Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 1991-01-07 LAKE ° . ° ,; PLANNING DE PT FILES • • c'' J DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD I 'UTh f,� . r t.; • :r j tyi p , 4 0 =a rr i o 41 l t CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES January 7, 1991° _ Chair Robert H.Foster called the regular Development Review Board meeting of January 70 1991 to order at 7 30 p.m in the City Council Chambers, James Bloomer,Harry Starr, Ginger Remy,Robert Foster,Robert Greaves,and Norman Sievert werepresent. Staff present included Bob Galante,Acting Planning Director,and Harald Pishvale,:Development Review Planner, III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS J3ob Galante.Acting Planning Director,reported to the Board on the Corps of Engineers two phase configuration of the Oswego Pointe Marina, He said that the first phase included an amphitheater and pleasure boat dock;the boat slip area would be managed by the City but o available in the future for private use, He stated that the City would have to meet with the Corps and the/chip plant people to provide some alternate ways to maneuver barges in the river, including a strong piling erected down river, Mr, Galante said they were also proposing a public water sports'centtr that would include boating facilities for a variety of water-craft and classes to be run by the Parks&Recreation department. He said that the pleasure boat dock would be configured to allow the r' 411 sternwheeler to dock. Mr. Galante stated that the final result was not that different from what the Board had reviewed except for the phasing. He said that the construction was more likely to be concrete than the wood which was preferred by the Board. He presented a rendering of what, the facility would look like upon completion. V, PUBLIC HEARING , a recurst by Terry L. Goldbeck for approval to construct a'one-story 6,0(10 sq, ft.office/retail strut,,are with 30 parking spaces. The site is located on the south side of Galewood Street in Mercantile Village (',vax Lots 2000,2100&2200 of Tax Map lE 3BB). Staff Coordinator is Robert Galante. ; ctingPlanning Director.. Continued from( December 20, 1990, Chair I.Oster reviewed the procedures for the public hearing, He asked the Board if they had any ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest; there were none. Mr.Galante presented the staff report. He said that theapplicant has provided the Board with a brick sample, a piece of the roof and literature on seam metal roofs to address the Board's concern.;about the proposed roofing material and color. Also the applicant has provided the Board with additional materials from the arborist to address the Board's Development Review Board Minutes Page 1 of 22 vir January",, 1991 concerns regarding the trees, He noted that the Board had wanted to allow sufficient time 410 for the applicant to melt with the neighborhood association'regarding tree protection and site design to protect the neighborhood to the maximum degree possible, Chair Foster asked who on the Board had attended the last meeting vn this particular application. Mr, Galante stated that Mr. Starr,Ms,Remy,Mr.Greaves and Mr, Sievert had been present, Mr.Galante stated that the applicant was interested in preserving additional trees, and had asked him about lowering the City parking standard for medical use without variance in order to allow for minimum tree preservation. He said that he advised that a variance was necessary to meet code. Mr.Galante said that they could go on with this hearing,as at least four people were eligible to vote on it. APPLICANT 'perry Goldbeck. Owner, said that since most of the tree issues were addressed at the previous meeting, the arborist was not present tonight but that the arborist did feel comfortable with the proposal. Mr. Goldbeck spoke to the'roof type,explaining that they had chosen a Stanuseen Metal Roof because the project was sited amongst so many fir trees with their attendant problems of needles,cones,broken branches, and conditions of moisture, shade and organic debris leading to moss growth, He presented pictures of the property showing where the trees were located. He said that another reason a metal roof was chosen was because its vertical application made the roof virtually self cleaning since fir needles would not stick to it and moss would not grow on it,thus reducing fire danger, He mentioned that the roof had a 45 to 50 year life. Mr. Goldbeck presented pictures of other metal roofs used on buildings in and around Lake Oswego. He said that this metal roof cost 35% more compared to a cedar shake or concrete tile roof. He pointed out that concrete tile roofs were damaged by freezing rain expanding in cracks and that they were not supposed to be walked on making rit difficult to clean them. He said that cedar shake roofs had significant moss growth and fir needle buildup over time. Mr.Goldbeck stated that the brown color they have chosen blended with the tree bark and shadows existing in this forested environment; they thought it would enhance the area, softening the transition between Mercantile Village and the neighborhood. Mr. Goldbeck presented more pictures showing the different building and roof types in Mercantile Village,: Greg Crcightpn,Pr•ject Man ;er.j'B Crouse Architect, addressed the nature of compatibility as it related to this project, He said that they have adapted the color to the Mercantile standard with the brick and metal roofing which they felt was appropriate. He noted that they intended to use blond anodized aluminum frames for the windows and sashes He said they would also use materials common to the Village. Ai Development Review Board Minutes Page 2 of 22 Mir January 7, 1991 C, ra Mr.Creighton commented that their roof design was related to the roof design used in neighboring buildings, He pointed out that due to the proximity of the forest,their building bad a very different microclimate than other buildings only a few hundred feet away did,and required a different type,of maintenance. He supported Mr.Goldbeck's contention that this metal roof would be the most appropriate and least maintenance intensive roof for this Y building. Mr. Creighton stated that another element of compatibility was the size of the building; it provided a step from the neighboring residential to the larger Mercantile Village buildings to the south. Other elements of compatibility included landscaping materials and the nature of the building on the.poperty(it was sited in the middle of a parcel rather than pushed up;on one edge). He pointed out their attempt to create a conservative,clean,uncluttered look for the building that did not call attention to itself but blended in with the Village. He commented that metal roofing was enjoying a renaissance and that their application of metal roofing was a very simple one. Mr, Creighton reviewed the rendering,explaining how it was drawn up to Include the trees from the arborist's plan. He said that they have worked hard to protect the trees by creating island peninsulas in the parking with approximately four feet clear around the edges, e pointed out that they have broken the parking up into a number of different parts instead of lining it up efficiently along the back. No one wished to speak in favor of the project. No one wished to speak opposed to the project. 