HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 1986-05-19 ci D
CITY OF LAKE O$WBOO
DNVELOPMNNT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES May 19, 1986
The Development Ixevinw board meeting of May 19, 1886 Was called to
order by Chairman ssliok at 7:31 p.m, Board members in attendance
wore Chairman tslick► Robert tllackmore, Curtis Finch, Vern Martindale
and Kenneth 2insli. Anthony Wright was excused and John ulasgow was
absent. Staff present were Development review Planner Robert
Galante; Assiatant City Attorney Sandra Duffy; and, secretary Marian
stulken
APPROVAL `OP MINUTES
The draft minutes Of April 2 ., 1906 and May 5, 1986 were presented
for consideration. The Board decided to postpone voting en the
minates until the General Planning portion of the Agenda.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS - Mono
PUBLIC HEARINGS
DR 02-86 04, A request by O't'AK, Inc., acting as agent for Caravan
oil, 1.or approval of Phase x development on a six acre portion of the
114. acre site located soth of carman'Drive , north of Kruse Way and
north and west'of the Safeco;site The applicants propose to
'construct 108 multifamily apartments on the propertv Vrax Lots 200
and 207 of Tax'Map_2 1L a).
itobert Galante gave a brief history of the site and summarized the
staff report for the Board. Staff recommends approval with a number
of conditions based on the Planning Commission decision and standards
that apply to this project. Be read and explained each of the
conditions of approval.
Questions and discussion followed between the hoard and Mr. Galante
regarding the minimum precontage of tree cutting required/ the road
access going out to Carman privet and, the design plan. Mr, Galante
explained that since the City does not have DNA standards that define
epocific requirements, the Conservancy Commission wart asked to review ;
this and recommended approval. Historically, the figure of 70% has
been the Amount used in trying to achieve tree saving. He also
explained that the design plans show a little straighter alignment of
the access road going out to Carman Drive because it had to be moved
over to provide proper distance at the intersection to do driveway
location, Mr. Galante said that the 8,-1/2 x 11 reductions of the
plan do net show the realignment that was caused by the :Planning
Commisslon'a decision.
Mr. ulackmore asked how the alignment of the intersection of Fosberg
and Carman and how any possible change may relate to this particular
i
Timm
,,,,,DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES May 191 1906
application, Mr. Galante said that, at this time, the only way it
relates is that 200 feet of site distance is being required at this
intersection, so that at some future date, when it is realigned, this
driveway would be in the proper location. When the entire ODPS was
reviewed by the Planning Commission, the relocation of the access at
Pasberg and Carman Was discussed but no particular decision was
reached. He went onto explain that this relates to different nehoola
of thought on intersection design where Customarily you try to have
intersoations that occur at 90 degree angles to each other; so that,
vehicles in oncoming lanes are opposing each other in even fashion;
and so that, turning radius" can be accomplished with maximum ease
and with proper sight distances. This may not be the beet way to
realign an intersection. The City is re-evaluating this because a
signal is going to be placed there at some point but there wan no
condition tying this development to that signal improvement. There
was a condition; however, requiring a petition of nonremonstrance
agreement along Carman Drive for street improvements,
Questions and discussion followed regarding Condition No. 5 requiring
a petition of nonremonstrence agreement and the figures projected for
the future traffic generation with this development.
PROPONENTS
Tom Hammon, Project Architect, OTAK, Inc. . Mr. Hammon pointed out
the site on the map; gave a brief history of the site; and ex lained
the design and landscape plan. He went on to explain the building
structures and materials; and, answered questions from the Board
regarding siding and the percentage of trees that will be saved, Mr.
Hammon said that the nonremonntrance agreement referred to in otaff'o
Condition No. 5 has already been provided under the ODDS (Overall
Development Plan and Schedule) procedure,
Nawzad Othmr:,tj OTAK, Inc. Mr. Othman came forward to briefly comment
on the alignment of the intersection of Carman and Kruse Way and
Carman and 1osborg Rd. He said that when the Westlake project and
the Baptist Church were approved, there was a condition of approval
that it was expected that when either one of those two development
occurred, that intersection modification would take place. He went
on to explain that the intersection modification has to become
integrated with the design of the church because it ham a very
significant impact on the church design which was approved as an
approved conditional use by the planning Commission.
