HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 1994-11-10 PMNanTembr IQ, 1994
SESSION
Council President Mary Puskas called the study session of the City Council to
order at 5:30 p.m. on November IO,1994 in the City Council Cha&bers.
Councilors Klammer, Holstein, Anderson and Chtisman and Council Resident
Puskas were present; Councilor Puskas was excused at 5:32 p.m. !Mayor
Schlenker was excused from the study session. Staff present included Jeff Condit, City Attorney; Bob Kincaid, Assistant City Manager; Doug Schmitz,
City Manager; and Kris Hitchcock., City Recorder. Matt Finnigan, NTAB Chair,
was also present.
94-62, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego authorizing
annexation of approximately 22 acres of land in 14 separate parcels, which are
surrounded by the corporate limits of the City of Lake Oswego (“island”
annexations).
Councilor Holstein moved Ibs~htiion 94-62. Councilor Anderson seconded
the moticn. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Councilors
Anderson, Chrisman, Klammer, Holstein and Council President Puskas voting
in favor.
Iv. SmY SESSHQN
NTAB - Council Subcommittee Report
Councilors Chrisman and Holstein reviewed the changes they made to the
NTAB ordinance. In the discussion, the following issues were raised or
comments made:
0 Mr. Condit modified the language to include homeowners associations and
CPOs in addition to neighborhood associations;
* Discussion of the application cutoff date in relatioc to the budgetary cycle,
setting it at January 30;
0 The intent was for NTAR to consider the applications on a monthly basis,
rank the project, then have a ranking hearing at the end of the year setting
the priority ranking to go into the budget process;
0 The subcommittee set the speed limit at the level indicated because of the
limitations of the equipment used to determine the speed of vehicles (it
wouldn’t record under three miles over the speed limit);
City Council Minutes Novcmbcr 10.1994 Page lofl8
Mr. Condit def%ned pedestrian oriented facilities as facilities which
encouraged or associated with or generated the use of modes of
transportation other than the automobile;
In part 2, the subcommittee selected November based on figuring back
when it would come to Council;
If NTAB received more than 15 applications per calendar year, no more
than two applications could be reviewed per month;
Designation of a contact person so that the City would not be responsible
for contacting everyone;
The ranking hearing was at the end of the process and ssparate from the
individual project hearings;
Mr. Condit stated that some of the language would have to be modified to
reflect the change in accepting the applications rund ranking them at the
same hearing with the overall ranking considered at the end of the year;
Mr. Condit suggestted more explanation of what “practical” meant on 32.14;
Discussion of the two votes per household, 18 years or older, clause:
0 Mr. Condit stated that he did not think this was a necessary item
because the current ordinance defined “citizen” as a registered voter,
property or non-property owner;
* It would be easier to send out ballots based on a list of registered voters
for the area than try to determine how many voters lived in a given
house;
0 Agreement to drop the two votes per household;
Mr. Condit suggested including an express provision to allow Council to
defer the determination of the impact area mtii after the testing period to
take into account the data gained from the test.
The Council discussed allowing NTAl3 a special meeting to review the Council
changes to the ordinance prior to the December 6 hearing. Councilors
Chrisman and Holstein would attend the NTAB meeting as the Council
representatives. The Council directed Matt Finnigan, NTAB Chair, to present
the NTAB members with two possible meeting dates: 500 p.m. on Monday,
November 21 or 7:30 a.m. on ‘Tuesday, November 22.
Councilor Holstein asked how the ordinance would be implemented, as the
Board currently had nine members. Mr. Condit suggestid reducing the number
of ‘board members by attrition and not refilling the positions. He also
recommended allowing any decisions that would have been made under the old
board to stand but requiring all new actions taking place regarding the
applications to fall under the new ordinance.
Mr. Condit clarified that the NTAB terms have been extended to June 30.
Y. ExB;Icmm SESSIQN
Councilor Chrisman recessed the meeting to Executive Session at 6~15 p.m.
pursuant to 0R.S 192.66OtlXh) Potential Litigation.
City Councii Minutm
November 10. 1994 Pagc2of18
Mayor Schlenker called he special meeting of the City Council to order at 7:07
p.m. on November IO,1994 in the City Council Chambers. Mayor &hle&er,
and Councilors Anderson, Chrisman, Holstein and Kiammer were present;
Councilor Puskas was excused.
AP 94-03, three appeals of an approval by the Planning Commission of an
application for elderly housing application -- ODPS I-SO/PD 2-92/SD 6-92 by
the Holly Orchard Neighborhood Association, Mt. Park Homeowners
Association, and Pfeifer Farm Homeowners Association.
Mayor Schlenker reviewed the hearing criteria. No ex parte contacts were
declared.