410 NEITH BR IN FAVOR NOR OPPOSED Bruce Goldson,4260 Country Wogds Court.Waluga Neighborhood Association, stated that he has talked with Mr. Goldbeck end the neighbors about this plan,and had only a couple items that the neighborhood felt still needed consideration, The owner of the property abutting the project has requested,in a letter,additional screening along the property line, preferring large shrubs that would grow above six feet. Mr.Goldson understood that the location of the grassy swale was the only place it would work,but questioned the placement of the shrubs next to the pavement instead of next to the property line', he thought that would mak it difficult for the swale to work. Mr.Goldson suggested moving the parking spot added in the southwest corner near the garbage disposal (that took out three trees) over to a spot directly next to Building A, He did not see how the architect's claim of an excess of four feet between all the trees was true if the rendering was to scale. ,He pointed out a 29 inch tree in the middle of the driveway, asking if they couldn't find someway to save it, Mr.Greaves asked if the neighbor requesting additional screening had specified if he wanted a fence or additional vegetative screening. Mr. Goldson stated that the property owner already had a fence,and wanted vegetative screening. Ash Development Review Board Minutes Page 3 of 22 WP January 701991 a Mr. Grooves asked about the sizes of the three fir trees that could be saved by moving the parking space, Mr, Goidson stated that they were,18 inch and 12 inch but that he didn't know the size of the third one, REBUTTAL Mr.Goldbeck explained that they had eliminated the three trees because they,need more space but hadn't wanted to take out a large tree elsewhere. He stated that they had no problem with moving the space to save the trees. He said that they were trying to maintain a natural landscape on the site and had planned on using native plant materials btUt that they could use large size plant materials, He stated that they did have to maintain the grassy swale to take care of biofiltration but didn't see why they could not move the shrubs to the other side of the grassy swale neat the property line. Mr.Greaves asked Mr. Goldbeck's opinion on increasing the vegetative screening adjacent to the residential property with a combination of shrubs and trees, Mr,Goldbeck said that he did not have a problem with planting trees but that it depended on whether or not the engineer said they could put them there, Mr. Greaves asked Mr. Goldbeck to go over his reasons tor not using a dark;color tile roof, Mr. Goldbeck reviewed the problems'.of weather and water damage common to tile roofs, the difficulty of locating leaks in tile roofs,and the high level maintenance required by tile roofs used in a forested urea. Chair Foster asked for Mr. Galante s recommendation on the roof snaterial, Mr. Galante gib stated that they recommended approval;staff did not think consistency of tile throughout the vir Mercantile Village was a necessary design issue,especially since the Board has already approved two other variations in the Village, Chair Foster asked for Mr.Galante's comments on the revisions to the parking lot to save the ;: trees, Mr. Galante said that he would like to save the trees if possible if they could also maintain the number of parking spaces required by the Code. He suggested a Board condition to allow that flexibility,provided staff could work something out with the applicant, Mr,Galante read off the conditions previously added by the Board Chair Foster and Mr.Bloomer each stated that they would abstain from the vote on this application. Ms.Remy asked if the Mercantile Village owners had been notified or had any objections to I the roof. Mr. Galante stated that they had been notified. Mr. Greaves spoke in support of the project. He said that the additional testimony provided by the applicant from a professional arborist at the second hearing addressed most of his concerns regarding the trees, He did favor the staff recommended condition to redesign the parking lot to save those three trees if possible. He said that he still was not enthralled with the metal roof but would be willing to go along with it based on the architect's testimony Aimik Development Review Board Minutes Page 4 of 22 January 7► 1991 1 ,4f tonight and staffs recommendation, He asked for a'modification of one condition to ask the applicant to work with staff to provide larger type vegetative materials to help screen the residential area but which would be compatible with the natural environment. Ms, Remy concurred with Mr.Greaves's comments and expressed concern that the other buildings did not have full metal roofs as this one did,noting how massive the roof was Mr Sievert stated that he had originally opposed the roof but that tonight's testimony'has convinced him that the roof did fit in. He understood the maintenance problems with fir trees but commended the architect and owners for trying to save as many as possible. He said that he was not convinced of the need for more plantings along the fence, Mr. Starr stated that be had no objections;he thought it was a good job and fit in as well, He concurred with Mr. Sievert's point about not needing more plantings along the fence;he thought that the fence was pretty good protection by itself, Mr. Greaves agreed that plantings less than six feet in height wouldn't afford more protection; that's why he suggested plantings greater than six feet in height, Also he held that additional vegetative material would help the transition between the residential and commercial zones. Mr. Greaves moved for the approval DR 22.8$(Mod.10.901 with the two additional recommendations that 1) the applicant work with staff to determine If additional trees can be saved in the parking lot design,and 2)modifying the one condition to say that the applicant win work with staff on the final landscape plan with regard to possible addition of a few trees on the residential side of the property to be mutually decided between them and staff,and also that staff would review the planting issue witi regard" miF to the swale,as to what shrubs were necessary on which side of the swale Ms. Remy seconded the motion. The motion passed with Mr, Sievert,Mr, Greaves,Ms.Remy, and Mr. Starr voting in favor; Chair Foster and Mr.Bloomer abstained, DR 22-90,a request by Bkrtcher Frank Properties for approi 4 tb construct a 5,000 sq, ft, day care facility. The site i)located at Oswego Towne Square(Tax Lots 200 and 1001 of =` Clackamas County Tax Map 2 lE 5 AA and Block 10 Mtn, Park of Multnomah County Tax Map #4226). Staff coordinator is Robert Galante.Acting Planning Director, Continued from December 20, 1990. Chair Foster reviewed the procedures for the public hearing, He asked the Board if they had any ex parte contacts or conflicts'of interest;there were none. Mr.Galante presented the staff report(dated 12/10/90)..He reviewed the specifics of the application and the history of the shopping center site, He noted that once this daycare facility was in place, 66%of the site would remain in landscaping with the existing trees, including a row of poplars at the rear of the daycare site. He said that some members of the public believed that what was approved originally for the shopping center was all that could Development Review Board Minutes Page 5 of 22 January 7, 1991 f, { l4 it n 1 be approved for the site but that was not correct, No such zoning or development restrictions were placed on the project;under the zoning code the site could have substantial „ additional development, Mr. Galante stated that the applicant's design with a metal roof had to be complementary to the existing roofs in the shopping center. The root'would appear as a hip roof but allowed a wall with a flat roof to screen mechanical equipment, Mr.Galante reviewed the issues of concern regarding this application; Alternate sign proposals(Exhibit. 