OPPONSN'P
Ed Swillingqo,r, 4316 Glacier Lily Street, lake Oswego, representing
the rabaridge Homeowners Association. Ho exprenned concern that the
conditions set by the Planning Commission on May 12th have been
.2.
,..„„DEVELOPMENT REVIEW HOARD MINUTES May 19, 1986
incorporated in the staff report on this project. Mr. Swillinger
said that one of the things that was stipulated as a condition was
that the setbacks be calculated from an easement line rather than the
property line and he feels that that is not so with respect to ,phase
2 of the commercial development. Me also asked for clarification of
Condition No. 5 regarding the nonremonstrance agreement and that
there is some uncertainty as to when the improvements will be done.
Chuck Rattan, 651 S. W. 6th, Portland, OR, Attorney for Safeco. Mr.
Rattan said that they had some comments of clarification that Mr.
Hammon will address in rebuttal.
Chairman Salick, at this point► asked Mr. Galante of the Planning
staff to clarify the nonremonstranc% agreement and the setbacks issue.
Mr. Galante said that the nonremonstrance agreement states that the
owner of the property will not argue with the City when they are
asked to participate in the formation of an LID (Local Improvement
District) to pay for street improvements. The street improvements in
this particular case include a 36' wide street, a bikopathr street
lights and storm drainage that would normally be found along a
roadway. The bikepath would be included in that. An for the
timoframe, the city has not said that it is necessary to do it at the
time of Phase I of Westlake which is the time of the multi-family
project because the length of their frontage is Just a little over
200' along carman Drivel and at this time, it wouldn't make much
sense to do a small amount of improvement. The next time it might
come up might be the Phase II which would be the commercial phase and
the City does not really know when that in going to happen. From a
traffic standpoint and to control runoff on the property and to get
the bikeway improvement, the City would pursue a formation of an LID
at the time of the phase XX development. The City is not going to
recommend a specific time period but that street improvements and
pathway improvements when the need is greatest.
Mr. Galante stated that in regard to the setback, there in no
specific direction to only apply the setback requirements to the
commercial pphase= but, as Mr. Hammon showed on the map, the buildings
were setback approximately 250' from the right-of-way. Therefore,
there is a large setback.
REBUTTAL
Tom Hammon, ()TAX, 'Inc. came forward in rebuttal to the concerns
expressed by Mr. Swillinger and maid that he did not overlook the
setback from the easement; but felt since it WAS no far back, that it
was not of any concern.
P
DEVELOPMENT ] VIEW BoA D MXNU'SL ; May 19, 1996
Regarding the issue of the road improvement and intersection
redesign► he reiterated what Mr, Galante had said regarding the
( redesign of the intersection when Phase lI of Westlake occurred.
'There being no further testimony from either the proponents or
j opponents, Chairman eelick closed the public portion of the hearing
for Board deliberation.
Mr, Blackmore asked for clarification of Condition No. 5. Mr.
Galante explained that the applicant is not asking for design at this
point in time. he said that based on the testimony tonight and
because this condition was written prior to the Planning Commission
action► it was Written in a way to anticipate any number of
directions they might go in that hearing. Mr. Galante feels that the
simplest way to address Condition No. 5 is to eliminate it. The
5 applicants have provided a nonremonstrance agreement for the street
k :improvements for both the commercial tnd the residential phase,
including the bikepath, Mr. Blackmore Feels that the Board should
require the applicant, at the time of Phase 11, to have the half
street improvements and the sidewalk. Mr. Galante said that the
Planning Commission reviewed whether or not the street improvements
needed, to be tied with the condition to the development of Phase II,
Be said that the 'Board is only reviewing Phase I and not Phase TI and
,it would not be proper to have a condition that addresses Phase XI.