Mayor Schlenker presented the written request from Dana Waldman,
representing Pfeifer Farm Owners’ Association, to allow the appellants more
time for their response to Mr. Gregg’s testimony, as Mr. Gregg had hzd nine
days to respond to the appellants’ testimony. The Council denied the request
because there was not enough time left before the end of the calendar year to
allow the extra time and complete the process.
Mayor Schlenker presented Ms. McNulty’s request to testify as an individual in
addition to testifying as a neighborhood representative. She asked the Council
if they wished to reopen the appellant testimony to allow Ms. McNulty and Dr.
Jensen five minutes to speak as individuals.
Mr. Condit reviewed the incident at the prior hearing, noting that he had
recommended that Ms. McNulty not be allowed to testify as an individual
because she had testified as a representative of a neighborhood association, and
he had not understood that she had testifiied as an individual before the
Planning Commission. He stated that Ms. McNulty and Dr. Jensen’s husband
had shown him where Ms. McNuIty and Dr. Jensen had testified as individuals
before the Planning Commission; therefore they were entitled to testi@ as
individuals before the Council. He recommended that they be allowed to do so
prior to Mr. Gregg’s testimony.
Mayor Schlenker reopened the appeilants’ testimony.
AdditioxnrS testimony by &x&i&z& in favor of the appdhnt (See previous
p=agraiph)
Wilma McNultv. 410QColtsfoot Lane, testified and made the following points.
0 There is a need to address the sensitivity to the character of the neighborhood and
to the site as an historic resource;. Both these factors contribute strongly to the
neighborhood’s “sense of place” and to the economic values of the homes.
City Council Minutes November 10, 1994 Prqc Sof 18
0 Sensitivity to an established neighborhood surrounding a significant city historic
resource was pivotal to a just decision.
0 General Policy 1 of the Comprehensive Plan requires density compatible with the
surrounding single family homes in established neighborhoods. Fencing, heavy use
of plantings, or culverting the stream was not sensitivity.
0 The appellant must retain the capacity of the site to convey its historic past.
e Instead of adapting his plan to the natural features of the site, Mr. Gregg was
adapting the site to his plan.
0 Contended that the City was giting preference for rentals that did not comply with
the Comprehensive Plan.
0 Thought that this development co;lld be outstanding and innovative if they could
work out the areas of neighbors’ concerns that did not meet the Comprehensive
Plan.
* Suggested using mediation to resolve the differences between the neighborhoods
and the developer.
. Dr. D~.D se Jense . Co ltsfoot Lane, testified and made the following points
Fail:; to see h?w this plan met %he zoning law stipulation that develooients must
meet existing livability of the residential neighboshood. *
This plan had no stipulation to be sensitive to the historic nature of the existing
area.
Tri-Met considered this area to be landlocked (i.e., the bus routes and stops were far
away).
The steepness of where the residents would have to walk to catch a bus violated the
City code.
The bus from the nursing home was often filled to capacity, and there is no existing
agreement to allow these residents use of that bus.
Reiterated that the 1988 Clean Water Act stipulated that a site listed as a wetland
in a City’s Co&mprehensive Plan had to meet certain development guidelines and
codes, or the City cculd lose federal reimbursement monies for water and sewage
treatment, and contended that this plan did not meet those guidelines.
Water purity and flow must be maintained uninterrupted on an historic site but Mr.
Gregg planned on destroying a lot of the existing water.
Wanted to insure that Mr. Gregg maintained water purity, filtered the runoff into
the wetlands ahead of time (he had no plans to do so), and replaced the existing
wetlands if he destroyed them.
Would like the questions (which they raised at the prior hearing) answered
regarding how Mr. Gregg was going to comply with reqnirements.
Glenn Gregg asked for clarification on procedure, stating that he was appealing
several aspects of the Planning Commission’s approval (Exhibit 78, p. 599). Mr. Condit explained that Mr. Gregg was not techni&ly an appellant, but was entitled to
raise his issues with the Planning Commission approval as part of his testimony.
City Council Minutes Novcmbcr10.1994 Pqc4oflB
@lenn Greg. 10410 SW ,Terwilfiyer Ha-, reviewed the Planning Co.~ssion
conditions that they were appealing: the parking issue, the viewing platform, the
project phasing, the main road construction and phasing, and the non-essential
wetland mitigation. He introduced Joe Griggs, the project architect.
. Joe Gn_rzczs. PO l3ox 940. Sherwood spoke to Condition #I6 (p. 34) which required a
minimum of three parking spaces ier unit provided through various methods such as
double wide garages and driveways or areas set aside as part of each complex or
building:
0 This parking requirement was not recommended by staE, but arose at the Planning
Commission as a result of neighbors’ concerns that the garages would be used for
storage instead of for parking.
0 Their initial plan provided space for 275 cars or 2.75 spaces per unit; adding the 18
spaces needed to meet the condition could be done at a cost of an additional 3,600 or
4,000 square feet of paved area.
