Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 1991-06-03 w LAKE OSWEGO ka PLANNING 1EPTr FILES 7i c; 1.1 • t, G } v , DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES • ;r • ,nth.. l .... c ,, A,: „ `CITY OF LAKE OS' EGO 0 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES G ,; June 3, 19991 M L CALL TO ORDER The Development Review Board meeting ofJune 3, 1991 was called to order by Vice- Chairman Stanaway at 7:33 p.m. ICE. ROLL CALL Board members present were Mr.Bloomer,Mr. Starr,Ms. Remy and Mr, Stanaway, 11 Mr.,Poster, Mr. Creavessand Mr, Sievert were excused, Also present were Robert 1, Galante, Senior Planner;Mike Wheeler, Associate Planner, Hamid Pishvaie Associate Planner; Cindy Phillips,Deputy City Attorney; and Barbara Anderson, Senior Secretary, III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None, IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS None, • V. PUBLIC HEARING SD 8-91 difred'restbmittal of SD 53-»900,a request by Compass Corp. for approval of the creation of three parcels from a 1.2 acre site. The parcels are proposed to be 13,870; 17,030;and 21,540 sq.ft.in size, Also*the applicant is proposing a Future Streets Plan serving property within 250 ft.of the applicant's site. The site is located on the north side of Country Club Road,east of Knatts Road (Tax Lot 13(Xt of Tax Map 21E 4DB). Vice—Chair Stmtnaway described the quasi—judicial hearing procedure, He inquired if any Board members had any ex parte contacts or any conflicts of interest, Hearing none,he then requested a report from staff. Mike Wheeler noted that the application was a resubmittal of an earliercase that..was denied by the Board on April 1, 1991. He explained that,a memorandum had been prepared by staff and presented to the Board which explored the reasons that the present application appeared to be substantially different than the first application, He stated that staff had determined that the present:application was not substantially similar to the original application so the applicant would not be required to wait the required six months for resubmitting an application. Mr.Galante suggested that if the Board doubted whether the present application was substantially different from the first application,public testimony could be taken on that illissue alone and then the Board could decide on whether to continue with the hearing, The Board agreed that it would be beneficial to take public testimony to determine whether the application was substantially different from the first. 6/3/91 DRB Minutes Page 1 of 1 CI t�> AA n e Ap a IIIlir Greg HathawstX4121 S. A Morrison,Portland stated that he was an attorney representing the applicant. He stated that he was in agreement with staff that the ,w application was substantially different from the original application. He explained that staff had identified why the changes were significant in the memorandum dated May 10, 1991. He noted that the Future Streets Plan was completely different from the original application and hc:>ex lained that those changes alone were enough to determine that the appl ation was substantially different. plan and the old plan. D r`a n Compa g Corporation.6544 S.E.1Lake 1 oridx,,Mi1waukiv,displayed " He explained that the new plan took.into consideration the new p neighborhood and environmental issues which were identified in the previous application. He noted that the new plan showed specific trees which were identified to be saved and it included a buffer strip by+the meandering road, lie stated that the lot configuration and lot sizes were different. He stated that the Future Streets Plan was comp letely Tfferent He also noted that a formal storm drainage system was proposed in the new application but was not included in the original application, He stated that Country Club Road would be re—striped to allow for a left—hand turn into,the site. Gregrtthaway referred to Code which denied applicants the ability to submit another Li application which was the same or substantially similar., He argued that the new application was not substantially similar and he noted that City staff agreed with his position. He urged the Board to find that the application was different and was not substantially similar to the original application. Vice—Chairman Stanaway inquired if there were any proponents for the application and He thenrequested that any opponents come forward and only there were none. testify on the issue of whether the application was or was not substantially sitnilar to the original.application, Opponents , Club Road,Lake Oswego 97034 stated that the applicant's attorney'found th1tt the application was substantially dissimilar to the original application because Jae was paid to argue the applicant's side and he urged the Board