Discussion followed between the Hoard and Mr. Galante regarding
putting a timefratno on Phase I that when Phase II is developed that
Phase I half street improvmont occurs at that timoframe. Mr. Galante
explained the purpose of the Overall Development Plan and Schedule
(GDPS) and said that that review did not, require the Planning
Co►nmiesion to establish that condition. If the Board were to attach
a. Condition to this particular application, it would be lost sight of
because there was QDP3 that governed the impact of Phase II on City
facilities and on the public. Ms. Duffy explained that if there had
a been an of record encumbrance on the parcel that was sold off, then
the purchaser would not have the ability to say that he did not know
at the time of purchase,. Discussion followed between the Board and
staff regarding the timoframe for completing the half street
improvement and the bikopath. Mr. Bolick said that he also has a
concern regarding the timoframe for the development of the bikopath
and the half street improvement. Mr. Galante raid that when the
property in sold, the applicant will have to do a partition to match
the line that is now Shown on the Plan; and, at that time the City
would attach conditions that would properly encumber both property
owners.
At this point the Board discussed the sizes of the structure and the
parking garages; the setback requirements for the site; the
development that would occur in the future next to Kruse Way to the
..4.
1.-----.......7
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES May 15, 1906
south) the impact this particular development would have on Kruse
Way; and, access off of Kruse Way,
Mr, h;slick said that he feels that Condition No. 5 should be reworded
and that he would like to see a the half street improvement with a
timeframe established. Mr. plackmore feels that an encumbrance of
record should be made at this time to insure that those developments
occur in the future and that half street improvements be provided for
Phase I. Discussion followed between the Board regarding Mr.
Blackmore's suggestion. Mr. Galante said that the Board could
illustrate in the Findings that the Board recommend that, at Phase
II, street improvements be completed the entire frontage of the sitet
but, he feels that the Board should state in the Pindings, conditions
specifically requiring that street improvements be completed en the
road frontage on Phase II.
Discussion followed between the Board regarding the issues in
condition No. 5; who has the responsibility for the improvements;
and, whether it would be an LID,
Mr. Blackmore feels that the board should require this development to
have half street improvements and put in the bikepath. he foals that
requiring the LID to be formed should be deleted from the condition:
and, that the applicant should still be required to have 1/2 street
improvements and put in the bikePath. The 1/2 street improvements
anc' the bikepath to be designed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer and improved upon the completion of redesign of she
intersection of t'osborg and Cannant or, upon development of Phase II,
whichever occurs first. Although Phase. II may not be developed at
the time that this intersection is redesigned, the burden is being
put on the developer, at that point in time, to build a street
because he knows where it is going to go and it can be tied into the
rest of the street.
It was the general consensus of the Board that the LID portion of
Condition No. 5 be deleted but that the bikepath And 1/2 street
improvements be done as soon as anyother development starts to occur
the area.
Mr. Blackmer() said that a condition should be attached to Phase II
putting an encumbrance on that property for the development of the
Phase .I improvements,
Discussion between the Board regarding the access to the project and
the design of the units followed, with questions to Nawxad Othman of
O'LAK, Inc. regarding the LID and the timing of the Phaoe I and II
improvements,
.5r:
pEVELOPMENT LISVIEW BOARD MINUTES May 19, 1986
chairman Eslick stated that the site plan with the bikepath going to
Carman should be Exhibit #24 and the rendering of the project should
be Exhibit #25,
There being no further discussion, Mr. illackmore made a motion to
approve DR 02-86-04 with Conlitions No. 1, 2, 3 as amended; Condition
C4 as onditioned and 6 as No. 5 strikingnded to the leatotwohibit 22 sentences toead of read, Zit amend
That 1/2 street imrpovornenta for a 16' wide street and a
bikepath be designed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer and developed upon completion of redesign of
the intersection of r'osberg Carman; or, upon development
of Phase II, whichever occurs earliest. The owner of
phase II shall have the option to bring the matter of
the timing of the Phase I improvements to this board for
reconsideration at any time. Curther, as a condition
for delaying the improvements on Phase X, the owner of
Phase II shall have the obligation to construct the
improvements and that obligation shall appear as en
encumbrance of record en Phase II in a matter
satisfactory to staff."
! The motion wan seconded by Mr. Pinch and carried unanimously.