* Meeting the condition was not a problem, but the wording of the condition was; it
was ambiguous and could lead to problems at the design review phase.
l Reviewed the effects of the probable application of the three methods suggested to
provide additional parking:
l Double car garages would require an automatic reduction in the number of units
because it would increase the length per unit required;
* Double wide driveways would reduce the yard space of each unit by 25%; 0 “Areas set aside as part of each complex or building” could be interpreted to
mean a parking area at each building which would mean either reducing the
number of units for the people to provide more space for the cars or paving over
more area;
0 In designing the development, they tried to balance three considerations:
* On grade access to each unit without stairs;
0 Minimization of the amount of paving and impervious surface;
0 Maximization of the amount of open space (210,008 square feet of open space
represented 55% of the tota project);
* On street parking along the main drive and scattered parking pullouts provided
part of the 2.75 spaces per unit;
0 The distance from parking on the street or in a pullout to the unit front door was
between 30 to 80 feet in most cases, with only six spaces located more than 100 feet
from the unit;
0 Asked that condition 16 be modified to allow that additional parking on street or in
parking pullouts be provided within reasonabie proximity to the units.
Mr. Gregg noted that this point was an item for design review, and that they brought
it up omy because they felt they were locked into an unworkable criteria. He stated
that the answer to the concern that residents would use the garages for storage
instead of parking was to make use of the garage for parking a condition of rental.
City Council Minu*a
Novcmbcr lo,1994 Pagc5of 18
Mr. Gregg addressed the neighbors’ presentations at the prior hearing, and made the
fcliOWi9g points:
(0 Disagreed that the tm.Ec consultant’s report was inaccurate or incomplete:
0 Presented a letter f?om Mr. Wolke (which the City Attorney allowed as a
response to the allegations by the neighbors);
0 Section 250 (Retirement Community) of the ITE trip generation report included
over 625 different observations;
e The ITE report was the accepted method adopted by Lake Oswego as the basis
for doing this type of analysis;
Q Cited the April 1992 Lake Oswego Trans-portation study prepared by the Clackamas
County Department of Transportation referred to in his memo dated October 1,
1992 (Exhibit 20, pp. 1951971, stating that it was part of the record since it was
part of their application materials by reference.
Mr. Condit pointed out that since Mr. Gregg had not submitted the study as part of
the record before the Planning Commission, he could not use it now. Mr. Gregg said
that he provided the information frosn that report in his memo, which was in the
record.
Mr. Gregg continued:
* Based upon the projected land use densities and taking into account the
residential use of the property at a higher density than kis proposal, the study
found that all roads and intersections of the Garden Residences development
would operab;e at acceptable service levels up to the year 2010;
0 Bus service:
l Tri-Met #38 stopped at Kruse Way and Mercantile Village, and at Boones Ferry
and -Spring;
l Though it was a fair distance, the physically able elderly could walk to the bus
stops on dedicated sidewalks;
0 The elderly with physical impairments would qualify for the door to door Tri-
Met Lift program;
0 The elderly who could not navigate the hill could use that as the physical
impairment they needed to quaIS+ for the Lift Program;
0 The Carman Oaks bus made regular trips to shopping and medical
appointments, and was owned by the same developer;
0 All, paths within the Garden Residences site were handicapped accessible (not
more than an 8% slope);
0 Wetlands:
l A thorough analysis by Dr. Martin Shot, the wetlands consultant, found the
wetlands on the site to be non-essential as defined by the Lake Oawego Code;
0 The small spring discharge was listed as a “ditch” on the City’s hydrology map
and did not quake as a major stream corridor;
Q The State mandated that the pond be drained;
* Their wetland inventory as required by the State was very complete and met the
State’s requirements, as did their mitigation plan;
. . Cay Cound Munes
Novcmber10,~ P43c6ofl8
0 The engineer’s report required by the City made it clear that there were no
unstable soils on the site;
Phasing:
* He believed that the soil movement and wet soil problems in Pfeifer Farm were
related to developing the entire site at once, instead of in phases;
@ He wanted to develop this site up in phases and allow the landscaping to re-
establish itself before going on to the next phase;
* Phasing would help reduce the carrying cost of a large number of vacant units,
and thus kelp keep the rents affordable;
* He went through the ODPS process solely to get the phasing which he
considered important to the project;
Hydrology:
e Unlike Pfeifer Farms, they have provided for a manmade landscaped small
stream corridor with three holding ponds to handle the discharge from the
spring and to collect and cleanse the surface runoff;
0 They have provided drains to collect water illegally dumped on their site by
neighbors’ drains, downspouts and yards;
They were dedicated to providing adequate screening since privacy worked both
ways;
Moderate income rents:
0 He believed that they would be able to demonstrate that the rents would be in
the moderate income range during the development review phase;
0 He believed that they would be able to meet their goal of providing the highest
quality faciiities at the lowest possible rents without reducing the proposed
quality;
0 The City could encourage elderly housing development by waiving the Systems
Development Charges as they had for the 30 unit Polly Field Village apartments
