HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 1978-01-04 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING Ja
nuary uary 4 1978
41110
The Design Review Board meeting of January 4, 1978 was called to order. The Board
elected Glenn. Chilcote to serve as temporary chairman for the meeting. Board
members in attendance were: Bob Perron, Dave Pugh and Gary Rittenhouse. Staff
members present were: Ralph Tahran, Planner II ; Alex Arseniev, Assistant City
Engineer and Nancy Bryan, Secretary.
Minutes of the December 7, 1977 meeting were approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
SV 3-77 (Gus Enterprises) A request by Gus Enterprises for variance from the
sign code requirements (LOC 47.410) to allow a wood sign at the Quail Hill Apartments
on property fronting on Independence Avenue, south of the Mountain Park Recreation
Center (east half of Block 3, Mountain Park No. 2) .
Ralph Tahran read the staff report and presented the exhibits. Staff recommended
approval of the sign variance, since it did not restrict visibility at the corner.
Ralph Tahran mentioned the letters received from people in Mt. Park regarding the sign.
The people were in favor of the sign after they understood that another sign was not
to be put up.
S Ray Hundermark of Quail Hill Apartments, representing Gus Enterprises, spoke. He
stated that Gus Enterprises was asking to have the $50 sign variance fee refunded,
as Gus Enterprises stated the plan for the sign was in the drawings when the project
was given final approval . Consequently, it was assumed by Gus Enterprises that the
sign was approved when no objection was voiced.
Carol Friedley, 39 Da Vinci , representing Mt. Park Homeowners spoke. She expressed
the approval by the Homeowners Association of the sign.
Public hearing portion of the testimony was closed.
Gary Rittenhouse moved for approval of SV 3-77, request for a sign variance. Bob
Perron seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.
Dave Pugh stated he felt the matter of the possible $50 refund was something that
should be worked out by the Planning Dept.
The Board took the position that the fee should be refunded, if the facts proved
that the sign design was in the packet when the entire project was given final approval .
The Planning Department would need to check into this problem carefully.
DR 41-77 _(B & B Development) - A request by B & B Development Co. for a preliminary
design review to allow construction of 50 apartment units on property fronting on
Eagles Crest Drive in Phase IV of Mountain Park PUD (Mt. Park, Block 19, part of
Sec. 32, 33 1S 1E) .
lilfr The staff report .:and exhibits were presented by Ralph Tahran. Staff recommended
denial and suggested the applicant look closely at lowering the density of the project,
minimally, to preserve the overall tree-covered character of the site.
Design Review Board Meeting -2- January '4, 1978
The Public Works staff report was read into the record by Alex Arseniev. Alex
emphasized the section regarding "Need of a Registered Engineer", which is a new
procedure that Public, Works is trying to implement on large projects and difficult
j sites. i
Ralph Tahran explained that Planning staff had tried to work with the architect to
loosen up the site plan--save some trees and perhaps lower the density of the site.
Dave Pugh asked if there was a "unit per- acre" requirement in Mt. Park and Ralph
saidthere was not. Each individual site Was approved for certain number of units.
Ralph Bollinger of 4340 S.W. Cedar Hills Blvd. in Beaverton, attorney for B & B
Development, spoke.
Dick Peters of 4549 S.W. Scholls Ferry Rd. in Portland, architect for the project,
spoke. He pointed out on Exhibit "C" how the buildings related lirmoniously to the
site and other projects around. Mr. Peters said he supervised the tree count. If
all of the trees including the stunted trees were counted, there would be about 151
trees. Approximately 45 trees would be cut.
Dennis Baunach, representing B & B Development of 2720 N.E. Flanders, spoke. Dennis
presented pictures of his site and adjoining sites, Exhibit "M".-
Glenn Chilcote read into the record the definition of a "Garden Apartment" from the
Zoning Code. Ralph Tahran stated that the unit count was 50; as far as individual
buildings, setbacks, etc. , the project met the definition of garden apartments.
40 Opponents
Steve Janik of 900 S.W. Fifth in Portland, attorney representing Condolea Homeowners,
spoke. Mr. Janik stated that he was also authorized to speak for Mr. H. R. Adams,
the developer of the project next to Condolea to the west.
Mr. Janik stated his clients were shocked to see a maximum of 50 units on 2.5 acres
and felt the project did not accurately address the relationship of Condolea and
wooded nature of the site. Steve quoted from the objectives of the Design Review
Ordinance LOC 50.806 and stated these objections:
(1) These units would be an "Eagle Crest" to the Condolea people. The height was
60-70 feet over average level of the Condolea units.
