,South Shke just for the intersection dea5rng with the turning movenee;rats. Councilor Chrisman seconded the motion. Mr. Condit clarified that the hearing was reopened because of the misunderstanding of the Council in adopting the findings, and that testimony would be limited to those who had testified before. Though Mr. Condit stated that accepting written testimony only would be adequate, Councilor Chrisman suggested allowing the people to testify before the Council verbally rather than requesting written comments only. She noted that only six or seven people had testified. A roil call vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Schlenker and Councilors Anderson, Chrisman, Mammer and Holstein voting in favor. Mr. Peterson expressed concern that schematic drawings be used to show the intersection space in detail. He felt &that there were significant impacts on pedestrian flow and safety and vehicular safety in allowing access in one direction while preventing access in another direction. Mayor Schlenker requested that staff provide detailed maps for all NTAB decisions. City Council Minutes November 1,1994 Page 17 of 19 x. XI. Mr. Fin&an noted that the NTAB meeting minutes were not in the record before the Council at the hearing. RESOLUTIONS 94-60, updating Resolution 93-78, the Master Fee and Charge Resolution of the City Councilor of the City of Lake Oswego, Oregon, amending or deleting various fees and charges of the City. . c t reported that after conducting a city wide review of fees and charges, staff concluded that no changes to the majority of fees ware needed. Those on the revised list mostly concerned planning modifications related to the Development Code changes. Councilor Anderson moved for adoption of 9440, updating Resolution 183-78, the Master Fee amd C&x-g43 Etwolution of the City Councilor of the City of Lake Oswego, Oregon, amending or deleting vhous fees and charges of the City. Councilor Klammer seconded the motion. Mr. Condit explained the reasoning behind the last minute changes to the revised list in the agenda packet. Staff corrected some citations of development code sections, in addition to deleting their recommendation to adopt (prospectively) the new tree cutting ordinance fees and have them take effect following the adoption of the new ordinance. He recommended dropping the fees as a result of the Attorney General’s opinion regarding attempts to adopt fees prospectively that could become tax increases if Measure 5 passed. He said Council could make a modification to the master fee schedule at the same time as they adopted the tree cutting ordinance. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Schlenker and Councilors Anderson, Chrisman, Slammer and Holstein voting in favor. REPORTS OF CITY OFFICERS A City Manager Mr. Schmitz reported that staff met with the City ofTigard representatives on Friday regarding the proposed partnership for water service. They dealt with the governance issues on Friday (about which Tigard had concerns on only a couple of points), and would deal with the asset issues later. They still intend to conclude the matter by the end of December. Mr. Schmitz reported that the maintenance service crew has worked hard to clean up the aftermath of the storms last Thursday and Friday, and asked for citizens’ patience. Councilor Anderson requested staff to send a letter to the maintenance crew on behalf of the Council thanking them for their extra efforts. Mr. Schmitz asked for Council’s authorization to enter into any labor agreements with the employee associations which accepted the City’s offer. Councilor Anderson xnoved to authorize tbe City Manages to enter into any labor agreements with the employee associations which accept the city’s offer by November 7,1994. Councilor Slammer seconded the motion. A roll call vote was City Council Minutes November 1, 1994 Page 18 of IS taken and the motion passed with Mayor Schlenker ant! Councilora Anderson, Chrisman, Klammer and Holstein voting in favor. B. City Attorney Mr. Condit presented corrections to the Temple View Estate findings based on objections to the findings made by Nick Bunick, two of which did require corrections to the findings. He stated that Mr. Bunick had objected that two of the conditions (as listed in the Council’s findings) were not identical to the Development Review Commission’s findings. The Council did adopt substantially similar findings to the Commission’s findings; thus, the difference between the two did violate the Council’s findings. Mr. Condit said that the correction deleted the two conditions and replaced them with tho finding adopted by the Commission consistent with Council’s decision. Mr. Condit explained that the other correction was to reflect Mr. Bunick’s concern that he had not testified that the entire firm of Fishman Environmental Services consisted of environmentalists, rather he meant that the person who wrote the report was an environmentalist. Councilor Anderson moved to adopt corrections to the tidings for AP-$4-O&, Temple View Estates Mayor Schlenker seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Schlenker and Councilors Anderson, Chrisman and Mammer voting in favor; Councilor Holstein voted against the motion. XII. ADJCURNMENT Mayor Schlenker adjourned the meeting at 10:4U p.m. APPROVED BY COUNCIL: Alice L. Schlenker, Mayor City Council Minutes November 1,1994 Respectfully Submitted, I k, City Recorder Page 19 of 119 , .