in Lake Grove; and, by paying for the half street improvements in front of the
Wilmot house tax lot;
* The neighbors could encourage lower rents by withdrawing their appeals (which
increased the projects’ costs with legal fees);
Comprehensive Plan Housing Goals, Metro Housing Rule, and LCDC Criteria:
0 This development of 70 units will provide 30% of the 200 elderly housing units
Lake Oswego must provide by the year 2000;
0 This nlan met every one of the Comprehensive Plan’s clear and objective
stan&rds without a variance, and is under the maximum density allowed for
the site;
0 By meeting those standards and the mandated need for elderly housing, there
was strong legal and political jurisdiction for approval;
l The approval process has taken over five years. The original plan was
submitted on July 17,198S and the ODPS application filed in August 1990;
0 Tkis was the tenth public me&ng on ‘this development;
* This plan called for only 50% of the 137 units allowed, and provided twice the
open space required in the Code;
l The building heights are within zke City Code, and are lower than those of many
of the surrounding residences;
City Camcil Mimms November 10. 19% Page 7oCl8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
l
e
e
e
e
a
The scale and design of the buildings are houselike and are compatible with
neighborhood residences;
The setbacks meet or exceed the Code requirements and no variance is required;
The wetland report and the traffic report were prepared by qualified
cons&ants;
Staff required that the mitigation plan receive final anproval from the Division
of State Lands before a building permit will be gram&;
The residences will not reduce the service level of the surrounding streets and
intersections;
Seventy units were chosen as a middle ground compromise between the 137
units allowed and the 52 units requested by the neighbors;
Projected estimates are that rent for a 52 unit project at $1500 a month, much
more per unit than in a 70 unit project. The higher cost would be for site
development, infrastructure, landscape, and maintenance costs over 21 fewer
units.
The neighbors have not demonstrated that a 52 unit single family housing
project would have less impact than a 70 unit elderly housing project;
Cited a comparison between the 70 unit plan and the 19?9,52 unit plan (Exhibit
7i, p. 585);
Requested that more parking spaces not be required because more parking
would attract the very 55 to 65 year old residents the neighbors wanted to avoid;
This plan avoided use of stairs and elevators entirely;
Backyards bordering on public streets were not unique to this development,
citing 27 examples and their locations on primarily high traffic public streets;
The private one-way streets of this development till be well screened and have
little impact on the neighborhood;
* Though a significant number of neighbors were appealing the plan, their numbers
did not compare to the number of elderly who would be served by this housing
project;
0 Believed that this project was feared because it was innovative and different, but
held that it could be an awtird winning project for the same reasons;
0 The zoning has been R-5 for almost 20 years;
0 The design elements would be reviewed at the Development Review Commission;
l Asked that the minor partition could be approved as he did not believe the
neighbors were appealing that.
Mr. Griggs continued his testimony and made the followina Doints:
S+Mf has asked that they remove the boardwalk and viesng pla’cform from their
proposed location in the new marsh area:
The applicant wanted to use the low flowing spring and new marsh area as a
attractive feature, and asked that the boardwalk and platform be retained to allow
the residents to enjoy the plants and animals that might inhabit the small marsh;
Requested that the five year phasing plan (Exhibit PI, p. 1071, as conditioned by #4
of the Planning Commission’s findings, be retained;
Noted that the two water quality and detention ponds and the channels connecting
them would be developed during Phase 1:
city Council MhuLca
Novcmbcr IO, 1994 P~8of18
Asked that Condition #IO be removed to allow the natural drainage from the spring
to flow to the ponds undisturbed by erosion and other problems caused by opening
the site up all at once;
Requested removal of condition #ll requiting a connection of Country Lane to
Pfeifer Drive to allow for emergency vehicle access. He pointed out that their plan
included loop streets in each phase that would allow emergency vehicle access, and
therefore this connection w;as not required until the final phase of the development;
Staff has reviewed their plan and agrees that it would work the way the applicant
said it would work.
Steve Abel. Attomev. 900 SW Fifth Ave. #2300. Portland, thanked the staff for the excellent job they have done in preparing a -well-organized and clear record.
COUNCIL QUESTIONS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Do you have any objection to the neighborhood pathway between Country Lane
and Orchard Drive mentioned by the appellants?
Mr. Gregg stated that they were flexible regarding the pathway; the opportunity
was there if it was wanted.
Would all the roads go in during Phase 1 or would they be phased in as well?
Mr. Gregg stated that the roads would be phased in during the building phases
in order to avoid disturbing those portions of the site not being built on. Y
In response to Mayor Schlenker’s concern about parking, Mr. Gregg verified that
the drawing reflected his original intent for parking, not the Planning
Commission’s condition #16. He said that implementing the Planning
Commission’s condition would increase the impermeable surface and reduce the
yard area of each unit. He reviewed on the drawing precisely where the parking
was located, both unit and pullout parking. He noted the continuous sidewalk
on Country Lane, a couple of on site pathways, and the pathway running around
part of the marsh.
