Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 1986-09-15 " APP► OVRD NOVEMHER a, 1986 gm 44t4g CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 1986 The Development Review Board moaning of September 5, 1986 was called to order by Chairman Richard Eslick at 7134 p.m. Board members present were Chairman EsliCk► Robert Blackmoro, Vern Martindale, Kenneth xinsli and Curtis Finch. Staff present wore Karen Scott, Acting Planning Diroc.,orl Sandra Duffy, Deputy City Attorneys Renee powlin and Mike Wheeler, Associate Planners; and, Kristi Hitchcock, Secretary. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes was delayed until later in the meeting, PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS Ms. Dowlin reviewed procedures for public hearing testimony. VAR 28-86-07/VAR 42--86,-08/VAR 43-86-08, a continuation of a request by Thomas and Susan Robinson for a roval of a variance to the required 25, rear yard setback. Additionally,-this reguest includes a variance to the nr Oswego Lake setback and a variance to the code restrictions placed on expansion of a nonconforming structure. ' The property is located at 1527 Lake Front Read (Tax Map 2 E 1OCA, Tax Lot 1400). Ms. Dowlin presented the staff report. She listed staff's concerns with the application which have net yet boon addressed by the applicant. They wore: 1. Page 11, Exhibit 1 - Staff disagrees that two of the trees the applicant plane to remove need to be removed. 2. Details showing how the neighbors► views and privacy would he decreased by expansion to the side have not been provided. 3. Plans show the stairway/terrace within 5' of the sower lino. Engineering states thin may not be allowed. 4. No materiel or narrative has been submitted showing why this is the minimum variance necessary to maks reassemble use of the property or how the request is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship ?toff recommended that the DevelOisment Review !Ward conaidar the . applicant's testimony and make the decision to approve or deny i the varionLen» • t DEVELOPMENT REVIEW L3O1RD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 1986 I. Mr. Finch said he had not been present at the first public hearing on these variances and had not listened to the tapes of that hearing. Ho withdrew from hearing the variance application. Applicant Tom Robinson, 1527 Lake From Road, Lake oswagg°, spoke in behalf of the application. Ho said he plans to reside in the remodelled home. He said the house is nonconforming because it is now 11' into the setback. They are asking for an additional 14' instrusion into the rear yard setback. Me submitted a letter' (Exhibit 3?) from the Oswego Lake Corporation, Don Burdick, in which the Lake Corporation states they have no objection to the requested intrusion into the Lake Corporation's easement, and Will agree to an easement agreement allowing the intrusion into their property. Mr. Robinson showed slides of the house (Exhibit 4) and surrounding area showing that the variance to the rear yard setback was no more than many other homes in the area, the steepness of the slope to the side and roar of the house, and the trees which would need to be cut if the house wore expanded to the side. Mr. Robinson said cutting the trees for a side yard expansion would greatly decrease the value of the view for the adjacent residence to the oast. He showed plans of the planned remodeling (Exhibit 5). Karol Niomi, interior design consultant, spoke in behalf of the application. she explained the reasoning behind the decision to expand to the roar of the house, saying that the goal was to provide the easiest circulation within the home. Dennis I3attko, architect said that he felt expansion to the east of the house would destabiiliZe the hillside and would cause them to cut two trees which buffer the adjacent residence. Ho said the hillside, slopes and existing largo maple trees create a hardship. He said that any direction of expansion except to the roar would necessitate major changes to the house and would be much more expensive. Mr. Dattke said that the plan does provide for a 10' sanitary easement requested by staff. Chuck Maloney, 1505 Lake Front, Lake Oawocto, said he resides Wired y to the iiast of this site. lie spoke in favor of the vet-shoo request. He said approval of the variance would enhance the. 'ighhorhood and will not inhibit the view from his home to the 4ke. Carl grieve, 1539 Lake Front Road Lake Oswego, said he resides on the west side of this house. tie agreed that expansion of the home to the roar was his preferehce, and said that remodelling of the house would increase the value of the neighborhood. He said that the view is the number one consideration of lake front . property owners. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 1986 ON Terry Dante 2249 Valley View Drive West Linn, general contractor forf the applicant, said if the addition wore made to the east side of the house instead of to the roar the house, the cost would be much higher. Ho said expansion to the east would also cause much more damage to trees. He said that excavation at the rear could be done by hand and used on the site, rather than having machinery as would bo necessary on the east slope. No one spoke in opposition and Chairman Eslick closed the public hearing. In response to a question from Mr. Zinsli, Ms. Dowlin said that an easement permit would be requir'^d from the Lake Corporation for expansion into their property. Beard discussion centered on Variance criteria. Consensus was that there was a hardship in expansion of the house to the east because of the slope, trees, and adjacent homeowner's view, and that the expansion would be compatible with existing homes in the area. Following discussion, Mr. Blackmore moved for approval of VAR 28-06/VAR 42-86/VAR 43-06 with the following conditions: 1. A 10° sewer easement be granted as shown on the plans. 2. An easement agreement be obtained from the Lake Oswogo Corporation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martindale and passed with Mr. Zinsli, Mr. Martindale, Mr., Blackmero and Chairman Bolick voting in favor. (Mr. Finch did not vote as he did not participate in the halving.) PD 8-86-07 - A request by Tri-Lee Homes! Inc. and R. A. Lawrence & Associates for approval of a 33-Lot Planned Development bounded by Carman Drive to the north, Waluga Drive to the east! an undeveloped City park to the south and large parcels of land with residences to the west (Tax Lots 2900, 3000 r _3200, and 3300 of Tax Map 2 1E 7AC). Ms. Dowlin presented the staff for Mn, Mastrantonio ,who was on vacation. Ms. Dowlin said the Planning Commission approved a Comprehensive Plan map amendment from fl-15 to R-7.5 and a none Map change from County R-0,5 to City R-7.5 with four conditions as listed in the Findings, Conclusions & Order signed by the Planning Commission. Ms. Dowlin gave the Board copies of those findings. The site will be considered for annexation by the Boundary Commission on Thursday, September 18, 1986' Staff recommended approval with 19 conditions ao listed in the staff report dated August 26, 1906 and added a further condition regarding fill to be removed from the alto prior to recording of the final plat, -3- l DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 1986 - Russ Lawrence, R.A. Lawrence & Associates, spoke in bohalf of the application representing Tri-Leo Homes. Inc. Ho listed his concerns with conditions recommended by staffs 1. Condition 1 Ho said that ho does not disagree with the requirement to construct sidewalks, but asked that this condition not require that this be recorded on the plat, but rather on the construction plans. 2. Condition 2 - The requirement for putting fence locations on the plat, 3. Condition 7 Mr. Lawrence submitted Exhibit 28, showing the impact of the 100' tangent and and option which would moot the vision clearance requirements. 4. Condition 17 - Impact of the significant trees on Lots 1 and 2, which, are the entrance lots. Mr. Lawrence showed the proposed alignment (Exhibit 2). He said thoro aro sovoral significant trees (he listed four) which would be within the right of way no matter how the street meandered. He submitted Exhibit 29 showing a 50' stack area rather than 100', Thin would limit the impact on those significant trees. 5. Condition 11 - Mr. Lawrence requested that the condition require the 10' dedication to the City along Waluga, but requested no requirement for dedication along Carman drive because the additional 10' will givo the City an 80' right of way plus a 5' sidewalk and an open space with planters (Exhibit 17). Ho paid that everything needed for the Carman Drive improvement will be there without the additional 10' dedication. 