10),concerns from neighbors about the noise of children playing in the yard,and a proposal to move the play yard to the front or south side of the building with the building at the rear of the property ar a noise buffer.' He said that staff recommended a six foot high solid wood fence in addition to the landscaping as adequate for noise buffering, Mr. Galante recommended approval of DR 22-90 with four conditions: submission of a development schedule for review and approval,provision of`the six foot solid wood fence around the play area,submission of final signage plans for review and approval with no signage Lacing the residents to the north and west,and illustration on the final utility plan of a separate sanitary sewer connection to the public sewer(connection to the sewer through an existing building violated Chapter 45 requirements). Mr, Galante entered four letters into the record: 1) support for the daycare facility from the Mountain Park Homeowners Association;2)opposition to the project from Henry and Lenore Pepper at 2736 SW Orchard Hill on the grounds of the noise; 3) objection to the project by Betty and Steve Ward at 2704 SW Orchard Hill Lane on the grounds of some of }the operations and provisions of the facility;and 4)opposition to the project by John and NIFF Kathleen Cover on the grounds of the noise, APPLICANT ic„,eiLeektairtejaerfranli,Ereoedies,stated that th ,originaal project approved and built between 1983 and 1984 was failing by 1988 due to poor aesthetics, poor access to sops from the parking lot.,poor acces$to the center itself and poor signaA,c, Be reviewed the changes Birtcher Frank Properties made to the site fol,owing its purchase in mid-1988,These included an access offBoones Perry,a change in the Center colors, a revitalized landscape to allow'easy access to tenant shops,new signage and sidewalk and improvements to the wetlands area, He stated that today the company felt that this shopping center was a successful and functional asset to the community, ( )Ir,Lewis reviewed l3irtchcr Frank's investigation into the Code requirements and community need of a daycare facility at the Center., The company believed that their proposal satisfied all the Code requirements. They agreed that there was a need for the facility in Lake Oswego,as 15%of the daycare operator's users of the Portland facility lived in Lake Oswego or Mountain Park, and daycare facilities in the area had waiting lists,especially for infants/toddlers. Mr,Lewis stated that the company rejected placing the facility within the existing facility and at other locations because of access,safety and play yard problems, After evaluation,thy Development Review Board Minutes Page 6 of 22 MIR' January 7, 1991 I, Y 1 selected the north rest dorner of the sit e aS the most logical area for a daycare facility With E II. , adequate outside play areas for the children. He stated that the company wanted to be good neighbors and reviewed their three main concerns: noise buffering,preservation Of the aesthetic value of the Cenier,and building compatibility. Mr.Lewis submitted some photographs to demonstrake that the colors and types of materials proposed for the facility were consistent with existing facilities. Mr.Lewis reviewed the building setbacks which would provide an over 8000 sq, ft, area for the children to play in. He stated that the facility was licensed to handle 100 to 110 children, of which only 25% to 33%would be outside at any given time, ,, Mr.Lewis reviewed the proposed noise and visibility buffers,including stair stepping the play yard,erecting a wooden a !ear fence,and adding more plants along the north edge in addition to preserving the poplars, He said that the roof was flat on top because a full peak roof would be out of scale with,the building itself. He mentioned that all mechanical equipment would be inside the facility itself with the only thing visible on the roof being venting and duct piping. Mr.Lewis stated that the daycare facility would eliminate/,9 of the 183 current parking spaces yet leave the shopping center 24 spaces over the minimum code parking requirements. He said that all utilities were available at or near the site Be stated that they intended to take up the sanitary sewer issue with the state(as it was under state jurisdiction)and reserved the right to appeal,should they get a favorable ruling, Mr,Lewis stated that they believed they were improving water quality by gaining 2000 sq, ft, gib of permeable surface through the removal of 8000 sq, ft, of asphalt replaced by only 6000 sq. ft. of building. He noted that currently surface runoff from this area was not treated and went down a manhole,they intended to drain the roof runoff to a natural drainage swale that existed along the back of the property where it would tie into the drainage system, The engineer believed that any runoff generated by the 6000 sq ft, facility would percolate into the ground bsfure it reached the Swale,and thus have minimal impact on the storm drain system that currently existed as well as meeting the requirements for phosphate uptake mandated by the state. BOARD QUESTIONS Mr, Greaves asked what the proposed hours of operation were, Mr,Lewis stated that they were from approximately 7 a.m,to 6:30 p.m.,Monday through Friday. 'Mr. Greaves asked if the putside play area would be used from 7 a.m.to 6:30 p,m, Mr, Lewis stated that play occurred from around 9 a.im.to 4 or 6 p.m,,depending on the'weather1 The facility would not be available for night or weekend use at all. Mr,Greaves asked for clarification on what issue Mr.Lewis was reserving their right of appeal on, Mr. Lewis explained that the City rejected their proposal to connect to the rj sanitary sewer line through an existing building and required them to provide a separate connection for the daycare,facility, He said that they were not opposed to doing so but, since it was a state plumbing cede issue,they have asked the state for a ruling on the matter. Development Review board Minutes Page 7 of 22 January 7, 199 i Mr,Greaves asked Mr.Lewis'opinion on staffs recommendation for a�solid wood fence as opposed to their proposal of a fence with lattice work on:top. Mr.Lewis said they had no problem with a solid wood fence. Mr.Bloomer asked if they looked at other schemes that located the play area elsewhere on the site, Mr,Lewis stated that they have looked at several different schemes. If they put the play area all over to one side,the slope on that side required deep cuts that caused problems as well as a concentration of the noise on one side being unfair to those residents. He said that they wanted the play area to take on the contours of the land; one problem with putting the play area at the front of the building was the lengthy walk for children and their parents to get to the building from the parking lot and out of the traffic and weather, He said h4 thought that it made more sense to put the building towards the parking lot and the play area towards the rear. Chair Foster asked if they considered placing the play areas to the front and putting in a covered walkway to the building, Mr. Lewis said that was a possibility, Chair Foster asked if the houses to the north were above the site, Mr,Lewis stated that the site did slope to the north, and that the houses were higher than the site property, They intended to use the poplar trees,a fence and landscaping for noise and visibility screening, OPPOSED John Culver. 12519 SW 27th Place,stated that he and his wife Kathleen were concerned about the noise level and the proposed buffering(which they felt to be inadequate), He di pointed out that the applicants proposed to move the present pine trees between his property and the proposed facility, leaving only the poplars which did not provide any buffering when they lost their leaves. He did not think the addition of shrubs along the fence would adequately replace the pine trees, He suggested other solutions for noise and visibility buffering as putting more trees in or moving the project further out toward the parking lot or erecting a fence where currently none was proposed, I artmut Latter. 