In response to Councilors’ questions regarding the stream corridor and pond, Mr.
Gregg stated that the setbacks were 25 feet. He noted that the Planning
Commission recommended that they build the pavilion and boardwalk within
the 25 foot setback instead of over the pond.
How do you intend to buffer this project from Pfeifer Farm?
Mr. Gregg stated that they plan to heavily landscape the 10 foot setback. He
noted that a six foot fence already ran along the perimeter of Pfeifer Farm. The
buffering was similar on the other side but would include transplanted holly
trees along the perimeter.
City Council Minutes
November lo, 1%~ Pago 9 of 18
w
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Do you intend to adhere to the fire marshal’s recommendations for a 20 foot
width for the streets (Exhibit 43)?
Mr. Gregg directed attention to Exhibit 55 as being -more current. He stated that
the main street was 24 fe@t, the secondary one way streets were 20 feet, the
finder streets were 15 feet, and the driveways were 12 feet. He said that they
would comply titb the fire marshal’s report.
Where would guest parking be? How far would elderly guests have to walk?
Mr. Gregg stated that guest parking was on the street or in the pullouts. He
said guests would have to walk between 30 to 80 feet in most cases. He
reiterated that they would require residents to use the garage for parking as a
condition of rental.
Mayor Schlenker commented that the parking on the 24 foot streets would affect
the places right next to Bfeifer Farm, indicating a bank of houses on the map.
Mr. Gregg stated that other pullouts would be required to reach the number of
parking spaces mentioned by Mr. Griggs. He pointed out that on-site pathways
allowed pedestrians to walk through the site instead of the long way around;
they have not had any problem at Carman Oaks with people parking 300 feet
away from the main entrance. -Mr. Griggs noted that all streets, pedestrian
ways and sidewdlks were a: the 8% maximum grade.
In response to several Councilors questions, Mr. Gregg showed the location of
Phase I on the map. He said that since the original seven-year phasing schedule
has been changed to five years, they thought that the phases would be bigger.
Wouldn’t the people in the renbl units be discouraged by the constant
construction going on next door? Five years seemed like a long time.
Mr. Gregg stated that they felt it would be better to build out in phases
primarily from an environmental standpoint.
Mayor Schlenker recessed the meeting. Following the recess, she reconvened the
hearing.
Mike Mikolaitis. 4084 Coltsfoot Lane. Hollv Orchard Neighborhood . .
to several points made by Mr. Grew
Pam , spoke
0 Wetlands:
0 Though the State Department of Water Resources did mandate that the pond be
drained, they had no jurisdictions over wetlands;
l The Division of State Lands (DSIJ was the jurisdictional body and they have not
yet reviewed this plan;
City Council Minutca Novwnbcr 10. 1994 Page 10 of 18
0 The s’&report mentioned that the density might have to be reduced to
accommodate wetlands mitigation;
0 Density: 0 Disagreed that the project has met earh and every criteria that was applicable
with regard to density:
l General Policy 3 of the Comprehensive i?lan stated “maintain substantially
developed single family neighborhoods at existing density designations”;
0 A density of 73 units did not maintain the existing density designation;
0 Traffic: 0 Generally speaking, it was true that the ITE report was the best source of
information to determine traffic impacts;
l However, Dr. Soot (a Ph.D. in chemical engineering) indicated that he felt the
statistical basis for the report was weak and that one would be at risk in
drawing conclusions about traffic impacts based on it;
0 Streets bordering existing properties:
0 Though the applicant pointed out numerous examples of this occurring in
existing neighborhoods, those streets were built out as an integrated part of the
development at the same time as the housing units;
e In this situation, the homes looking at a street in their backyards were in.
mature neighborhoods;
0 This was a significantly different situation than streets and homes built together
as an integrated whole;
0 The proposed duration of the project was as long as Mr. Gregg said the project has
already been in discussion, a long time for existing neighborhoods to endure
construction;
l Asked the Council to uphold the appeal:
e The density violated the Comprehensive Plan and made it virtually impossible
to implement the required wetland mitigation measures;
e The traffic impacts might be understated due to a weak statistical basis in the
ITE report;
0 The density exemption might impose rental caps that might cause the property
to be unfinancable;
0 The plan of the streets caused great impacts on existing surrounding
neighborhoods;
0 The development plan time was unreasonably long;
l Requested the Council to direct the applicant and the neighborhoods to enter into
mediation to address the concerns;
0 Believed that, working together, they coald achieve an elderly housing project that
was harmoniously integrated into the existlhg neighborhoods, provided valuable
elderly housing in the community and met the business objectives of the developer.
