HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 1976-04-07 Allii:7,N REVIEV BOARD MCETINB April 7, 1976
k* .;eril 7} 197E meeting or the takt.'' kited r. 1 es.ign Povieu Board Mooting was called
tr croon by Chairman Tony 1~1arqui.a. r+f.;*.t rd members bers Gionn rhilcrato, Opus Evans, Hugh
i": .c^-ell., Kirk Nieland and Sob Stark , care present. .Staff members in attendance were
,1 .r ttolxomor, Merlin DeHess, Pot t+arnum, ,;,ary Bradshaw, Bob 'fakes and Boyce Kazala.
Tr'a a.nutes of the .1 arch 17, 1976 mootint wore approved es meilarl
r4.1 HEARING
n R :-^t (City of Portland) - A rP.uusst by the City of Portland to chow the con-
tr. tion of an addition to its Try n e.reek Sower Treatment Plant located on root-
'iL . . road in the Lake ()swoon Ina :;trzcal Z6ns
Gcr Nakas,'presented the staff rfap,,,rt. exhibits end recommended approval.
Perlin DeHeaa, told the Board this pre,loct was ti joint venture with the City or Port-
' 1::..r end the expansion of the plant is naceaeory since it is presently overloaded.
Glenn. Chilcoto disqualified himaol.i because or conflict of interests
The „dblio hearing opened and Archie Meadows, CH2M-Hall and representing the applicant,
sp..,Ne as proponent. He explained the proposed expansion and indicated the areas on
IIIas sa as plan. Staff showed slides of the cite and Mr. Meadows pointed out the areas
nder consideration.
Llod `Mond, landscape architect, presented the landscape plan (exhibit p-I) and . ndi-
sawed the proposed plantings to the Board. Ha commented that lower plantings
around the tanks have been specifically chosen to avoid having leaves, etc. fall into
the tanks.
Donald T. Ross, Broome, Oringdulph, O'Toole, Rudolf & Associates Architects, showed
close-up photographs of the facility to the Beard (exhibit "G"). He also presented
oolor samples (exhibit "H") chosen for the exterior of the structures. Mr. Ross
told the Board that all structures on the site would be painted with the colors indi-
cated on the aampla. He continued that one large tank is approximately one and one-
half feet above ground level and will remain unpainted.
n answer to a question from the Board, Mr. Ross stated that construction will be
completed within two years.
The public hearing was closed.
Kirk Nieland felt that the Greanway was not affected by this project. He also said
that the proposed landscaping will improve the visual impact from the river.
Hugh ►'"litcholl made a motion that the design review be approved. The motion waa
seconded by Bob Stark and passed with Mr. Chilcote abstaining. 1
wzgc4n Review Board Meeting - 2 April 7, 1976
roperttes.Cor s+r ,1.,w,F%1 - A mcd ifi.ad; request 'by Shelter properties
w r; .rat .an to allow the construction ion xaf 4 ire-unit op, rt an ent complex and e tree
eppli.catlon to allow the removal of „b trees on tax lots 1500, 1GOJ and a
:: ,: sn of 900 or tax mop 2 if BCB 4 s."iak Ridges and Quarry Roods).
'a^ Staff report and exhibits were presented by Mr. Yokes, who recommended approval..
2. r. Bradshaw stated that City Council had adopted the three conditiene previauaiy
r::.:„° randed by Public Works end, therefore these were no recommendations attached
a application.
" biio hooking was opened and Gary' Bufi rd. Consulting Engineer representing the
. ® - t'., spoke as proponent. H wra that total site coverage had been reduced to
` ,original request (OR 12- 5) OaO `"x. of a ege) . Ho else commented t:hat the tree
request hod been reduced t r .., ZrOOO to 45 trees).
Baphert designer, indicated on the axte plan the changes which had bash made
:Sduwe total coverage, although the 29 al/owed for perking remained unchanged.
-a: i that aluminum siding would be used on the structures and showed color samples
• i :Ked for the proposed structures.
Z. %argden, 15952 Quarry Road, commented that staff's statement regstrding surround-
• t ^irg was incorrect. Mr. Augden told the Board he is en adjacent property owner
s:sw in an R-7.5 Zone and that such zoning is on the north, west and south sidae
site.