12537'SW 27th Pined, agreed with Mr, Culver's explanation of the concerns, he and his wife also had'. He stated that he did not think a six foot tence would be an adequate visibility buffer because in some locations their property was eight feet above the proposed site's grade. He did not think that the poplar trees did a good job of screening the site but agreed that additional evergreens(if they were toll enough) would help, He asked if anyone had considered locating the facility in the south end of the parking lot which would not infringe on anyone's property. He said that they had purchnwed their property because of its privacy which would be lost with this facility. \) .11St ,spoke as a resident of Sundance,the residential neighborhood north of the site She referred to her letter. She said that the residents were '4 pleased with l3irtcher Frank's improvements to the shopping center but were shocked that they wanted to put a daycare facility in the neighborhood's backyard. She read into the record a letter from r , the neighbors whose property abutted the site but who did not receive notice;they recommended adequate screening(i,e,, a six foot masonry fence or evergreens), Development Review Board Minutes page 8 of 22 January 7, 1991 , ei tF Ms,Ward stated that the neighbors'main concernrwas the removal of the pine trees from the north side which would leave them with no screening at all, the north side had never been adequately protected with the result of people walking into the neighbors'yards to and from the shopping center. She suggested locating the daycarefacility within the boundaries of the present parking lot. ,She contended that it was located too close to a residential area. She asouth end reed with f the the suggestions pu king lot She poi pointed he lout that the neighbor within an hood habuildind been the or re first and it at le were trying to de ,with the increasing noise of a shopping center, Sidney Ward.2704 SW Orchard Hill Lane,concurred with the concerns regarding the noise. He suggested putting the play area on the south site of the building to use the�building itself as a buffer for the noise,hd,did not think they coul plant enough trees to buffer the site adequately. He said it took ,I90 feet width of greenbelt to reduce,noise by six decibels, REBUTTAL Mi.Lewis reviewed their proposals to buffer the noise: landscaping, the fence,the stair stepping of the site and the limiting of the number of children allowed out at once and the times of play, He said that if the Board imposed a condition,they would be willing to reevaluate their landscaping plan to provide additional trees, He cautioned the neighbors that there was only a,certain amount of landscaping that could be done before security problems were created, He said that they would be happy to meet with the neighborhood to discuss the issue, Mr,Lewis said that he did not think that a masonry fence had any place in the shopping gib center or adjacent to the residential area as it was obtrusive. They held that a wooden fence was more compatible and would do the job adequately, He said that the reason for the fence around the play area was to provide security for the children, an additional fence to the north did not serve that purpose. It would be an economic hardship on the company to provide two fences. He explained to Mrs,Ward that the fence between their property and Condoled had been there when the center was built;it was repaired in 1983 but did exist prior to the shopping center, He said that they thought they had notified everyone and did not know what happened to Mr. Betler's notice. BOARD QUESTIONS Mr.Greaves asked why Mr.Lewis felt the south end was an inadequate location to site the play area. Mr.Lewis stated that the 14,000 sq.ft. of the combined area of the building and play area would have to come out of the parking on the south end which would likely reduce the number of parking lots below the required minimum. He also pointed out that they would likely have to remove the large oak tree presently growing in the upper parking lot Mr.Greaves asked about reversing the plan and putting the play area in the front on the south side. Mr,Lewis explained that one of the functional aims of a daycare facility was to get the parents and the child from the parking lot into the building as quickly as possible to minimize exposure to inclement weather and opportunity for injury. Development Review Board Minutes Page 9 of 22 INF January 7, 1991 } Chudr Foster.asked what was between the parking lot at the south end and the parkway, Mr, l.4w s said that there was a slightly sloped bank located there. Chair Oster asked if Mr.Lewis had any opposition to any of the conditions imposed by staff, Mr.Lewis said no except for the state plumbing code issue already mentioned, MS,Remy asked about the alternate sign proposals. Mr.Lewis stated that they had submitted two proposals because they felt the second one would be more compatible; however,staff said either proposal was acceptghle, He said that they would discuss with.Staff any signage they put up. Ms. Remy asked if.one of those options was a neon sign, Mr.Lewis!laic),c).that that had been the original proposal with the operating time coinciding with the hours di..,apgration of the facility,however they were also comfortable with their second proposal, Mr.Bloomer commented that the buffering normally required for uses like th s was lost for this development because of the change in jurisdictions between the Portlandi 1t.10 zone an the north side of the development and the Lake Oswego commercial zone, Mr,Galante a concurred but pointed out that a>daycarre facility was a permitted conditional use in a residential zone for both Portland and 4hke Oswego, Chair Poster asked Mr, Galante f;there were any State standards on decibels levels for residential areas, Mr.Galante staled that there were DBQ noise levels for commercial and industrial uses as they would affect residential areas, However,those standards did not apply to this type of noise, What stuff,and DEQ tried to do was to design solutions that mitigated ill the noise(such as restricting hours of truck delivery,parking lot cleaning,etc.) Chair Poster said that he understood from literature on noise that Mr.Ward's comment about needing a 100 foot width of buffering to reduce the noise by six decibels was probably correct. He asked how far it was from the play 41%,:a to the nearest property line, Mr, Galante said that it was between 35 to 40 feet from t'ee property line to the fence, He thought it would be difficult to tell the difference of Six decibels in a sound level, 1LLIl3?aZAT1OIV Chair Poster stated that he thougl,4t the noise issue was a real problem which he did not think would be solved by a fence or,ttt„cs Ms,Remy disagreed with Chaur11.ni t,r;ccorramenting that she found the noise generated by little children(as opposed to the;noise generated by teenagers)not as offensive as trucks or lawnmowers nor as loud. She id not object to reversing the building and play area but she thought they had a nice protect. She was opposed to a neon sign at anytime of the day, Mr. Greaves thought the project was a good:proposal, He suggested addressing Chair Poster's concern by cdor.11tioning the application to limit the hours of outside play to 9 a.m.to 5 p.m.,Monday through Friday and to limit the number of children hi the play area at any one time to 25 or 30. He thought that would do more to reduce the noise level and increase compatibility with typical residential hours. He nr,ttcd that the applicant has already agreed to meet with staff and the community on providing additional vegetation which would at the ak Development Review Board Minutes Page 10 of 22 January 7, 1991 rl 45. u it very least produce an aesthetic barrier(he had his doubts about its effect on sound). He said he favored requiring the applicant o work with,both the neighborhood and staff to create a vegetative screen along the north side that was more competible'and provided n better ` C',; transition Mr. Greaves stated that he thought the applicant has demonstrated that this was the best configuration for the site,and held that it was of paramount concern to get the children in the building as quickly as possible,especially during adverse weather conditions, He did not want to lose the oak tree at the south end of the parking lot. Mr, Starr concurred with Ms,Remy and Mr, Greaves, He did not see how anyone could put a general overall rule on decibels,commenting that ne one can screen out a siren, Mr.Bloomer said least he saw a problem. Though he liked the idea of a daycare center at the site,he did not think they had adequately explored all the options(1.e,, moving the play area to a different location, using the building as a buffer). He pointed out the change in grade and that the residences to the north and west were above the project which increased their chances of hearing