The conditions of approval for DS 02-86-04 are as follewsc
1. That final elevation drawings for all buildings and
exposures be provided to the satisfaction of staff.
2. That a final tree survey and tree cutting plan be
provided to the satisfaction of staff,
3. That an arborist (member of the AMerican Society of
Consulting Arborists) be retained to recommend
measures to maximize tree preservation, stability
and vitality during the construction process. The
list of measures, including the atborists continuing
in' ,\;voment► shall be provided to the staff's
st..iofaCtion.
4. That final drainage and utility Plans, including any
necessary easements, be provided to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer. Easements can be provided
prior to occupancy, or upon acceptance of public
utilities, whichever comes first,
t_
R6
Es
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES May 19, 1986 i}
5. That 1/2 street improvements for a 361 wide street
and a bikapath be designed to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer and improved upon completion of
redesign of the iu6rorsection of f'osberg and Carman '
or, upon development of Phase II, whichever occurs
earliest The owner of Phase II shall have the
option to bring the matter of the timing of Phase x
improvements to the board for reconsideration at any
time. Further, as a condition for delaying the
improvements, the owner of Phase II shall have an
obligation to construct the Phase I improvements and
said obligation shall appear as an encumbrance in
the real property records, the wording of said
p p
encumbrance to be comp
leted feted to the satisfaction of
p
staff.
f. That the final construction plans incorporate
the recommendations listed in Northwest Testing
Laboratories report dated November 12, 1980
(Exhibit 22).
DR 04-86-01. A request by Marylhurst Education Center for approval
of a 1000 srl. ft. addition to an existing office building located at
4larylhurst ,College ('0ax Lot' 46U of Tax Map 2 lE 14) .
Mr. Galante gave a brief summary of the staff report. Staff feels
the addition, as preposed, generates additional parking and
recommends that this small addition can be approved with the
condition that the applicant demonstrate that existing parking space
meat City standards with respect to sizes and dimensions for backup
and circulation.
Questions followed from the Board to staff regarding the material
being used for the addition and whether it matches the material on
the existing structures; the reasons for the addition, and, whether
there is enough surface area for additional parking,
PltOP NENrT None
OPPOSITION - Mono
There being no one to speak for the proponent or no one in
opposition, Chairman Snuck closed the public portion of the hearing
for Board deliberation.
Mr. Finch moved for approval of art 04., 5--0l. Discussion followed
between the Board and Mr. talante rega ding a condition requiring the
applicant to demonstrate that existing parking spaces met City
standards with respect to dimensions. Mr. Pinch amended the motion
cto include that condition. The motion was seconded by M . Ztnsli and
carried unanimously.
.7P
7
is
DGVELOPMNNT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES May 19, 1986
{
The condition of approval for DR 04-86-01 is as follows:
That the applicant demonstrate that existing parking
spaces meet City Standards with respect to dimension,
4 GENERAL PLANNING
Discussion occurred between the Doard and the staff regarding the
joint meeting of the t3oar,d and the City Council,
Mr. Dlackmore at this time, made a motion to table the minutes to the
next meeting, The motion was seconded yy Mr. Finch and carried.
There being no further business, Chairman Bolick adjourned the
meeting at 9:32 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Martel s2uen
� ,.....
Recording Secretary
3917P/man
11111VAIIIMEr
QaP) Q
cITY OF ,LAK1. OSW800 1
111a'UNLUPMlNT RG11rE4J.BOARD ,
May 5� 1986
The Uevelopn►ent R)VieW Uot,rd meeting of M4Y a, 1906 vas called to
order by chairman Richard Salick at 7t30 P.m, Board members in
attendance were Ghairman 1<elic , Anthony Wight, Robert blackmore,
Kenneth Zinali, Vern. Martindale/ and Curtin ['inch, John Glasgow wee
excused. Staff preeent were Topaz 1•aulkner, Planning Director; Deb
Galante, beVo1opment Review Planner) and, Kriati, Hitchcock/
secretary,
APPROVAL OP MINu!1'85
The minutes of April 21, 1986 will be considered at the May 19
meeting.