*:. warner, 4270 Quarry Road, asked if the proposed storm drain (requirement of
Uorks prior to issuance of building permit) would be a 'public line. Mr. Brad-
him that no determination had been made regarding the storm drain as yet.
• - ^nor then asked how many more trees .could be removed should the widening of
uM;: „t. ga and Quarry Roads be accomplished. He was told that four additional trees
;e removed on Oak Ridge and ono additional tree removed on Quarry Road._,
't, :..lord stated that the modifications made to this proposal had addressed the oen
;„s,rns expressed by the Design Review Board at the preliminary hearing on February te,
a,
`,;• Sark asked Mr. Buford how much demand there would be for apartments such as
t css -:oposed. Mr. Buford said the other apartments in the area have waiting lists
�ra�cn . =old indicate -a definite need. Ha also said he had checked with the school
,i..atr� t and was told there should be no problems with the schools. Mr. Buford said
that is had been told by a school official that if problems arose, the boundaries
sax?d adjusted.
The put1ic hearing was closed.
Mr. Mitctlall commented that the revised landscape plan was a vast improvement over
the one craviously presented. He suggested that additional ground cover be provided
in tuo areas to allow adequate yard coverage in five years. A suggestion was also
redo tha:. pine trees be planted to break the facade. He also expressed opposition
to a seta obscuring buffer between the site and adjacent properties.
p
a,on Review tsoerd Meeting «, 3 « April 74 1976
111/
a : t told the Ro rd that . t�C`'.3. ' t„�btirat. .t, r e trees would obstruct emor erlc
• �� ,pp��yy.pyyhax a g q Y
s.
s:.�r. Evans felt the modified prose s,4 ,tiff, hots o significant imPoot. He continued
that findings 1.1 and 13 of the ordinance adopted at the time of rezoning this property
i Baas it difficult for. him to vote in favor of the project. Mr. Evens said it warn
t"`. _ Citys ` gimpossible t
,« opinion that Council h��cf given the l�e�a..n Review Board an t.m oe;�ible tack.
=r. Stark concurred.
M . „ k..r}. , o .such bettor than the original one and was
>,« � .,��.lan�,i r:omment<sd that tt��i;._ ,. ,;a ��a, ^r
...in the requirements et the ..;i.l. M ,i,i ilea said that en effort hod been made to
.harp trees.
.'x . `a'chell said that minor as ;% .4,•, *,„-, '¢t Yank ,ng might save two moo trees.
Chilcote felt it was too much howca for the property involved. Ho also ex-
..�.§:fed canoernod over the signing of the Non amen trana Agreement.
:hsz,r7lan Marquis said he was appalled that the choice of siding was aluminum.
"," , Zhilcote stated that aluminum eiriing continues to deter oreto, even after repaint-
..- , ,.hile wood has a tendency to "bounce back",
i, ".;eland commented that although the mixture of wood and aluminum could be compatible,
.r, would be difficult to have the same color match on the two materials. Ho felt it
�o be hotter to have contrasting colors.
''r. ;`.,ttchell said that the zoning for the property under consideration had been
established when City Council adopted the ordinance. He continued that the concern
c',p.:ressed Per the saving of trees could only be accomplished by dovoloping a portion
cf the site rather than to the fullest extent allowed by the zone.
chairman Marquis made a motion for approval of the design review subject to admini-
strative review of "the landscape plan containing additional plantings to the east of
the north unit and to the west of the south unit (kinnikinrt. ck, six feet en center).
The motion was seconded by Mr. Mitchell.
'' r, t''''itchell amended the motion to state that parking spaces 14 and 17 be revised to
save two trees located in the area. The amendment was seconded by Chairman Marquis.
The amendment passed with Messrs. Chilcote and Stark voting in opposition.
The rain motion failed with Messrs. Chilcote, Evans and Stark voting in opposition.
''r. Chilcote made a motion recommendingapproval of less density, trying to save
Y 9
75% of the trees on the site in order to have less impact, per City Council.