6. Condition 16 - requiring utility lines to be extended to the upstream property. Mr. Lawrence said that there has already been a condition placed that sowor service be fools thisoconditat pionpfloods clarification ogre° to that, and he 7. Condition 17 - exhibit 20 shows that six trees will be removed. Ho fools those trees are necessary. Ho recommended that the Board give special direction and consideration to Lots :1► 2, 17 and 18 and have the Planning Department review the building permits as they come in for saving tteos on these lots. 0. Condition 10 It is his understanding an oral agreement. has boon reached with the owner of Tax Lot 3100 to resolve the need for a drainfield. The owner will go through the annexation prose's along with this property and they will extend sower service to him. He agreed that infill of the Septic tank and drainfield will be necessary. -4- DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 1986 9. Condition 20 - Ho asked that the fill be removed during construction because the machinery will already be there, the weather will be loss inclement and it will impact the surrounding residents and streets loss. Opponents Charles Clouff, 5222 Carman Drive, spoke in opposition. Ho listed his concerns with the application: 1. Ho has a "sunset" easement for his septic tank and drainfiold until sanitary sewers are available. He is currently outside the City limits. Ho said they have a verbal agreement with the property owner, and ate working on a written agreement. 2. The request for 10' dedication for right of way on Carman Drive is not needed, 3. T ere is a 44' (approximate) diameter oak tree tangent to the right of way line. If sidewalks and streets aro realigned, the tree could easily be killed. Also, the construction equipment which will be used for the berms planned in that area could endanger the tree. Mr. Clough said ho have no other major disagreement with the development. Rebuttal Mr. Lawrence said he agreed with the concerns of Mr. Clough regarding the 10' dedication along Carman Drive. He said that the berm planned along the Carman area would help to buffer the existing residences. If the 10' is required, it would move the berm closer to the homes. Chairman Eslick closed the public hearing for Board deliberation. The Board questioned the 10' of right of way dedication along Carman Drive. Mu. DoWlin said that LOC 48,53S, Special Street Setbacks requires 80' of right of way along Carman Drive. Chairman Eslick said that Condition 1 could be reworded for final drawing to be submitted during the building permit stage. Ho commented on the layout of the subdivision. He said one issue was the modifications presented by Mr. Lawrence to the intersection of oaks Dri.ato and Waluga► tie asked staff to comment on the three designs submitted. Bayne Halverson Enoineerinrt Development Coordinator, said the reason for requiring the 100' tangent for the reverse curve is because it would put an undue turning movement en vehicles exiting the development, He said the Traffic Engineer has asked DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 1986 t for no more than an 80° anglo to hinder vehicles exiting from ' crossing tho centerline because they will be turning. They would like the 100' tangent to get the traffic to the intersection in a straight movement rather than a turning movement. They areonot in opposition to working with their engineer for a 70 or 75 angle if the turning movement can be achieved safely. Chairman Eslick said another issue is- whethor saving trees or traffic safety should take precedence, Mr. Martindale suggested that more facts about the intersection of Waluga and Oaks Drive were needed and that the Board consider a condition that the intersection bo designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, saving as many trees as possible. Chairman Eslick said that the Planning Department should also bo involved. Mr. Halverson was asked about Condition 16, utility linos being extended to the upstream property. Mr. Halvorson said that Engineering has asked for this condition because the City is designing the Waluga trunk lino that will bo serving this devolopmont along with an t,ID on park Hill Drive. It has not yet boon determined how many Proportion that lino will pick up between Park Hill and this development. Condition 16 was added if this line would be necessary. The Board furthor disoussod traffic safety, tree prosorvation (particularly on lots 17, 18, Land 2), open space and the fact that this dovelopmont borders on Waluga Park, and the 10' of right of way dedication. Following a consensus being reached as to clarification and modification of conditions, Mr. Finch moved for approval of PD 8-06-07 with the following conditions: 1. A reproducible of the final plat shall be submitted to the City which clearly depicts: a) utility easements; and, b) setbacks and building envelopes for lots with significant trees (or tree) to be preserved. A note is to be added to the plat stating the location of the sidewalks. 2. The Final CCstt's shall bo submitted to the City and approved before final plat approval. That the height, type and location of future fences for those lots abutting Waluga and Carman Drive be a part of the CC&R'a so that potential problems With vision clearance and sight distance requirements are minimized. 