(2) There were no site or sound buffers. They felt 76 parking spaces in an unbroken
mass was too much.
(3) The siding to be used on the project didn' t relate harmoniously to the materials
used on Condolea.
(4) The occupants of the proposed development would provide over-flow traffic onto
Condolea.
(5) There was not an adequate amount of landscaping on the southwest corner of the
property.
• (6) Number of trees to be preserved. The originally approved Mt. Park Development
Plans showed a strip of trees left down the middle of the property.
Design Review Board Meeting -3- January 4, 1978
Mr. Janik urged the Board to consider whether this was the kind of project that
Illr met the aesthetic standards, the design standards and the imaginative standards that
the City of Lake Oswego had come to stand for. He asked the Board to consider what
this project would look like next to the type of units that the residents of Condoler
enjoy.
Rebuttal
Ralph Bollinger stated that it was impossible to build without removing some of the
trees. The applicant would provide numerous trees in the southwest corner area to
act as a buffer. Mr. Bollinger said the highest part of Condolea is 45 feet below
the parking lot level, so it shouldn't be seen from there. He presented Exhibit "N",
a colored rendering and mentioned that the rendering was somewhat misleading as
the lower right-hand corner should appear to sit lower on the site.
Bob Perron asked what was the number of existing fir trees on the site. Disk Peters
said broke the tree count down to species and number of trunks--the actual
a d he only
P
count as to species had not been done, yet.
Steve Janik said his clients felt the number of units proposed for the site was
excessive and the parking lot may be visable coming down Eagle Crest Drive, He
pointed out a picture showing where the intensely congested project would look down
on Condolea, Exhibit "0". The Condolea Homeowners felt the project would adversely
affect the character of their neigbborhood and the value of their project. Mr. Janik
stated that Mr. H. R. Adams felt the same way.
40 Exhibit "P'. sketch of landscaping and tree arrangement in the corner closest to
Condolea was presented.
Mary Breuer, 128 Condolea, asked the applicant hoW close the southwest corner of
the project would come to the road circling Condolea. It Was explained that there
was a 40 foot commons area buffer from the Condolea property.
Dick Peters said if they are allowed to raise a portion of the common area and
grade up to 6.48, they would landscape and berm it to act as a buffer for Condolea.
Public hearing portion of the testimony was closed.
Bob Perron inquired about the trees--trees to be saved in areas up to 10 feet from
cut and fill . He asked how the applicant could guarantee that these trees would
live. Dick Peters stated the trees could live as long as roots are not undermined
in the, drip line. Bob Perron mentioned that most of the development on the site
Was in the area that containsmost of the trees. He said it appeared on the land-
scaping plan that some of the landscaping was outside of the property line. That
portion of the landscaping could not be considered at this time because the j
applicant would have to contact Mt. Park Homeowners for an O.K. to do this. He
stated that the staff determination of tree removal appeared to be more correct
as it appears as though two-thirds of the trees would have to be removed.
Glenn Chilcote stated he would like to see a less intense development of the site.
He added this was a beautiful site For some preservation of atmosphere. There
seemed to be an oversaturation of some of these sites in Mt. Park. The staff report
indicated a concern with the over density on the site.
Design Review Board Meeting -4- January 4 1978
Dave Pugh asked what the Final Development Plan in Mt. Park showed as far as density
and landscaping requirements. Ralph Tahran explained that the site was designated
as 2.5 acres for 50 units of garden apartments-,-maximum. Ralph also explained that
the Final Development Plan has a very schematic landscape plan that indicates tree
cover at 1" = 100' scale. The plan shows trees where no trees exist on site and
no trees are shown on the plan where on site it is completely covered with trees.
It's difficult to make any kind of comparison with that plan.
Carl Halvorson, Mt. Park Development Corp. , spoke. Carl stated they felt this was
a very good utilization of the land. He said he did not think it was the intent
of the Design Review Ordinance that buildings and structures were to be laid aside
so that trees could live a longer time. In Mt. Park, the Corporation had planted
at least two or three trees to each cut tree. Carl said there was more square
footage in Condolea per unit than there was in this project per two units.
Glenn Chilcote stated it was his feeling that the the Board was only opposed to the
impact on the site and the number of units proposed:
Gary Rittenhouse stated his opposition to the project as presented and suggested
the applicant try ten units per acre and work from there.