the noise from down below, He clarified for Ms, Rainy that the mechanical equipment would be inside the building, not on the roof generating noise. He stated that he agreed with Chair Foster that vegetation would not completely screen the noise, Mr.Sievert pointed out that noise did travel up but he thought that the-amount of noise generated by 30 children at various times,during the day was not that objectionable, especially considering the noise from the shopping center itself. He thought it made more sense to get the children away,from traffic for safety purposes, tie did not think the r►oise` was a problem and thought that it might be more pleasing aesthetically to overlook a playground as opposed to a building roof. He agreed with adding trees to the back,for visual purposes but did not think they or any type of fence would make any difference in the sound, The Board discussed putting up two fences, Mr. Sievert stated that what minimal difference a second fence might make was far outweighed by the additional cost to the applicant. He thought it was pointless to try to limit sound by any type of artificial barrier as opposed to limiting the number of children and hours of operation. Chair Foster stated that he agreed` but thought that extra°landswaping would be appropriate(possibly a dense evergreen area similar to the west side). Mr, Sievert suggested limiting the number of children allowed to play outside at any one time to 1/3 the maximum enrollment, and limiting the hours of outside play from,9 a,m, to15 p.m. Mr.Lewis noted that the applicant needed to reserve the right to conform to the standards of the Children.Services Division(CSD)for the number of children playing outside at any one time, 'iTe thought that might be 40 people. s., Mr. Sievert agreed the the applicant should work with the staff and neighbors regarding additional landscaping on the north side,and that it should be evvrgrcen, Ms.Remy requested eliminating a neon sign. ilk Development Review Board Minutes Page 11 of 22 Vir January 7, 1991 o Ms,Remy move',for it tt:l t P .t. •'al* In addition,conditions that there would be uo neon signa e,limiting the number of 6hiidrett pinying outside to ird of the enrollment or the minimum CSD requir 1 enta,limiting the hours of outside play to he 9 a,ua.to 5 p.m.,Monday. through Frida ,and having the applicant work with stall! and the neighbors to put some evergreen landscaping on the north end. Mr,Sievert seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Sievert,Mr. Grcav 's,MS,Decay and Mr, Starr voting in favor of the motion, Chair Poster and Mr.Bloomer voted against the motion, q • Mr, t reaves moved tocontinu - , Mr. Starr seconded the motion and it passed with Mr.Sievert,Mr.Greaves,Chair roster,Ms.Remy, Mr,Starr and Mr.Bloomer voting in favor, 11 w!,r M M M r-M N r M M Y w w w w r 1+1.r ..¢ w Y 4 s'w w w w N w ,r M'.N b w#'.!!w M.w K M 1e M✓=iu w F M a+( ply 3-87 (Motu l .901,a request by OTAIC,Inc, for approval to replat Lot 46 in order to remove the 5'setback from the stream corridor buffer zone, The site is located at the south end of Twin Creeks Lane(Tax Lot 2200 of Tax Map 2 1E 613D), Chair Poster read the hearing procedures and asked for the board any conflicts of interest, SI bias or ex parte contacts, There were none, pment Review Planner, directed attention to the written Staff report (dated 12/28/90),commenting that it was self explanatory, IP APPLICANT Don Hansen, OTAK, stated that he was available to ansVver questions. Mr. Bloomer asked for clarification on the encroachment on the five foot setback, Mr, Hansen explained that the five foot easement was not a requirement or condition of approval originally but a suggestion from the developer which has since become a requirement, He said that the project was approved with a.25 foot setback without the easement beyond and 'i conditioned with a barricade fence during construction along the 25 foot setback to prevent encroachment. Mr. Bloomer asked if lots 47,48 and 49 had tile'same condition imposed. Mr.Hansen said that all the lots along the stream corridor had that note on the plat, fie stated that they were not seeking to modify the condition but to replat one lot to remove the restriction. Chair Poster said conditioning a development to provide an extra five feet along the stream corridor was a common occurrence, Mr.Bloomer asked if the house had been designed for this lot, Mr. Hansen said that It had been designed carefully to fit the lot; it was 2300 sq, ft as opposed to the average of 3000 sq, Development Review Board Minutes Page t2 of 22 January 7, 1991 1 r. n ft. for other houses on this block. He Verified that the-house eneroaahed on the easement by approximately 2.5 feet, He reviewed the floor plan to show why that extra 2.5 feet WAS • necessary, try. DELIBERATION Mr.Greaves said that he thought it looked fine tinder the`circumstances. It had been crafted to meet this particular lot configuration,the restriction had been self itposed by the e developer,and the encroachment would not result in any significant harm, Be stated that th6 easement remained largely intact,meeting the intent of the easement,and that the small ` encroachment was appropriate. Chair Foster concurred with Mr.Grooves'comments, Mr.Bloomer commented that when someone bought one of the other lots,that restriction applied, Chair Fester agreed;he thought that the plan was a reasonable use of the site. Mr,Sievert commented that the point of the construction fence was to stop debris from • g g intostream and to prevent the destruction of vegetation. He wondered how they would'meet the intent of the fence while constructing a brick wall within two feet of the fence;also construction of a deck would encroach on the easement, He said that taking back the easement that. 'as offered to get approval resulted in..it project that the Board had not approved. , Mr.Pshvaie explained that the five foot easement Was not,presented to the Board at the time , x41) of this application's review and approval, The applicant proposed it as part of the final platform the project. He said that they had intended to provide additional protection for the s` buffer zone during construction, H$i said that this has worked successfully over the years and that 2 feet was adequate for a scaffcdding,, •} '` Ms.Remy corrunettted that the spirit of this easement was being lost, V= Mr,Greaves,disepre dU contending that the easement has served its function of providing additional buffering along the stream corridor except for this one,lot. He pointed out that the architect"who designed the house clearly intended to meet the intent of the five foot easement because he worked the house around it as much as possible;only a small part of the house • and the deck would encroach, He thought'that 2300 gel, ft was not excessive and that they • have not asked for unreasonable sizes, Ms.Remy asked what the hardship was, Chair Foster noted that the site was pie shaped - which constricted the house from side to side(this was not true of the other lots). He said that the stream also came further forward at this point. ea` Ms, Reilly stated that she did not see why this lot could not have a 2100 sq, ft home instead of the 2300 sq, ft proposed, She agreed that the architect designed the house for the skinnier lot but perhaps the house should be skinnier. Development Review Board Minutes Page 13 of 22 January7, 1991 n Chair Poster moved for approval of pp 3.49/M l 12.90. Mr, Greaves seconded the motion aid It failed with Mr. Greaves,Chair;Fostcr,and Mr,Starr voting Iq favor of the „IPmotion;Mr.Sievert,Ms.Remiand Mr.Bloomer voted against the motion, w•?" ..111 • . .1 rlirr 0I. k:M ,. ww` ..