In answer to a question fjrom Councilor Chrisman, Ramid Pishvaie. Associate Plaw, ’
stated that the R-5 zoning designation allowed 55 lots on this land.
Mr. Mikolaitis stated that there seemed to be an inherent conflict between what the
Comprehensive Plan suggested and what the letter of the law would lead one to
conclude from the zoning ordinances; the Comprehensive Plan mandated looking at
City Council Minute- Ncvcmbcr lo. 1941 Page Xl orl8
the surrounding neighborhoods. Applying those density designations currentiy in
place for existing neighborhoods resulted in a different density for the development.
. Jeff-s. 4062 Pfeifer Cm , respond to:
spoke to some issues that he felt Mr. Gregg did not
0 Mr. Gregg did not address how he was going to minimize the impacts of five years of
construction on the surrounding neighborhoods in terms of safety, noise, dust,
construction activity, etc.;
l If the reason for the five year phasing was for carrying costs, he understood that to
mean that Mr. Gregg anticipated as low an absorption rate as 14 units per year:
0 The neighborhoods would like to see a more successfid project than that on this site;
0 Though Mr. Gregg said that privacy was a two way street, he has taken care of his
residents’ privacy by placing the roads on the perimeter and impacting the adjacent
properties;
0 As an engineer in the construction industry, he disagreed with Mr. Gregg’s
inference that phasing the construction would help reduce the problems of
hydrology, spring runoff, etc. - they were unrelated issues.
Dana Waldman. 4069 ??feifer Cour& stated that last week they had witnessed an
ex parte contact between the Mayor, the City Attorney and Mr. Abel during the
hearing break. In her testimony, she made the following points:
0
l
0
0
l
0
0
0
0
0
e
0
0
0
-- Mr. Gregg did not refbte the &stance or grading problems related to the bus stop
(which were specifically regulated in the Code);
Bus li38 only stops four hours a day during commuter hours;
“Handicapped” did not refer to whether or not you could walk a certain distance but
to a physical impairment;
Since most 55 to 60 year olds were quite capable of walking, they wouldn’t qualify
for the Tri-Met Lift Program;
If a density bonus was granted for moderate income rentals, then the City should
enforce the letter of the law with regards to rental rates;
If LCD@ required 450 units for the elderly by 2010, why was the Council so worried
about these 73 units?;
The fact that this project has gone through 10 public hearings should indicate that
something was wrong with the project;
The heights of the buildings did not meet the city code, as pointed out in the staff
report;
The setbacks did not take into account the terrain or car lights coming into people’s
bedrooms;
This was a dense project compared to surrounding neighborhoods;
Rental rates were not based on cost, but on market rates;
How could you substantiate that 73 units would impact the neighborhoods less than
single family housing?;
There was no one (except for the architect and the lawyer) testifying for Mr. Gregg,
not even Mr. Wiimot;
Did Mr. Gregg’s open space requirement include the Carman house land? - it was
not his land;
City Cam31 Minu~cn
Novcmbcr lo, l!Bd Page l2of18
* Cited the Comprehensive Plan (p. 75) regarding r.na&tiining the existing den&y
levels; 0 Fewer units would be better because this would reduce the number of streets and be
consistent with the neighborhoods;
0 When people moved in+& Pfeifer Farms, there had been no raad behind their house
and no reason to believe there would be one.
Mr. Condit stated that the potential ex parte contact cited by MS. Waldman did occur
during the break at the prior hearing. However, he, the Mayor and I&&. Abel only
discussed the procedures for testimony; they did not discuss the case Though
technically it was not an ex parte contact, it should have been clarified for the record.
Joban_Schick., directed attention to a drawing showing the housing units
and street configuration, and made the following points:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Reviewed the-history of this plan, noting that-the original Pony Hill plan was
proposed 16 years ago; Either this housing was for 55 and older or it was for 65 and older but not both*
This was a 55 years and older plan, and people 55 years and older still worked ‘&nd
drove their cars;
His residence was closer to one of the plan’s streets than the plan’s units were,
meaning that there was a street in his backyard;
Extra-wide disabled parking left room for only six cars in the 90 feet allowed for
parking; Though the fire department would sign off on the 20 foot wide street, they weren’t
happy about it because cars parked on the side made it difficult for the emergency
vehicles;
Mr. Wolke’s report on retirement home estimates was based on 65 years and older
retirement homes;
Neighbors were concerned about the traffic and the lengthy construction time;
Contended that the applicant was unsure whether or not this development would
work because he was doing it in phases;
Presented slides of the development area and surrounding neighborhoods (p. 534).
Mayor Schlenker closed the hearing to public testimony.
