Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 1986-11-17 4 APPROV1 JANUARY 5, 1987 lk CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO • DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES November 17, 1986 The Development Review Board meeting was called to order by Chairman Eslick at 7,34 p.m. Board members present were Chairman Richard Eslick, Curtis Finch, Vern Martindale, Robert Blackmore, Kenneth Zinsli and E. Daniel Ingrim. Anthony Wright was absent. Staff present were Development Review Planner Bob Galante: Deputy City Attorney Sandra Duffyl and, secretary Marian.Andersen. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - None PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS pR 21-86-11. A request by Elm Street Investors Ltd. for approval of the remodel of the facade of an office located at 560 First Street erax Lot 1000 of Tax Mae 2 lE 3DDl Mr. Galante gave a brief summary of the staff report end explained the applicant's proposal. Staff recommends approval with five conditions. Discussion followed regarding landscaping �, and whether an arborist should be retained. PROPONENTS Gene Marteeny, 2905 East 24th St., Vancouver WA. Mr. 'Martoeny is acting as agent for this project. lie expt T ed the stair systems and landscaping they propose. Mr. Marteeny answered questions from the Board regarding the percentage of landscape area. Materials, colors and the flat roof versus the sloped roof were discussed. OPPONENTS None Since there was no one in opposition, Chairman Eslick closed the public portion of the meeting for Board deliberation. Mr. Finch and Mr. Martindale agreed with staff's recommendation regarding the roof and felt that the proposed addition is not complementary to the existing building. Mr. Galante, at this time, suggested that the Board make a motion that the applicant or contractor work with the staff on the redesign. Discussion continued regarding the metal roof, landscaping and a materials and a color board being submitted for their consideration. Mr. Blackmore agrees with the Board's comments in general but would like to a motion to be made that would allow III ..1W. r.,..�.. errors DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD November. l7j 1986 the applicant and staff to come to some agreement on the roof. Chairman Bolick agrees that some of this can be handled at the staff level. After discussion, Mr Finch made a motion to continue this request to the December lot meeting in order that the staff can Work with the applicant to work out a final design solution and to submit a color board. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ingrim, Mr. Blackmere stated that he is going to vote against this motion because he believes it can be approved tonight with a provision to require the applicant to come back before the Board with any modifications. . He feels that it is not one of the most critical matters to come before the Board and that it is one that can be approved by staff. After further, discussion, a roll call vote was taken and the motion failed with a tie vote. Chairman Eslick feels that thin project can be approved with the change to a flat roof; the landscaping not to be decreased from the 4% that it is; and, without furhter Board review. A suggestion was made to change the wording of Condition No. 1 to road that the roof be revised to be compatible with the existing roof. Another suggestion was made that the roof end siding be revised to the satisfaction of staff. A brief discussion followed and Mr. Blackmere made a motion to approval DR 21-86-11 with Condition No. 1 being revised to read that the roof and siding be revised to the satisfaction of staff; numbers 2, 3 and 4 as stated; and, No. 5 with the added provision that landscaping should be greater than, or equal to, that which presently exists. The motion was seconded by Mr. Zinsli. A roll call vote was taken and the motion failed with a tie vote. A discussion followed of the issues involved and it was the consensus of the Board that the building is an architecturally significant example of a building of that period and that the redesign would be a significant change and should bo brought back before the Board for their review and approval. Mr. Blackmer° moved that DR 21- 86-11 be continued to the December 1, 1986 meeting to give the applicant an opportunity to bring the redesign plans back before the Board. The notion was seconded by Mr. Finch. A roll call vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously. GENERAL PLANNING - None -2- DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD November 17, 1986 { OTHER BUSINESS Findings, Conclusions and Order motion to approve the Findings, - P � VAR 3A-86 07 - Mr. zineli made a Conclusions and Order for VAR 34-86-07 as written. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martindale and Carried unanimously with Mr. Finch and Mr. Ingrim abstaining. DR 17-86-07 - Mr. Martindale made a motion to approve the Findings, Conclusions and Order for DR 17-86-08 as Written. The motion was seconded by Mr. xinsli and carried unanimously with Mr. Finch and Mr. Ingrim abstaining. DR 18-86-08 - Mr. Martindale made a motion' to approve the { Findings, conclusions and Order for DR 18-86-08 as written. The motion was seconded by Mr. Zinu1i and carried unanimously with Mr. Finch and Mr. Ingrim abstaining. 4 DR 20-86-09 - Mr. Finch made a motion to approve the Findings, Conclusions and Order for DR 20-86-09 as written. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martindale and carried unanimously with Mr. Ingrim abstaining. PD 10-8-6-09 - Mr. Finch made a motion to approve the Findings, Conclusions and Order for PD 10-86-09 as written. Thu motion was seconded by Mr. Zinsli and carried unanimously. ,ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to conduct, Chairman Ealiok adjourned the meeting at 8122 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Marian Andersen Recording Secretary -3- 4% APPROVED JANUARY 5, 1987 r CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES November 3, 1986 The Development Review Board mooting was called to order by Chairman Richard Eslick at 7:31 p.m. Board members present were Chairman Richard Eslick, Vern Martindale, Kenneth zinsli, Anthony Wright, Robert Blackmer°, Curtis Finch and E. Daniel Ingrim. Staff present were Associate Planner Renee Dowlint Deputy City Attorney Sandra Duffy; and, secretary Marian Andersen. APPROVAL OF MINUTES' July 10, 198E Correction on Page 2,, fourth paragraph Insert 'a" after tree. After noting the correction, Mr. Finch moved for approval of the minutes of July 10, 1906 with the correction noted. The Motion was seconded by Mr. Zinsli and carried with Mr. Ingrim abstaining. September 15, 1986 k Corrections on Page 10, fourth paragraph - Change "Westlin"to "Westlund"t and Page 12, first Paragraph - Change "Willard Howell" to "Willard Ho". With the noting of those corrections, Mr. Finch moved for approval of the minutes of September 15, 1986 with the corrections noted. The motion was seconded by Vern Martindale and carried With Mr. Wright and Mr. Ingrim abstaining. October 6, 1986 Mr. Blackmer() moved for approval of the minutes of October 6, 1906. The motion was seconded by Mr. Zinsli and carried with Mr. Ingrim abstaining. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS a.uest b DR. G olam alok .ro.ort owner & OTA I c. . e'en s �tl or approve o: .. a tiraggiJDOPot p anne4 .eve'o. eat; an., for approve o- a vat anco to • e !ranait Std. roqu r nc a hard surtacad padcair-1an pa: o .o cone ructe. .to the oareot ulti le assenger exchange acj, , ty (VAR.: 1-86-O9 1, an vat antes 'tot o s, to Circulatcon-Pr .vate Stroet Standor , ecu.i-r,1ng ammaximum cressp ope o- �r0 on y r voa m arda� Jib 63-8-6-h and a valance decrees n tRa cud,-da-sac burn not 4 pa las torn _ to VAR 0 8 - . !foie app : cant is., a so t e ort9ino1�M . t?ar c PVP `}:.e efte " DEVELOPMENT RL"VIEW BOARD November 3, 1986 located North of Jefferson Parkway) Bast of PCC and West of h Cervant;es Road; (Blk. 5t1 Multnomah County Tax Map 4224). Me. Dowlin read a letter into the reoord from Barbara aermanson, and Jerome schell, property owners in the area, She then explained that the variance requiring the maximum croon elope of 5* (VAR 50-86-09) hes been. withdrawn by the applicant. The variance is no longer requested and the standard can be met. She reviewed the applicable development standards and gave a brief summary of the history of thin project and summarized the staff repport, Staff recommends approval or this request and modification to the original Pun. Ms, Dowlin stated that the Mt Park Homeowners Association wore hesitant in supporting the modification to the original POD because they felt it would encourage other devorlo ers to seek additional changes, The modification is needed becauseb the City does not olaaaify duplex as multi-family and the bite is designated as multi-family. However, the Mt. Park Homeowners Association does classify duplox as multi-family and the modification will not need to be taken to the residents of Mt, .Park, A diecuenien followed regarding trees to be saved and the neighbors concorne for saving trees On the site, particularly the 30" fir on Lot 12. Questions followed regarding whether the fire Department had reviewed this application. Me. Dowlin indicated that they had and said that the fire Department he determined that a 5Q Coot turnaround was not necessary, There had $udt been a: change in the code. PROPONENTS con ttartson ODn1{,.