••w++.E.. w... w wp .i w ww ww �. w w N Mw .w w w. ,w�,. w .., •+k M.M 77i 20-901P1,D 8.9p,a requestby°TAK,inc. for approval of a 22,815 sq. ft,commercial retail development at the southwest corner of Kerr Road. The site_is located at the intersection of MclNary Parkway and Kerr Road (Tax Map 2 1B 6B1)), Staff coordinator is liamid_rishvaiz.p.evelopinent review of Plate, Chair Foster read the procedures for the hearing aJ asked the Board for any ex parte contacts,bias or conflicts of interest. There were none, Mr,Pishvaie reviewed the four new exhibits(Exhibit, 36-.39)that the Board had just received; two letters in support of the application from Don Morrisette Homes,Inc., and the `' Mountain Park Homeowners Association, and two letters opposed to the application from roan'Forlock and Mr. and Mrs,Fred A.Jenkins(both of whom raised the issue of traffic on Kerr parkway), Mr.Pishvaie presented the staff report(dated 12/28/90). He reviewed the specifics of the application,directing attention to p.2-4 of the staff report, He stated that the original zoning ordinance recommended 200,000 sq. ft of commercial development and 450+residential units;the commercial was reduced to 40,000 sq. ft and the residential units increased to 492. He noted that all except 150 residential units have been built a.nd the remaining units were di approved last year as the first phase in a two phase ODPS;this was the second;;phase. Mr,Pishvaic said that the critical issues before the Planning Commission were'Access and improvements. The Commission approved a right in tight out access on Kerr Road to serve both the apartments and the commercial site and left it to the DRB to make sure the applicant met the requirements, He said that the findings,conclusion and order of the Planning Commission and a detailed traffic study were included in the record, Mr.Pishvaie said that the Planning Commission required traffic signals at the intersections of Kerr and McNary and Kerr and,Jefferson Parkway to be provided during the first phase. Following the apartment project,the City Council adopted LID 218 to authorize the improvements approved by the Board last year(the signals,road improvements,crosswalks, etc.). He said that the City was in the process of putting out an RFP for bids and expected it would take four to six months to provide the improvements. Mr Pishvaic directed attention to the detailed discussion of the issues on p. 6-11 in the staff report, He reviewed the signage issue,noting that no color spccif ications;have yet been provided;doing so was a condition of approval, He explained the unified site agreement, noting that a signed agreement with Mike McKenna, the abutting property owner,was also a condition of approval. Mr. Pishvaic said that the staff had no objections to the applicant's desire to grade around the reservoir to put in a service road;they had a consultant check out their concerns,and the Development Review Board Minutes Page 14 of 22 NW January 7, 1991 consultant made three recommendations(Exhibit 34)that were another condition of approval, ., Mr,Pishvaie noted the applicant's request regarding adjusting finished floor elevations;staff had conditioned a return for`floard appro:';k``for elevation changes greater than one foot, He said that the applicant wanted to discuss the issue and might have some suggestions. C>` Mr, Pishvaie stated that the application met the applicable regulations and that staff recommended approval with the 27 eonditions listed on p, 11.14, He noted corrections to two of those conditions: p. 12,A3 r change"submit final irrigation plan"' to"submit final irrigation specifications",and p, 14,#3-add "or map" following tht:word"'deed,"' Mr. Sievert asked if Mr.Pishvnte was w comfortable ith the proposal in terms of all the traffic flow considerations, Mr,Pishvaie said that the proposal complied with all the traffic concerns mentioned in the traffic report. Nothing has changed in terms of accessing the project from Kerr Road; A ',ii"LICANT !vf ichael Fj hz, " ,represented Janice Graybeck of Harbor Point Development. He reiterated that this was a 22,657 sq. ft neighborhood commercial development down-zoned from 40,000 sq. ft(10%less than the originally planned 200,000 sq, ft of commercial development). He said that this final design represented the compromise reached with the Mountain Park Homeowners Association;they wanted natural colors and materials and approved the curved facade, Mr,Fisher stated thatfthey felt the design fit in well with the site constraints of residential to the east, a water reservoir, a 30 foot access easement, a service turnaround drive,MeNary to the north, Kerr to the West and a right in right out access; He noted that it was a one story low-key development that still identified itself as a commercial (as the neighbors wanted it to do). Mr.Fisher said that they accepted all the staff conditions but would like clarification and revisions on some: - p, 12 A3: change"irrigation specifications" to "performance specifications" • p,12,A 10t this description of the half street improvements on Kerr Parkway conflicted with the"concrete shoulder"described on p, 11, 5N- he said that the shoulder would be crushed rock or gravel,not concrete; - p.12, IOC& n: requested removal of these items(improve site distance and maintain the existing site distance)because they were alread► nddreased in items 4&5 as part of LID 218; - p, 13 change the requirement for"building floor elevations over one foot to be approved by the DRI3" to"building floor elevations over two to three feet" to allow flexibility during construction; - nem, 15; they accepted this added requirement to show extension of curbs on McNary Parkway along the sight frontage out to Kerr Road; Aisk Development Review Board Minutes Page 15 of 22 lipP January 7, 1991 r; - Item 19: they=got the sight plan agreement signed today; p, 14, 3t I-Iamid addressed the correction to this condition-they suggested ested "deed or recorded map," Mr.Fisher asked that p. 14,#4,be changed to read "LID 218 shall be formed" rather than "LID 218 shall be completed and approved by the city." He said that all property owners have agreed to the LID but thaty' the current languagepresented a'problem to the developer in terms of holding up occupancy because' the developer ouldn't be responsible for the city's schedule, He said that the ODPS did not tie completion of the LID to occupancy. Mr.Fisher spoke to the traffic concerns expressed in the two letters of objection, He said that based on the original traffic report,they did not feel that the commercial development would significantly increase the amount of traffic in the area because it was a neighborhood commercial development and the traffic would be there anyway. He noted that the development generated the traffic signals that the Mountain Park Homeowners Association has been requesting for some time,and that these signals should help alleviate the traffic problems occurring in the area, He stated that they expected the area residents to use the facility and anticipated a certain amount of pedestrian use., BOARD QUESTIONS Mr.Fisher passed the color board around at the Board's requests` Chair Foster asked what would have been supplied originally in place of the performance spec for the irrigation. Mr. Fisher said that full irrigation drawings had been originally required prior to the building permit. However,they preferred submitting performance specs due to the amount of change that could occur between the design drawings and the construction drawings. Mr. Bloomer asked if there was any pedestrian access from the apartments, Mr, Fisher reviewed the pedestrian connections to the site, He said that the course of the bike path was changed by city requirements to run it.through the Mountain Park Summit site, The Board discussed the bike path. Tom Hammond.OTAK,explained that the requirement had been to get across Kerr but that the traffic study showed a problem in the topography at Kerr and Jefferson. He had resolved that problem with the Mountain Park Homeowners Association at the time of the Mountain Park Summit approval; they would build a landing and a stairway down to the common path at the bottom of the slope. This was now shown, on the LID drawings but the Homeowners Association has agreed to pay for it themselves, Mr. Sievert asked What happened to the path initially shown as going In front of the commercial dcvelapnr nt, Mr, Hammond stated that the Board had wanted the path rerouted to the