Mayor Schlenker reviewed the two issues before the Council: the minor partition and
the ODPS. She noted that approving the CIDPS included approving the phasing
schedule, the density, the traflsc plan improvements, the open space protection and
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan but it did not include the design issues
(these would go before the Development Review Commission at each phase),
I. Councilor Chrisman expressed ccncern that the “adequate buffering” condition for
special use housing density bonus had not been met in regards to putting roads on
the outside within 10 feet of people’s back yards. She noted that without the
roads, two or three story buildings could be built.
City Coimcil Minutes Novcmbcr lo,1994 Pago 1sorls
2.
3.
4.
5.
Mr. Condit explained that the developer had to meet all the conditions of approval
to get the density bonus. If Council felt that the landscaping plan was not
acceptable, they could reduce the allowed density to accommodate additional
landscaping. Mr. Pishvaie stated that the Code allowed individual buildings up to
40 feet with an average height over the entire development of 50 feet (up to 55
buildings four to five stories high); this was a typical apartment complex without
the density bonus allowed under the special use housing provision.
why didn’t Country Lane and Orchard Drive connect?
Mr. Pishvaie explained that they did connect; however it was only for emergency
access because this was an apartment complex and they didn’t wish to open the
road up to through traffic.
Councilor Anderson commented on the discussion, that the wetlands have been
reviewed against a different set of standards.
Mr. Pishvaie stated that, according to the information staff received, the wetlands
did not meet the test to be classified as essential wetlands; however, they would
still be under the jurisdiction of DSL. Staff’s intent in writing the conditions of
approval the way they had was to require review and approval of the mitigation
plan by DSL prior to staffs acceptance of a design review application for the DRC’s
review.
What modifications could be made to the street configuration at the DRC?
Mr. Condit explained “that, if Council decided the issue of street patterns in their
approval of the ODPS, than that issue was resolved and it could not be revisited at
the time of phase approval. However, if Council felt that there was insufficient
information in the record justiwng the street system, they could condition the
approval to allow reconsideration of the issue at the design review phase. He
reviewed Council’s options as affirm in whole, deny, modify in whole or in part, or
remand back to the Planning Commission.
If the Council approved it, and the requirements under the wetlands ordinance
prohibited the use of that much street, how would the issue then be handled?
Mr. Condit stated that the handling of the wetlands had to comply with DSL
permitting, as federal and state law superseded local law. Mr. Pishvaie said that,
because of the way the condition was written, the DRC would have the authbrity to
revise the QDPS site design (as well as density) without having to modify the
ODPS and go back to the Planning Commission.
City C!ocncil Minuten
Novcmbar 10, lW4 Page 140fi8
6. Did the application comply with the Federa! C!ean Water Act?
Mr. Condit stated that DSL would determine whether or not the application
complied with the Clean Water Act.
7. Mayor Schlenker commented that Condition 106 (requiring 3 parking spaces per
unit) appeared to work against the goals and objectives of the City to reduce
impervious surface and vehicle miles traveled. She did not understand why the
open space was reduced from 55% to 40%.
Mr. Pishvaie explained that the neighbors and some Planning Commissionere had
been concerned that the parking space provided in the attached garage would be
used for storage instead of for parking, leaving the second car of a two car couple
parked in the street. He verified that there was additioaal parking provided in
parking bays and along the east side of the main drive through; the plans provided
2.75 parking spaces per unit.
Mayor Schlenker commented that she would like to see more open space as part of
an amendment if the project were approved.
Councilor Holstein noted that the Planning Commission added the extra space
because they thought that the garage wouldn’t be used for parking but the
developer testified that they would require use of the garage space for parking as a
condition of rental.
Councilor Anderson ~noved to approve the mirmr pAtion of 8.76 acres hm
Dick Wihot’s I.25 acres, subject to the eon&ions of approval for minor
ptitious ira tie staff report. Councilor Holstein seconded the motion.
A roll call vote was taken and the motion pass& with Mayor Schlenker, Councilors
Anderson, Chrisman, Holstein and Slammer voting in favor.
Councilor Anderson moved &s approve the ODPS with con&ti~m.
During their discussion, Council arrived at the conditions for approving the ODPS.
Councilor Anderson expressed concern at the amount of impervious surface of the
street system. L-Ie wanted to allow modifications to the street configuration at the
design review level. Mr. Coffee suggested approving the ODPS for types of housing,
density, phasing and wetlands and leaving the street design to the DRC.
Councilor Chrisman stated that she was concerned more with the streets being I2 feet
from backyards and the possibility of taller buildings more disruptive to the
neighborhood. Mayor Schlenker concurred that three or four story buildings would be
more disruptive to the neighborhood character.
City Council .Minutcn November 10,1994 Pago 16 of 18
Mr. Condit agreed that the @ o~uxxil cou!d approve the ODPS, as suggested by Mr.
Coffee, but leave the DRC some flexibihty to rearrange the street syatem to provide
more privacy. He noted that reconfiguring the street system might require reduction
in density and might eliminate the on grade access for all units. Councilor Anderson stated that he wanted the street design to be examined more critically by someone.