3. The applicant shall pay the appropriate park and open space Enos or submit a schedule outlining the ansosumont and method of payment of the,appropriate fool prior to approval of the final plat. 4. Tho applicant shall submit a Street Tree Plan illustrating the size, typo and location of street trees for staff review and approval of construction plans. ..s. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 1986 5. That the approvals of the Comprohonnivo Plan Hap Amendment, Zone Change and Annexation applications be g PP finalized prior to approval of construction Plana. 6. That acceso bo restricted from individual lots to Waluga and Carman Drives and a 1' Tract A bo dedicated to the City at the end of Royal Oak Drive and noted on the final rant. ' 7. That the final construction plans be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer including proper drainage (including the provision of positive drainage to all lots), crouton control measures and vision clearance roguirements. 8. That the sidewalks along Waluga and Carman Drives be conatructod with the planned dovolopiaont improvements along with the 5' sidewalk (within a 10' oasoment) connection to the park from Royal Oak Drive. 9. That the ovorhoad utility linos on Waluga Drive be put underground in conjunction with the atroot improvements. 10. That an additional soils report bo conducted prior to approval of the construction plans and those rocommondatione be incorporated in the design of all improvements. 11. That 10' of right of way be dedicated along Carman and Waluga Driven. 12. That the City's road widoning procedure bo completed prior to final approval of the construction plane. 13. That a composite Utility plan bo submittod` along with final construction plans showing future eidowalks and their location relative to mailboxes, etroot lights, troop and hydrants. 14. That final atroot lighting plane and photomotrice bo submitted to the Traffic Engineor prior to the final approval of the construction plans. 15. That the water 00 sanitary newer ieeuos bo resolved prior to record+ng of the plat and approval of final construction plans. 16. That the utility, lines be oxtondod to the upstream property linen to provide oxtonniona in the future to servo adjdcont proportion per 14.020(4) of the ,' Development Standards. .7 . 1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 1986 17. That the preservation of significant trees be considered when the final alignment of the street in determined. Additionally, conservation easements be established for the entire lots of 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 17 and 10, except for the building envelopes which are to 'be approved by staff. These easements aro to be recorded on the final plat and recorded inthe individual deeds. This easement will require the builder to draft preliminary building plans and work with the City to minimize the removal of trees. 10. That no building permits be issued for those lots or lot which contain the drainfield for Tax Lot 3100 of Tax Map 2 'lE 7AC until sower is provided along the northeast property lines of Lot 16 and the drainfield located. 19. That the future street boundary map and narrative be recorded by the City at the County Recorder's Office prior to approval of the final plat. 20. That the fill be removed at the time of construction. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martindale and passed unanimously with Mr. xinali, Mr. Martindale, Mr. flackmore, Mr. Pinch and Chairman Eslick all vQtimj in favor. VAR 44-8G-08 - a request by Ralph Tahran, Architect/Applicant, and Margo Wallick, Property Owner, for approval of a variance from the 20' front yard setback to allow a 10' front yard setback for a garage structure. The lot is located between 702 and 814 Southwest Lake Shore Road, opposite the "T" intersection with the loop of Lake Shore road, more specifically described as Tax Lot 7000 of Tax Map 2 lE 10AC+ Mr. Wheeler presented the staff report. Ho said the intent in siting the garage at the front of the house is to minimize the amount of excavation into the rocky hillside as well as design considerations. Ho said the variance criteria have boon addressed in the applicant's narrative (Exhibit sl). Staff recommends approval of the variance request. Ralph Tahran, architect, 17355 SW 13oonon Ferry Road, spoke in aE half of the application. He described the site and design plans for the home. He said the main reason for the variance request is that the site is practically all rock. Th9 further back the garage is sited, the more excavation into the rock will be required. Mr. Tehran said that the