Gary Rittenhouse moved to. deny DR 41-77, preliminary design review. Bob Perron
seconded the motion.
Discussion on the project by Board members:
1 . Impact on the site had not been looked at carefully enough more could be
illdone with the site.
2. Units were over scaled for the site.
3. Intent would be to down scale from what the Eagle Crest Apartments are now,
instead of maintaining a similarity.
lel 4. More sensitive look at the site was in order.
5. Take a look at the property in terms of the amenities that exist on the site
and character of the site and come up with what would be appropriate density
for the site, not necessarily go by the written rule as to what was permissible,
Each piece of land because of its appropriate character and its relationship
to its surroundings and its own uniqueness, has its own capacity. The architect
needs to assess the capacity of the site, to relate to the surrounding development
of the site and its amenities.
Motion to deny the preliminary design review was passed unanimously.
Findings of Fact
1 . Site impact was too severe.
2. Landscape plan was inadequate.
3. Grading plans were inadequate.
r4. All Provisions of LOG p 50.806, Sections 1-5 have not been met, particuiarly in
the interest of the neighbors and preserving nature.
5. Height and building density was too great in terms of being able to preserve
amenities on the site. .
Design Review Board Meeting -5- January 4, 1978
4, 6. Preserve as many trees as possible.
7. Soils and geology report needed to determine if the applicant could do the things
he had shown on the plans.
Dennis Baunach asked for more guidance from the Board.
Glenn Chilcote:
1 Show sensitivity to the site- what you are doing to preserve the site,
2. What you are doing with parking and what you do with the buildings.
3. Perhaps maintain some of tree forest density. Give growth covering a chance.
4. Think about putting the parking down in some of undeveloped area with berming
around.
Bob Perron;,
1 Relationship of the site to adjoining development. Site plan should show more
than just project limits.
2. Nature and extent of all adjoining development; cross sections and elevations.
3. We are concerned with the over all environment as well as the project environment.
410
Dave Pugh:
I think 50 units is too high; perhaps 10 too many units.
Gary Rittenhouse:
1 . Sit down with Condolea and work out all problems before coming back again.
DR 36-77 ( M & D Investments) A request by M & D Investments for a final design
review to allow an office building next to the Schwinn Bike Shop fronting on Second
Street (tax lot 3800 of tax map 2 lE 3DD) .
Ralph Tahran presented the staff report and exhibits. Staff recommended approval.
Alex Arseniev stated Public Works wanted to have the roof drains discharged through
face of curb, with the curb cut being neatly done to the satisfaction of Public Works.
pave Pugh stated the project was a vast improvement over what was presented the
first time,
Robert Jacob of Studio 5, was at the meeting representing M & D Investments.
Design Review Board Meeting -6- January 4, 1978 ,I
Ask
After a brief discussion of the plans, Dave Pugh moved for approval of DR 36-77,
111. final design review. Bob Perron seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
The approval is to include the recommendations of Public Works regarding the
drainage discharge.
Findings of Fact
1 . The applicant had met the requirements of the Board from the previous meeting.
2.. The Board stated that the applicant had complied with the requirements of
LOC 50.890 for final design review.
DR 20-76 (International Dunes) - A request by Champion Land Co. for a change in
the building design of 34-unit apartment complex on Jefferson Parkway, east of the
intersection of Del Prado and Jefferson Parkway (tax lot 8300 of tax map 2 lE 513E
Supplemental) .
The background on this project was given by Ralph Tehran.
Dan Smith, representative of Champion Land, spoke. Dan presented Exhibit "D",
revised set of construction drawings. He explained the building had been redesigned
so that it was of the same facade originally approved by DRB. The elevations of
each building were shown. Items discussed at the last meeting were: clear story
windows that light the stair wells and sky lights over the kitchen. The plans
showed the roof line of each building. As far as siding, they would like to use
Obeveled cedar siding with 6" exposure.
Wilton. Roberts of Waker and Associates, working for the applicant, presented a
grading and site plan reflecting Where walls actually are and the elevations of the
footings. It showed sections of the wall to be removed in order to build what was
approved. Dan Smith stated that the placement of the walls were an on-site decision
by the field superintendent and the concrete man. They did, not read the plans
correctly and put in retaining walls that shouldn't be there.
Dan Smith then showed a series of slides of the retaining walls that are now on the
site, Exhibit "EU. He next presented Exhibit "A'", rendering of the walls with cut
and fill and materials on planting plans. Exhibit "C", planting plan was submitted.