PC'I'ITZONS AND COMMUNICA'. TUNS * None
PUBLIC NSARiNoS
DR 03-86-03/VAR 03.86-03 . A recluont by Ward Architects, P:C, ,
actin en atlenta for 'the Jacobson's for approval of a_,265 ect are
opt addition to an existin service station located at 496 state
Street Tax' Lot UU of Tax Map 2 h 31)ll
Mr. Galante presented the staff report, Staff recommended approval
of the project With the condition that final building materials be
specified to the satisfaction of staff. Ho said that the applicentn
plan to match the existing color anti mato,ricle of the building/ but
that final materials hove not yet been determined, Mr, Galante gave
the Board the full nixed plans of the project exhibit 0), He said
that the Variance to the Landscaping Standard Wee being roqucbted
bbcauee of the small aixe of the lot (60' x i00' ). This in the
omalleat norvico etation. Cite in the city,
chairman Bolick asked if the setback from the property lino in in
confrarMence with the code Mr. Galante responded that the aotback
io in conforrnem co with the Zoning Code,
212 acnonts
Je r Wards architect/ spoke in behalf of the application. De aeld
t oat t e owners accept the recommendation made by staff, He said
that landscaping proposed will moot the intent of the requiromontu,
1fie feels the variance ,should be acceptable au the adjacent
Properties have little or no landscaping/ and due to the small size
of the lot, Ho said that the propeaod landscaping will make their
service station one of two in Lake bnwoge that ware reviewed witty,
M ..
DCVEL0PMNNp REVrEW UOARI) May 5, 1986
P
variances to landscaping requirements. The other,is the Texaco
station located on 'A' Avenue. He said they have eliminated two
parking _opaces in order to make room for the landscaping.
Mr. Ward said that the addition will replace a service bay which has
been out of use since improvements to "H" Avenue eliminated access
to that bay. The addition of the service bay will help solve a
litter and crime problem because this space is now empty and there
is little visibility from the street. There will be better
visibility from the street for the police passing by.
Mr. Ward answered questions from the Hoard regarding the stria
between the service station wall and Kienows. He aeid that the
strip in only 12" wider and that only 6" is owned by this property
owner, He said that it would be extremely difficult to provide
landscaping in such a small space,
No one else spoke and chairman closed the public hearing for
Board deliberations. Mr. Finch moved for approval of DR O3-86-03
with the condition that final building materials be specified to the
satisfaction of staff. The motion woe seconded by Mr. Martindale
and passed unanimously.
Mr. Finch moved to approve VAR O3-86-03. Mr. Wright seconded the
motion and it passed unanimously.
GENERAL PLANE/NO
Ms. Faulkner said that the city council has requested the Board be
present at their meeting Tuesday, May 13, 1966 at 7a30 p.m. in the
Lake Oswego nigh cafotorium. The Council will be considering the
Building Design Standard and would like the Board's expertise in
this area.
The. Board requested that seating arrangements be made which would
allow them to sit in a group ao that they might confer during the
meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS - Findings, conclusions and Order
DR 02-06-0l/vAH 02-86-52-356 Nick Bunick & AnLJciaton
Ms. Duffy suggested that the Board add the Oswego Lake Policy
to Policies listed under the Comprehensive Plan on paqu 1. She
also suggested the following revised wording for the third
sentence, number 1. under Findings and Reasons on page 2:
"The Hoard roeogni.xes the contractual agreement
between the applicant and rho Lake Corporation
that restricts the number of boat slips on Tract B
to 25. The Board finds that this limit is
consistent with comprehensive Plan policies."
I
DEVELOPMENT REVtEN 3lOARD Mtt 6 1086
Mr, }laohmaro moved to adopt the Uindinja, Conaluaionr
and Order for Ott 02w06-Q /VA3i 02-00-02-3$6 od amended
by the Ci3ry+ legal staff, The motion woe uaoOndnd by
Mr, zinnli and panned unrnimounly,
ADJOURNMENT
Theme being no further bu1sinonn to oonduot, chairman
E;a&iok cdlournod the meeting at 0;07 p,m, p,m.
Raapoottuiiy Submitted,
qx /L
io Hitohaook
Seeretar
742k
Si
11