residential and the path in front of the development was no longer shown on drawings. Chair Foster asked about the bikeway on Kerr Road shown in Exhibit, 6, Mr. Pishvaie said he would get the newly adopted pathway master plan. Development Review Board Minutes Page 16 of 22 VIr January 7, 1991 n 7 In response to Ms, Remy's question,Mn Fisher stated that;there were pedestrian connections lap to the site from One Jefferson Parkway(Exhibit, 8),' He noted the emergency access required} by the city. Be stated that a public path from Mountain Park Summit would be installed once . that development occurred,and reviewed the other pedestrian access points, 'OPPOSED John Orloff.Alderwood C.Qi ,stated that he thought the mechanical aspects of the proposal were admirable but expressed concern that it made little sense In terms of the quality of life of the area residents. He pointed out the commercial development to the north within walking distance,the commercial developments close by down Kerr and the Boones Ferry commercial development with Thriftway, Chair Foster pointed out that land use questions were not within the Jurisdiction of this board~ Mr. Orloff said that he understood that it could not be changed but that he wanted to express this concern. He also questioned what type of development would go In there;if the residents could have some assurance that it would be upscale and of high quality, it would help relieve concerns about security. He said his real concern was'not so much whether or not the developer had the right to build the development as it was would it be a development to enhance the neighborhood or detract from it. If it enhanced the quality of life in the neighborhood,he would have no objection to it. He cited problems in other areas where people hung around stores and played loud music late at night. 41/111 Paul Moss.50 Kerr Parkway,, stated that he lived across from the planned development. He stated that he disagreed with the development for many of the same reasons as Mr. Orloff, He did not see a need for it since other successful commercial developments were so close. He commented that the view from his kitchen would change from trees to a parking lot with, minimal landscaping. He said that for residents to cross the street was like playing dodgeball with the speeding cars, He expressed concern about the noise with the parking lot being at the front. He noted that the developers stated they were not trying to blend in because it was a commercial development but contended that it would be an eyesore compared to a view of residential properties and trees, He asked what the hours of operation would be, He said that the traffic would increase and probably come earlier in the morning and later at night, depending on what types of businesses went in, He reiterated that he did not think this was being developed to meet the needs of the residents, Robin Now, 50 Kerr Parkway,stated that she had the same concerns as Mr, Moss. She said that they took down the trees and now she looked at traffic but Would look at the project once it was completed. She expressed concern about the types of businesses that would come in. She stated that the trees that had been removed were the residents'noise and view protection from the traffic and asked if they would be replaced. She said that she had difficulty getting across the street now, and that the bike path ended in a drainage ditch; she asked if they would connect the path into a more comprehensive plan, jik Development Review Board Minutes Page 17 of 22 January 7, 1991. X• 4 CalZake,Dnelefferson Parkway,stated that he would be looking down at the entire " development, a view he did not care for,though he would not have minded apartments. (which he thought the area was more suitable fora,He said that he had spoken with quite a few of the One Jefferson Parkway residents and they had not seen a need for a retail development when other developments were so close. He thought that this development f would attract more traffic,and people casing a nice neighborhood. He wondered how long It, y would take to build the complex, He questioned whether or not it could attract enough traffic to survive. He did not think that a retail development was justifiable for the area and that it would do more harm than good, $E 1THI'' FOIL NOR AGAINST atelmaL1 ,stated t of he saw this complex has having a benefit to a large number of residents, He thought the pnposat could use more emphasis in tying the area into the Mountain Park path network and providing more convenient access Into the site. He named some possible connections for improvement; the northwest entrance on Derr and pedestrian pathways from the south side of Jefferson Parkway. He pointed out that a right in right out entrance off Kerr would make a bike path on Kerr very hazardous, REBUTTAL Mr,Fisher stated that they have reviewed their proposal fairly extensively with the Mountain Park Homeowners Association who have approved it in concept except for additional information on signage. He said that it was difficult to restrict the kind of business allowed in because of the risk of making the project non viable. He said that he saw the development as providing a convenience to the neighborhood, They could control a business from an aesthetic standpoint by restricting signage. Mr,Fisher explained that the service access was simply a delivery access(or the businesses on the north side, They did not envision an automobile repair shop in this,complex, in answer to the concerns raised regarding excessive noise,Mr.Fisher said that they saw this facility as being used by the neighborhood residents and as a high quality facility for a quality neighborhood, He said that the owner was amenable to developing enhanced pedestrian access at both the north and south ends, Mr.Fisher said that they believed that the signalizatio:a required in LAD 218 would significantly cor�N�ct the traffic problems,particularly for pedestrian access across Kerr at both McNary aria'Jefferson, He commented that it had taken considerable redevelopment of the Town Center site to make it viable,including enhanced access and aesthetics. They believed they have already provided access and aesthetic development here. Mr.Hammond stated that the "drainage ditch" into which the pathway mentioned by Ms, Now terminated was actually a tunnel that went under Jefferson Parkway, The path rote up to Kerr and would then head east to go across Jefferson Parkway. He said that the spot going to the north was not a path but access to a tension chamber they had buried in the ground at the request of the city for the city's cleaning trucks, ilk Development Review Board Minutes Page 18 of 22 January 7, 1991 C ft' Mi.Pishvaic used the December 1988 Lake Oswego map to show that there was no pathway Sti drawn north of the intersection of Kerr and Jefferson. Mr.Greaves thought that might be Luc to the extensive pathway network in Mountain Park. BOARD QUESTIONS Chair Poster asked Mr.Pishvaie to review the applicant's requested changes. Mr. Pishvalc stated that staff would like to change Condition 3, A-3,to"irrigation construction specifications" rather than to the applicant's"performance specifications," He agreed,on clarifying the type of shoulder mentioned in 10A, He agreed that the conditions.in 10 C and D could be eliminated. Mr, Galante said that#14,the review of elevation changes,should be eliminated because the staff already used a set of four criteria to determine if any material change had to come back to the Board for. approval, Mr,Pishyaie said that he had no problem with adding"on the recorded map" on#3,p. 14, but that he did have a problem with changing the language to "LID shall be formed, He explained that the LID has already been formed,and that the Planning Commission and staff fully intended these improvements to go in at the same time as which ever phase went in first, either the commercial,or the apartments. He reiterated that the improvements had to be performed. Mr.Galante commented on condition Dl,regarding the city conducting a leakage test, He did not