Dan explained the nature of the trees to be used to screen the Walls.
Bob Perron mentioned that planting English ivy 12" on center all around the base of
the walls would provide an effective wall cover. The ties in the wall could be used
to string wire. it was suggested that ivy be planted this spring.
Dave Pugh asked why they were going to put a wood fence around the top of the walls,
as the concrete would be two feet above the edge of the road in some places to keep
the cars from rolling over the walls in the parking lot. Dan Smith said Public
Works was requiring the extra height.
It was suggested by the Board that the applicant` install a wood cap bumper rail on
top of the retaining wall , instead of the wood fence. The applicant was agreeable
glir to this idea.
11
Design Review Board Meeting -7- January 4, 1978
Bob Perron commended Dan Smith for his work on the project, attempting to
1111 straighten out the mistakes that have been made,
Charles Nagel , architect on the project, spoke. He said he did not have a correct
survey at the time the project was drawn up, thus causing problems with the
retaining walls.
Opponents
Everett Bagerly,_41 Da Vinci , spoke. He discussed his feelings on the height of
the retaining Walls, and wanted to know if they could be covered, perhaps with wood.
Everett asked what the name for the apartments would be; he was told that had not
been decided yet. Mr, Bagerly asked if the units would be rental or sale units,
and was told they would be for sale. '
Paul Zeger of 42 Da Vinci expressed his unhappiness with the retaining Walls. He
agreed with Everett Bagerly that the walls should be covered up.
Carol Friedley, 39 Da Vinci , spoke. She said on Kerr Road in the common property
area (40 ft.) , all the vegetation had been cleared. It presented a treacherous
problem coming around the curve. Was there anything that could be done in that area?
Alex Arseniev said Public Works was corresponding with the County to put in a guard
rail sometime in the future.
Glenn Chilcote suggested that Mrs. Friedley contact the Mt. Park Homeowners Assoc.
about the matter. Dan Smith said they could put some type of vegetation in where
41,0 the road had been made for the concrete trucks to get on the project. `
Public hearing portion of the testimony was closed.
Glenn Chilcote went through the list of items the applicant was to address from the
last meeting, December 7. (1) The new drawings show the applicant had tried to
conform. The other items were addressed satisfactorily.
Ralph read into the record, the list of exhibits received on this project.
"A" - landscape rendering, "B" grading plan, "C" - landscaping planting plan,
"D" - construction drawings (9) , "E" - slides of the site conditions (20) .
Glenn Chilcote mentioned he felt there was a real attempt to make corrections. This
helped to improve a situation that was not too good to begin with, The developers
were attempting to meet the spirit of the code.
Gary Rittenhouse asked about the retaining wall covering. After some discussion,
it was decided it was best to put up wire and start the ivy this coming spring.
Bob Perron moved for approval of DR 28-76 as amended. Dave Pugh seconded the motion.
Alex Arseniev suggested that Champion Land be required to retain the services of a
registered engineer to do on-site inspections and make reports as required by Public
Works.
4110
li
Design Review Board Meeting -8- January 4, 1978
The following amendments were added to the motion:
1. Do the planting right away after the walls are buiIt--at least by spring.
2. Maintain initial planting of the spaces shown where 8-}0 foot walls exist,
to include English ivy be planted 12" on center at base of wall .
3. Comply with UBC (A) (5) as well as provide for all site development work on
the project to be inspected by a registered engineer. The work must be
certified that it is done according to approved plans.
DR 42-77 (Gladstone and Grace McDermott) A request by Gladstone and Grace
McDermott for a preliminary design review to allow 15 condominium units to be
constructed in the Old Town Design District on property fronting on Furnace Street,
Wilbur Street and Church Street, 350 Furnace (tax lot 2200 of tax map 2 lE IOAD) .
Staff report and exhibits were presented by Ralph Tehran.
Alex Arseniev read his staff report into the record.
Ralph read into the record letters from Elmer 6 Lllly Moots in favor of the project,
and a letter from Claire Banks expressing her concerns on the project.
Richard Sundeleaf, architect for McDermotts, of 4512 S.W. Kelly in Portland, spoke.
He stated they had identified all the trees on the site--those to he saved and
410 those to be cut, Each building would be adjusted to the existing topography and
the buildings would be no higher than the existing house.
Glenn Chilcote stated he thought the idea of the Design District was to maintain
the single family residences of the area and fill in with' compatible multi-family units.