�Tno. a Loke awego, Mr, Manson explained why the), had" eliminated the one variance. Re said that they are retaining 55 trees and cutting 22 and that the 38" conifer that is on Lot 12 Was a overrate and would be retained. lie explained the design and paid that they are proposing 12 duplex lour baCausc they foot thin lot size gives room to Orient the units on the site 60 that they sfl, get some view to the south and southwest. Be stated that the road configuration and the existing utilities System is the same as the original design. A brief discussion followed between the applicant end the Board regarding setbacks, exieting fill and the neighbors concerns for aseving trees on the- alto and particularly the 30" fir on Lot 12, a art " anise_► if, if 5 0 no. . alto f, Be came forward to speak en eonaa • o t e owner of tt a pry+.arty, the explained the reasons they are submitting a new pro onalr the quality of the housing proposed; the configuration of the lots] and, parking. Questions followed from the Board regarding materials of the exteriors of the housing Proposed. .2. ,, 1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD November 3, 1986 OPPOSITION - None Chairman Eslick closed the public hearing portion for Board t deliberation. Discussion followed regarding the existing fill; and the Board, after questioning the applicant about the existing fill on the site added a condition requiring the grading plans illustrate the removal of the construction debris and underlying topsoils and vegetation on Dots 9, 10 and 11. The Board then discussed the neighbors concerns for saving the trees on the site and the 38" fir on Lot 12. After questioning the applicant further about saving the 38" tree, the Board added a condition of approval that the applicant work with staff in the conservation of as many trees as possible, especially the 30" fir. There being no further discussion, Mr. Finch made a motion to approve PD 10-86-09 with VAR 50-06-09 and VAR 52-96-09 and the modification to the original PUD together with recommendations of staff 1 -11; and in addition, the clarifications of those recommendations on lc. and 91 and, the addition of recommendation 12 to Work with staff in the conservation of as many trees as possible, including the 38" fir. Discussion followed regarding the fill material and whether it should be in the recommendations for approval. Mr. Wright suggested that it be added to Condition 3 that, the grading plan shall indicate complete removal of construction debris, vegetation and topsoils followed by replacement with a structural fill. Mr. finch agreed to the. amendment to the motion and the motion was seconded by Mr. Zinsli and carried with Mr. xngrim abstaining. The conditions are as follows: 1. A reproducible of the final plat shall be submitted to the City which clearly depictsi a) the location of the sidewalk; b) the slope and utility easement; c) the vision clearance triangle. 2. The applicant shall submit a Street Trr ePlantrees illustrmting the size, type and location of the of the for PLO review and approval priorapproval final plat 3. That the final construction plans be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The grading Plan shall indicate .,l complete removal of construction debris and underlying AEVtLoPMtNI' AtVICw hoAnn November 3, 1986 topsoil and vegetation on Lots 9, 10 and 11 followed by i replacement with a structural fill of approved materials. 4, The applicant shall submit en Zrosion Control plan illustrating compliance with the 1.11.«1sido protection/Crasion Control standard to the satisfaction of the staff prior to approval of the final piat, a, That positive roof and foundation drains be provided to ell iota and be shown on the construction plena prior to a proval and that all aervicee be extended to the top of the bank along Jefiereon parkway. 6, That access be prohibited to Oeffernors Parkway and it he noted on the final plat as an easement. 7. That the sidewalk along Lot 6 and Lot 7 be *operated From the driveway by e 3" landscaped strip. This strip also shall to designated on the plat as an easement, 8. That the applicant provide a utilities plan along with A final construction plans showing future sidewalks and their location relative to mailbox**, street lights, hydrants, etc. 9, That the section of Sr sidewalk from the cub-do-sac to the existing pathway be constructed along with the *frosts and be constructed within the right of way. la, The applicant remove the pathway shown within Lot 12 and reconstruct it within the common area to than north, This in to he constructed along with the streets, 11. That the final etreet lighting plans and photometriae be submitted to the City Engineer prior to approval of the construction plans, 12. The a plicant work with staff in the conservation of as any trees as possible, especially the 38" fir on Lot • iNtAI, t�LANNI Cl - None ,CJ'EiC 12.13US NCS$ 'ielA geLJPAn;oluaions and„,,i,rt3e b_i,t Modi, cat o 8 * Mr. 'inch moved. for approval o. r Conclusions are nrder for OD 34-79 as written, The motion was seconded by Mrr #lockmors and carried with Mr. Inorita. abstaining Y.f a. { DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD November 3 1986 PD 8-86-07 - Mr. Pinch moVod for approval of the Findings, Conclusion® and Order for PD 0-86-07. The motion was seconded by Mr, Blackmere and carried with Mr. ],ngrim and Mr. Martindale abstaining. ADJOURNMENT There being no further bueinesa, Chairman Eslick adjourned the meeting at 8;50 p.m, Respectfully submitted, Marian Anderson Recording secretary M1� Y� ��.ua•