The motion died for lack of a second
�Fs'ign Review Board Meeting - 4 April 7, 1976
III
' "'"o ..ard cla.scuescd whether density oTwld be addressed ;,n s design review. It was
;ermined that in this cosy direction hod been riven th i by the City Councils
`'c. Stark mode e motion that the design review application be 'denied forthe fol.,
k;..�.ing reasons;
'. ' The combination of building end Parking coverage of 54% is exrr aasive OLIO to the
:, liarities of the site,
This ,api linntian o r #;a exne.,..aAA.,a removal of existing trees, and eubstantiel y
-,:,,ors the life of the rf,r' Sic ;- ; '.,.r ,1
ppravai of this applic;attoo 1..ai .0 L.lil to enhance aaesthet n values and to sanure
.tlopment which is suitably re='at€:!fi to its€ environment as stated in LOC $O OO =
This application ie not in sonformance with Ordinance 1593(13) adoptod at the;
;.;.- or City Council. approval of the lone Change for this property: "With the design
..:.�• c, process presently in use by the City or. Lake Oswego, and the City,s philosophy
.....- regard to conservation of trues, there will be no significant: adverse impact
regard to removal of trees on the property."
This application_is not in conformance with Ordinance 1593(11): With regard 11/
.„� r„.,,,�a,;;isnmental impact insofar as osettlot3,cs of the subject ,property is concerned,
rr-a, Z asign Review Ordinance of the City, together with public hearings in this regard,
h:.I not allow poorly conceived or disorderly development of the property."
r °M -atien passed with Messrs, Mitchell and t'ialand voting in opposition.
Mr, '"itchell stated that he would be in favor of the denial if it were, a single
r 7-... y zone,
Mr. 'Lielend felt that this denial was non-definitive.
Mr. Euford told the Board he was appalled by the action taken and that the decision
-;oulc probably be appealed.
CW t -76 (City of Lake Oswego) - A request by the City of Lake Oswego to allow the
replacement of the condemned footbridge in George Rogers Park.
Mr. 'sakas ,presented the staff report, exhibits and slides of the site. Approval of
the cssign review was recommended.
Mr. ceHaes presented the Public Works staff report and exhibits, with the recommenda-
tion ?or approval. He discussed the development schedule and said that the deadline
for 84% funding from the State had been the guideline for that schedule.
2esign Review Board Meeting - b - April 7, 1976
s ,s public ,hearing opened and Lou Pearce, Oregon Bridge Engineering Company, spoke
as proponent. He told the Board the footbridge would have a 1- /2 foot camber on a
r grade. He showed photographs of similar bridges to the Board and presented a
color sample indicating the proposed stein for the wood portion of the structure. He
said it would be difficult to have the color of the decking and skirting match because
of the differences in concrete 'or the two areas.
Mr:. Chilcote commented he would prefer to have natural concrete.
Mr. Mitchell asked why the structure was: 12 feet wide and was told by Mr. Pearce that
the design is in accordance with the hikeway gu.idelilea. He said there would be no
Particular cost advantage in making the footbridge .smaller'
G:.en Holzemar explained that the tu.dth would allow utility vehicles aeceas to the
ccflner side of Oswego Creek. He told the Beard that knock-out posts could be placed
on the ends of the bridge to deter unauthorized vehicles.
Mr. Pearce said that galvanized hardware would be used rather than what had been
previously specified. He continued that the galvanized hardware would lest longer.
chairman Marquis read a letter from Colleen Burdick in opposition to the proposed
design review, suggesting changes which could be made to serve bike and pedestrian
needs and be an aesthetically pleasing addition to the community.
111/tr. Yakas read a letter from Mary Winston, in opposition. She objected to the prc'7
posed width, feeling the structure should be a "footbridge" in size and use and felt
the decking should be of wood.
Chairman Marquis questioned the concrete decking and stated he had seen bridges with
wood decking which provided minimal discomfort for bicycle riders (bouncing, etc.).
Mr. DeHaas told the Board that concrete is much more durable than wood and is an
integral part of the proposed design.
Mr.: Pearce commented that it was his opinion that wood could not carry the length of
of 120-foot span. He continued that the girders would have to be considerably deeper,
affecting the view from the underside of the footbridge-
' Mr. Holzemer commented that one problem with wood decking would be continual replace-
ment of deteriorated sections of the planking. He also expressed opposition to
the wood decking
ntheor s safesle t access forhe bicyclersoard �froms mtheed by Mr.Glenmorrielzemer area that this
footbridge a Y li
I i
Mr. Chilcote suggested the possibility of a narrower bridge with pedestrian refuges
appropriately located.