garage is located in order to stay off the steep slopes, and to allow cars to back up in the driveway and leave the driveway forward. Ho said that Lake Shore Road is a narrow winding road, and that backing into the road could be dangerous. Mr. Tehran said that other homes in the area do not conform to the 20' front yard setback. Mr. Tehran submitted the following exhibits during his testimony: -0- DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 1986 G. Cross Section . B. Site Plan I. Rondorod Preliminary Elevations Board members questioned the possibility of siting the garage further back so that a variance would not be required. Mr. Tahran said that any siting of a garage would require a setback variance. Mr. Tahran said that the further back the garage is sited, the steeper the slope. Be said that the driveway now has a 15% slope and that moving it could raise that to 20%. Opponents Adair Miller, 702 Middlocrost Road, Lake Oswego, submitted a letter (Exhibit J ) and read the letter for the record. She contended that the garage could be placed on the property without the need for a variance and that approval of the variance would be injurious to the neighborhood because it would destroy her view. She road a letter from Joo Macha, architect, 040 Woodway Court, Lako Oswego, in which he disputed Mr. Tahran's findings that the garage could not be located elsewhere on the site bocauso of slope (Exhibit J). Ms. Miller's main contention was that all four variance criteria were not met. 4"` Bill Meyer, 753 Lake Shore Road, said his home is directly across the street from this sito. Mo said he was opposed to the design of the home, and that the 20' setback should be kept as the minimum. Mr. Meyer said ho hod not received notice of this hearing, Kathy Boll, 676 Ridcjoway Road, said she was concerned about the size of the garage and any deviation to the front yard setback. David Northrup, 686 Rid/lawny Road, was concerned about the height of the structure planned for construction, trees being cut on the lot and was opposed to the garage being allowed within tho 20' front, yard setback, Rebuttal Ralph Tahran reiterated his roasonc for the need for the variance---slope, rock, and backup distance so the car could exit the driveway forward. Me said there is a hardship created by the slope and cutting further into the hillside. Flo said the house in well within height limitations, and could in fact have another story added. Chairman Bolick closed the public hearing for Board deliboratibb4 The Board was concerned that the trees affected during construction could be saved. Mr. Tehran said he fait they could ba salvaged, Wo located trees which were not shown on the rendering. 1 } DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 1986 Staff was asked to verify Mr. Meyer's name appearing on the notification list. Mr. Wheeler passed copies of letters on the variance request from Richard Norman (Exhibit I.), Bob Easterling (Exhibit G) and Dorothy billing (Exhibit M). The Board discussed variance criteria. . consensus was reached that before the Board could grant or deny this variance they needed further information from the applicant on what the hardship was with regard to the slope and cost of rock excavation. They were not convinced that this was the minimum Variance necessary to site the home and garage. After further discussion, Mr. Blackmore moved to table VAR 44-86-08 until October 6, 1986 to address the location of the garage, variance on driveway slope---alternatives and how they could be addressed, and and estimate of cost for the different alternatives. The motion was seconded by Mr. Finch and passed with. Mr. Zinali, Mr. Martindale, Mr. Dlackmore and Mr. Pinch voting in favor. Chairman Buick voted against the motion. The Board requested staff to place this item first on the October 6 agenda. VAR 45-86-08/VAR 49-86-08 - a request by Barbara Smith for approval of a variance of 3'6" to the SI required sidewalk setback. Additionally, the applicant requested approval of a variance to the restrictions placed on expansion of a nonconforming structure. The site is located at 1-6028 Alder Circle (Tax Map 2 lE 17A8, Tax Lot 3900), Ms. Dowlin presented the staff report. She first said she had a telephone message from Dorothy CJestlund 16832 Alder Circle in favor of the variance request. She also summarized two letters: one from Mr. and Mrs. Coin opposed to the variance request: and, one from Ambrose McMillan, 16679 Maple Circle in opposition to the variance. Staff recommended approval of the variances. Ms. Dowlin said this is an existing structure (1982). In response to questions from the Board, there have been no objections