Mr. Coffee commented that Mr. Gregg went for an ODPS because of phasing with the
full expectation of design review at the DRC. If the street design was a major issue for
the Council, not approving the street design as part of the ODPS was a way to put the
design issue before the DRC.
Mr. Condit summarized Council’s desire concerning the street issue as “to insure that
there is sufficient privacy and compatibility with the adjacent residences which back
onto the site.”
Councilor Mammer commented that Council was passing the buck. Mr. Condit agreed
that they were to some degree but explained that doing so was part of the ODPS
process. The ODPS was supposed to be the cverall design to give the developer some
certainty when they came back for phase anproval; therefore, the ODPS approval
could be as broad or as restrictive as Council wished.
Mayor Schlenker commented that the conditions imposed by the Planning
Commission were fairly in-depth for an ODPS already. Mr. Coffee reportid that Mr.
Pishvaie thought that the conditions would still provide parameters for the DRC and
certainty for Mr. Gregg.
Councilor Chrisman raised the issue of the pathway. Mr. Pishvaie clarified that the
roadway connection provided the opportunity for a pathway which was now
recommended by the Holly Orchards Neighborhood Association; the roadway allowed
access for emergency vehicles.
Mr. Condit requested &&direction (as part of the motion) to reexamine the other
conditions to see if any modifications were needed.
Councilor Chrisman suggested deleting condition 16. Mayor Schlenker agreed.
The motion (as restated by Mayor Schlenker) was TV approve tie 0DEW wi& tIr,e
folkwing coditiions: I) the DEW examine and assum that there was
sufficient privacy and CompatibSty with regards to roadways and a*acent
neighborhoods, and ammpatible with the other 15 conditions outlined by &he
Planning Cmmnissio11; 2) to make sure that there was a pathway between the
properties that took into considerat.om emergemy access; and 3) deletion of
condition #X6 that required partig for three vehicles as opposed to parking
for two v&i&es. Councilor Chrisman seconded the motion.
Councilor Anderson expressed concern about the street design, width and number of
street in the project; he thought the number of streets was excessive. He was not sure
City Council Minutes Novemhr 10. l!% Pogc 16 of 18
that the wetlands issue had been adequately addressed and was more comfortable
knowing that it would be addressed by the DRC. He favored the amount of density
and providing a place for elderly residents in the community.
Councilor Ghrisman stated that, while she was not concerned about the number of
streets, she was concerned about streets 10 feet from neighbors’ backyards. Since the
project had 55% landscaping, she was not so concerned about impervious surface. She
concurred that density was important and agreed with the 73 units. She would have
preferred to connect the neighborhoods more but understood that t,his was a
particularly difficult instance. She thought that Lake Oswego needed more elderly
housing.
Mayor Schlenker agreed that elderly housing was much needed in Lake Oswego; she
felt that the community had a social responsibility to provide varying kinds of housing
and felt that this project did a good job. She thought Mr. Gregg’s plan was creative in
using the topography and geography to provide on grade access to all units. She
thought that the 55% open space was advantageous to the area, and that the
arrangement of the units would be less intrusive than single family homes. She
stated that she would have like to have opposed the condition removing the bridge
over the upper pond, feeling that it could have been designed to be an asset to the
property; but, did not feel it was really worth it. She commented, with regards to
density, that if they waited any longer to do this, Metro was likely to impose a higher
density on this site than 73 units. She understood the concerns of the neighbors but
did not see any specific examples of Mr. Gregg not having complied with the
standards. She would support the motion.
Councilor Klammer comnented that he saw a breakdown in communication between
the developer and the neighborhoods; if that hadn’t occurred, this hearing would not
be happening. He was not happy with the street structuring or the five year phasing,
but conceded the need for Lake Oswego to provide their fair share of l&al and regional
housing needs. Councilor Klarnmer continued commenting that though he did not ‘like
the motion because he felt that they were passing the buck on the roads, he would
support the motion as the lesser of two evils (also foreseeing a higher density
somewhere down the line).
Councilor HoMein concurred with the need for elderly housing but expressed concern
at three parts of the project: the street layout, neighborhood compatibility, and
phasing. He thought that there were too many roads for this narrow piece of land. In
his experience, small apartment complexes in the middle of single family
neighborhoods did not work. He could not live in a neighborhood next to a project and
listen to it for five years. He would not support the motion.
A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Schlenker, Councilors
Anderson, Chrisman, and Klammer voting in favor; Councilor Holstein voted against
the motion.
City Council Minutca NovcmbcrlQ.1994 Pago 17 of 18
WI. ADeKWRNMENT
Mayer Schlenker adjourned the meeting at 9~5 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted, i
&JLOL IM&!&itchcock, City Recorder
APPROVED BY COUNCIL:
Alice L. Schlenker, Mayor
City Council Minutes November lo.2994 Page l8of18