The public hearingwas closed.
ine camber from
regarding an increase. th II'
Discussion was held among the. Board members g g
•he proposed 1-1/2 feet.
i condi-
tions: be approved with the following
Mr. Stark made a motion that the designreview pp 9
Ji
De scan Review Board Meeting .. 6 ° April 7, 1976
rac �ic ;1:. 0
L) Allow as much camber as p t o
2) ..eave the concrete decking in the natural. color.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Nieland and passed unanimously
2
DR tt-76 (Herb Miller construction Company) - A request by Herb Miller Construction
Com:zany to allow the construction of a 12-unit apartment complex on tax lot 2600 of
tax ,map 2 1E OCB (Lake Grave Avenue, eppraximately LSO feet east of Reese Road).
Mr. N aka s presented the staff report, exhibits and slides. He told the Board this
was ,s Preliminary application and recommended approval of the concept.
Mr, Bradshaw commented that because of tho nature of the neighborhood Public Works
recommended that sidewalks be a condition of the approval.
It was; noted that several parking spaces are located within the required setback,
The public hearing opened and Bob Evanson, Cvenson, Lundgren Larson Architects and
representing the applicant, spoke as proponent. He presented a revised site plan
(exhibit andindicatedchanges which had been made. He indicated the
D nd the: c
,_ �t 1 l- a
parkiaig for the tenants had been changed and a studio apartment had been added,
chancing the proposal to 13 unite. Mr. Evenspn questioned the width of the drive-
way along the northeast property line, stating he felt it was excessive to allow1111
passage of emergency vehicles.
Bob ►Laidwig, 3400 Upper Drive, felt the complex Would add an additional traffic
problem. He also reminded the Board that the new post office would be constructed
across the street. Mr. Ludwig said that City Council, at the time of approving the
zone change, had suggested the possibility of a lesser density than allowed by the
zone.
The public hearing closed.
Pat Barnum told the Board that the revised site plan had not been seen by staff prior
to the meeting. He also said that a variance would be required to allow parking
within the required setback. Mr. Barnum commented that the change in number of units
is anther matter to be considered (from 12 to 13).
Mr. Ni..eland said there is a need to make a determination of density problems when
established densities are involved. It was felt that the City Council had directed
the Design review Board to consider density on this particular application.
Mr. Evans made a motion to continue the matter Until the next regularly scheduled
meeting, April 21, 1976. The motion was seconded by Mr. Stark and passed unanimously.
GENERAL PLANNING
IIIpesignI_eview Ordinance modifications - Prior to forwarding of the Design Review
Ordinance modifications to City Council, staff was directed to obtain additional
input.
1
,
Design Review Board Meeting - 7 April 7, 1976
A special concern of the Board ias that a preliminary approval required the applicant
to return for final approval. Suggested rewording by Mr. Evans ie as follows: ". ..
a preliminary application may be finally approved, preliminarily approved, approved
with conditions, or denied."
With a change in the wording of the ordinance, it was determined that the applicant
i could have a decision in one public hearing rather than two, as the present ordinance
infers.
Mr. DeHaas discussed the Carte,rla Market roof screening application regarding the
overturning of Public Works recommendations by City Council. He felt the demands
were "too much" for this particular project, but Carter's Market had presented Split
applications (DR 10-75; OR 11-75) which explained the recommeridationo made by, Public
Works.
The Board was also told by Mr. DeHeas that Don Eppley, Paul Murphy, Lou Lavachek and
I; he had mat in Mr. Eppley's office. At that time, Mr. DeHaes continu td, he arid Mt.
Eppley understood that Mr. Murphy, owner' er the property, was in agreement with the
proposed recommendations. He said that if the applicant does not express disagreement,
it is assumed he is in agreement with the proposed recommendations.
Mr. Evans said he felt the City Council should give some direction to the Design
1111 eview Board regarding Public Works recommendations. , He continued this. was 'the
ntent of his original statement.
- 1
Meeting adjourned at 11:51 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Y
.—Th
Opyce Kazala, Secretary
Design Review Board