filed. She said the applicant found (in going through her husband's effects) there had been no building permit issued for the structure. Mn. Smith then contacted the City herself. Barbara Smith, 4434 Thunder Vista Lane, spoke in behalf of the application. She said when she discovered no building permit had been issued, she called the City and they informed her a-variance was necessary. She said the structure in not visible from the street. it is only visible to the adjacent neighbor, from whom she has had no objections to the location of the structure. The 4: structure is the same color and materials an the house and garage. She said she has now sold her property. -10- DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 1986 Ma. Smith said it would be a hardship to alter the structure after six years. Proponents Ross Edeita, 16730 SW Alder Circle, spoke in favor the the variance. He said the structure is on the back side of the garage and there is no visual obstruction to anyone. No complaints were received from any of the neighbors prior to this variance application. Mr. Edgita said that since the structure is the same color and siding as the rest of the house and there are other nonconforming structures in the neighborhood, the variance should be approved. Be pointed out that to remove the structure would; be a definite hardship. No one else spoke and Chairman Eslick closed the public hearing for Board deliberations. Consensus of the Board was that the variance request did meet the criteria. Mr. Blackmer.) moved to approve VAR 45-06-00/VAR 49-06-00. The motion was seconded by Mr. Finch and passed unanimously with Mr. Blackmer°, Mr. Finch, Mr. Zinsli, Mr. Martindale and Chairman Eslick voting in favor. GENERAL PLANNING Mayor William C. Young discussed a process for long term evaluation and improvement of the land use decision process. The process will bo adopted and a specific work plan developed for both the Planning Commission and Development Review Board. The Chairs of the PC, BBB, etc. will meet once a month 'to make suggestions to improve the process. Members are encouraged to share any concerns or ideas with their Chairman who will relay it to the Mayor and Council. OTHER BUSINESS Findinns Conclusions and Order The hoard considered the findings for DR 04-86- 02/VAR 05-06-04, oil Can Henry's. They requested staff to revise the findings showing that although the arttlicant had stated that only ono design is currently approved for the stations, many other designs for the buildings are in the area such as in Tualatin and Barbur Boulevard. The Board asked staff to verify other designs. Minutes The Board approved the following minutest Assent 4, 1986 - Mr. Martindale moved for approval, Mr. Finch seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Martindale, Mr. Finch, Mr. Zinsli and Chairman Eslick voting in favor. Mr. Blackmer° abstained. —11- i ' DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTCB SEPTEMBER 15, 1986 August 18, 1986 Mr. Blackmore moved for approval. Ho Was concerned that the minutes contained no mention of the Board's statement regarding the Building Design Standard. Ms. Duffy said that was in the staff report And that is incorporated by reference as part of the Findings, Conclusion & Order. Mr. Finch said that William Howell should read Willard Ho on pnae 13 and that Evans & Associates should be Evanson & Associates on that same page. Mr. Blackmoro moved for approval of the August 18 minutes as amended. Mr. 2insli seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Blackmore, Mr. Zinsli, Mr. Martindalo and Chairman Eslick voting in favor. Mr. Finch abstained. Juno 24, 1986 - Mr. Martindale mood for approval with '? Mr. Finch—TB-be added to those present. .Mr. Finch socondod the motion and it passed with M . Martindale, Mr. Finch, Mr. Blackmoro, Mr. Zinsli and Chairman Eslick voting in favor. July 7, 1906 - Mr. Finch moved for approval, Mr. Zinsli seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Finch, Mr. Blackmoro, M . Zinsli and Chairman Eslick voting in favor. Mr. Martindale abstained. A July 21, 1986 - Mr. Blackmoro moved for approval, Mr. Zinsli seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Olackmore, Mr. Zinsli, Mr. Martindale, Mr. Finch and Chairman Eslick voting in favor. August 28, 1986 - Mr. Blackmer° moved for approval, Mr. zinaii seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Blackmoro, Mr. Zinsli, Mr. Martindalo, Mr. Finch and Chairman Estick voting in favor. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to conduct, Chairman Eslick adjournod the mooting at 1200 a.m. Respectfully Submitted, 714t4:› /y �Clr+d." ,.✓ Kris Hitchcock Secretary ►1.2w I_