G. T. McDermott of 350 Furnace Street, applicant, spoke. He said it was more
economical to tear down the house than spend a great deal of money to renovate his
present residence. Mr, McDermott said that people tend to use the improved streets
to park their cars for all day. lie would prefer not to improve the street near
his project and keep the "Old Town" flavor,
Marguerite Leche of 105 Furnace spoke. She felt the project was a good one. Also,
Ms. Leche mentioned she did not feel it was the intention of the. Design District
requirements that an old house must be left up if it was Uneconomical to do so.
Public hearing portion of the testimony was closed.
Dave Pugh mentioned he was pleased to see the applicant propose 15 units to preserve
the trees and character of the site and the Board commended them for the effort.
Dave Pugh moved to accept DR 42-77 for preliminary design review to include Public
Works recommendations, the fire access to be worked out with Public Works. if the
fare access problem can' t be resolved, then it should go to the Planning Commission.
Bob Perron seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
1101, Glenn Chilcote mentioned that he didn' t want to see an 18wfoot side street. He
wanted to have the streets kept narrow and in flavor with the 'Did Town theme.
4
Design Review Board Meeting -9 January 4, 1978
gni DR 43-77 (Ashram Builders) - A request by Ashram Builders for a preliminar design
review to allow 36 garden apartment units to be constructed in the Mountain Park
Development, Phase IV, on property fronting on Eagle Crest Drive directly below the
apartments presently under construction at the top of the hill (Block 15, SE *
Sec. 32 15 1E) .
Ralph Tehran read the staff report and presented the exhibits. Staff recommended
approval of the concept if significant tree clumps could be retained as shown on the plan.
Alex Arseniev read the Public Works staff report, He stated that a registered
engineer would probably be required to do on-site inspections. Also Alex said that
a building permit probably would not be issued on this project or any others on
Eagles Crest Drive until the road widening work was completed (sometime in the future) .
Bob Evenson, 510 N.W. Third in Portland, architect for the applicant spoke. Bob
said a boundary survey and tree survey were underway now. He presented Exhibit "H",
an aerial photo with the buildings imposed on it. Bob explained his project in
great detail and how he was able to work with the contours and the views. ' 'Bob stated
that a correction should be made to the staff report--there were six buildings with
six unite each.
Fred Payne, partner in Ashram Builders of 535 First Street in Lake Oswego, spoke.
Fred said he was aware of the problem of classification of stories on some of the
buildings, and that he was working with Public Works for' a clarification. He went
through the recommendations in the Public Works staff report,
40 Dave Pugh asked why a project for Mt, Park was brought in without an accurate survey.
Dave suggested lowering the density and putting in more parking spaces for the
tenants and guests.
Glenn Chilcote said the project had some exciting prospects. However, with 36 units
on 1 .8 acres, the project appeared to be very dense.
Glenn Chilcote went through the requirements of LOC 50.880:
1. Need more complete grading especially the proposed grading and e,Nisting grading;
also neeed a topographical map. Show the relationship fo the project to the
adjoining properties. Show the access across the street and the street grade
around the project after the proposed widening is finished. indicate where
roads take off Into any other site developments near the project.
2. Need elevations study that shows the elevations of the building. Density factor
is a real consideration. Glenn finished by suggesting that all items need more
investigation,
Bob Evenson addressed the Board and said all they were looking for was approval or
disapproval of the concept of the project. There was no need to continue on in the
same vein if the initial concept was not approved by the Board. Would the Board
please address themselves to this request,
I
Glenn Chilcote moved for denial of DR 43-77, preliminary design review. Bob Perron
seconded the motion and it passed unanimously•
Design''Review Board Meeting -10- January 4, 1978
some areas of direction were given to the app1icant by the Board members:
0 -6
1 . You should look at possibility of taking two units out. Dave Pugh's concern
was the density but more concerned about the increase of parking spaces. Consider
the practicality of the density of the units; practical solution of maximum
development but one that makes sense. The parking ratio as proposed does not
allow for guests.
2. Glenn Chilcote said the Board would go on record to confirm the direction the
applicant was taking and that the Board needs more information and more
development, at this point.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned
at 1 : 15 A.M. Thursday.
Respectfully submitted
%?,/
Gy
Nancy Bryan, Se retary
Attendance since July 6, 1977 (12 meetings) through December 7, 1977.
• Glenn Chilcote - 11 Dave Pugh 3
Ken Mueller 5 Gary Rittenhouse - 12
Kirk Nieland - 10 Bob Stark 10
Bob Perron 3