think that they should attach a condition that lay outside the applicant's ability to 40 comply with, He thought that the condition should either be eliminated or modified to require the applicant to coordinate with the city to insure that adequate leakage tests have been performed prior to any grading around the city reservoir. He recommended eliminating it. Mr.Galante reviewed the three places utilities or easements for utilities were mentioned. Mr'Sievert-asked who maintained the tennis courts attached to the reservoir. Mr.Pishyale said they were a private facility maintained by the Mountain Park Homeowners Association, DELIBERATION Mr.Greaves commented that this was a Board of limited jurisdiction and the time for those opposed to this project to object had been.when it came before the Planning Commission several years ago when they were discussing this as an ODPS, He said that if the applicant met the-criteria required for their development, the Board had to approve it or it would go through under appeal. Mr Greaves noted that this proposal was almost half the 40,000 sq,ft allowed by the zone change. He stated that he lived half a mile from this development and did not see a need for it now but did not know about the future. He thought that the developer would not invest a million dollars in a project that would sit empty, lie noted that development included a certain amount of blind faith because it had to be just the right mix in a complex for it to AIN Development Review Board Minutes Page 19 of 22 Vir January'7, 1991 work, He thought that there was a self policing action through the economics of at community. He was glad that it was coming in at half the size it could be as he did not see a need for anything larger v,Pith all the other significant commercial development in the area, Mr.Greaves stated that the project was designed and approved through the ODPS process to accommodate traffic impacts;the applicant has demonstrated through the traffic report that they were complying with the previous requirements for site access, Ho did not think that the project would generate any significant additional traffic because of the limited size and the design to serve the neighborhood,though it might indeed change the hours of the traffic, Ho thought that color board was satisfactory,though he was surprised at the flat roof, Ms,Real),asked what kind of air conditioning equipment could be put in on top of the roof that didn't need screening. Mr.Hammond stated that the mechanical units were specifically designed to be towards the front of the building to stay as far away from the residences as possible,they were set behind the curved portions of the facade with an enclosure screen behind them. None were closer than l O feet to a residence with most considerably further away. ;` Mr.Greaves asked what the composition of the roof was. Mr. Fisher stated that it was proposed to be a three ply built up roof, it could have a mineral cap sheet on it but that had not hart determined yet. Mr.Greaves commented that a built up tar base would be an unsightly view for One lefferson Parkway residents. Mr.Fisher said that he would personally prefer to specify a mineral cap sheet or something like that to protect the roof. He stated that a concern with other types of gib higher roofs was that they would obstruct the views to the west from Mountain Park Summit. Chair Foster stated that he thought they had done a great job generally in fitting the project onto the site, He thought that they had addressed all the issues,and that he did not find the building unpleasant, He thought that it was an up tuarkct area and that the developer would have to do a good job,maintain it well and make it attractive to the neighborhood in order for it to be a success, Chair Foster asked what the lighting was for the signage, Mr,Fisher stated that that issue was addressed in the application; the letters could be lit but the field would be opaque. Mr. Sievert concurred that the developers did a good job fitting the project into the site and the conditions. He personally felt it was sort of an odd land use for the site but that was outside the Board's control, He sympathized with the neighbors but felt that the developers had done a good job given the circumstances. Mr.Bloomer stated that he was a neighbor on this project. He stated that he did not mind the use;he liked neighborhood commercial and hoped that everyone would walk to it. He had been concerned about the parking next to the road and had considered some type of screening of the parking. Overall,he thought it was a good project, Development Review Board Minutes Page 20 of 22 low January', 1991 „ p Mr.Greaves added a condition that the applicant work with the staff on the composition or lip type of the roofing materials,noting the Board's preference for something like a mineral cap to present a more pleasing view, Mr. Galante stated that typically staff looked at either sheet caps or something with rock or gravel ballast to hide the repairs made over time, Chair Poster asked if everyone agreed with the changes to the conditions as reviewed by Hamid. Mr Greaves said that he agreed with the changes and with Hamid to leave the LID as it was, Ms.Remy stated that she thought it was a good project. Though she was not pleased with the materials,she thought it was a classy shopping center, Mr. Greaves moved for the apnrov}il of DR 20•89. MVtr, Starr seconded the motion and it passed with Mr,Sievert,Mr.weaves;Chair Poster,Ms,Remy,Mr. Starr and Mr,Bloomer voting in favor, ” M M w:w:M M M Y Y M M.:M M M M:'1,M M Y Y.M M M M:„ M M M M',. M •'� -M ♦. r.$Y M M ,,.:M N M b M.M .,# - R M M M:M -M., «M VI. GENERAL PLANNING Review of the Oswego Marina VI. OTHER BUSINESS Chair Foster moved for l r e,to • I9.8f\PD,5.88 (mod, 10-9845)i Ms, Remy seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Remy, Chair Foster,Mr Starr and Mr,Bloomer voting in favor, Mr. Sievert and Mr. Greaves abstained. Chair Foster moved for r v c v. 8 4 Mr. Starr seconded the motion and it passed with Chair Foster,Mr, Starr and Mr,Bloomer voting in favor; Mr.Sievert,Mr, Greaves and Ms,Remy abstained, Mr, Greaves moved for approval or'the,findings.carveltlsio.lMg,ttsi,ot'tler 4 `VAR 30.90(a- 91 Mr.Sievert seconded the motion and it passed with Mr, Sievert, Mr,Greaves,Ms, Remy,Mr.Starr and M' 3oomer voting in favor, Chair Poster abstained, Mr.Sievert raised the issue of revoting on Ply 3-90/.hpf.) 12-90, Mr. Hansen stated that he abbreviated his presentation because Mr. Pishvaie hadl,,hthbreviated his presentation. He said that he has several points to make which he thought would make a difference in the decision, The Board discussed the procedures for reopening the hearing to hear new evidence. Mr,Sievert moved to reopen P1)3-89/1VMO1 . �'. ► tr ct mitation on tim+ . Mr Greaves seconded the motion and it passed with Mr,Sievert,Mr.Greaves,Chair Foster,and Ms.Remy voting in favor; Mr. Starr"and Mr, Bloomer voted against the motion, Ali Development Review Board Minutes Page 21 of 22 Nor 3anuary 7, 1991 doh An, Mr.Pishvale explained that the lot under consideration was the only vacant lot left in the VW subdivision;to approve it would not set a precedent for other lots in the development, Ms.Remy said that she did not want to set a precedent of giant homes on small lots. IVTr,Hansen directed attention to Exhibit 4,the house plat, noting that the stream course was altered during construction and that they had made a slight survey error on the plan regarding the location of the stream, He pointed out that this stream was a rock lined channel with dirt banks on either side and no understory vegetation on the house side, DELIBERATION Mr,(heaves moved for r .8 2- . Chair Foster seconded the t motion and it passed with Mr.4reaves,Chair Foster,Ms.Remy,Mr. Starr and Mr.Bloomer voting in favor of the motion. Mr.Sievert abstained. 5� VII. ADJOURNMENT ,, "Chair Foster adjourned the meeting, MI Development Review Board Minutes Page 22 of 22 liar January 711991 � o o to t r„�s 0 t. 9 e� 55 0 c J 0 r1 .u. • L t1.1 41 0 + ( �'4 ` . t1 i is it 0