to recognize his bias. J fit 14 stated that his home abutted the proposed site. He read a letter from the Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association which felt that the application did not meet the criteria of LOC 49,640 which prohibited an application of the same or substantially similar proposal to be submitted within six months of the date of the final denial, He stated that the present application was substantially similar to the original application because it continued to utilize the'same soil studies,had three lots,hadn't adequately addressed storm drainage, relied on unsafe access onto Country Club,had not adequately defined the building b envelopes, had not provided a satisfactory erosion control plan,ididn't offer adequate protection for natural resources on the site and:didn't propose a satisfactory Future Streets Plan, gc7034 referred to the Future 410 Streets Plan and he observed that it was substantially similar to the original application and he noted that the driveway still emptied onto a private road. 6/3/91 DRB Minutes Page 2 of 14 � ;J lam � o u al Tony Oliver.94a$:W. 'Atwater,Lake Ogvego,97034 stated that the Future Streets Plan had. ust been moved,slightly but was not significantly altered She stated that the treereservation plan w�o still remalin vague and noted ta t tthelyb 73%s f the tree over t five ch i diameter, ul • Shealso h, t buffer trip wasonly moved slightly and wou ti still be right next to someone's house. / Sul Nachtrab. 14100 S.W 1Knnaa�Rand.Lh"e Osweuo34 stated that she was against developing Tax Lot 1300 into three homes and the placement of a street through the natural wooded area, She stated that the present application was not substantially different fireai the original application. Jan DuClos,. 4130 Minus Road,Lake Oswego 97034 explained that the Future S Teets Plan was only altered slightly and the street would still pass five feet from her poperty line. 'L''"esidadellotaffiasm.Knaus Road,Lake Oswego 97034 agreed with earlier testimony in opposition to the application. He referred to the plat changes and stated that although the flag lots were flipped, there was very little change to the size and position of the lots, Margaret Mittthies 1000 AtIvater.Rood,,Lake Oswego 970,34 disagreed that the Future Streets Plan was significantly different and she noted that the plan still proposed going through her property and taking out her fruit orchard and an unusual Ponderosa pine tr.,;e. FritiJ1nyo ' x t . aitke 41) Oswego 97034 stated that there were still problems with the sound buffer, the Future Streets Plan,drainage into the stream corridor and the issue of temporary access versus permanent assess. He remarked that the proposal was still the same,it just had a little more detail, Rebuttal Greg Hathaway noted that the opponents' testimony was generally that they didn't believe that the changes that were made In the present application Were sufficient enough to satisfy Code criteria,not that the application was substantially similar to the original application. He suggested that the Board review why the original application was denied and determine whether the applicant had attempted to address the issues that were of a concern to the Board. He listed one reason that the original application was denied which was that there was no drainage plan submitted, lie noted that the applicant • submitted a sbecific storm drainage plan for the present application, Another reason that the original application was denied was that the.Board was concerned with the p'uture Streets Plan. He pointed out that the applicant had.submitted ,... a new Future Streets Plan which responded to the Board's concerns in the original hearings He cited another reason for the denial of the original application which was that there was no public pathway through the stream corridor and the present application addressed that issue and was also a condition of approval. 1 6/3/91 bR13 Minutes Page 3 of 1,4 '; a a a , 4 -,_ He listed another reason that the Board denied the original application which was that , there were no building envelopes shown on the site plan and the present site plan displayed building envelopes. , Seeing no further testimony to come before the Board,Vice-9 aairman Stanaway closed the public hearing,for Board deliberation. t L( 0 Deliberation Mr, Stair felt that the application was the same as the original application. Ms,Remy felt that the application was basically the same, but agreed that sonic items were revised. Mr. Bloomer stated that the application was significantly different, He explained that the issues of the site would always remain the same, no matter how the property was proposed to be developed,because of the unique characteristics of the site, He agreed that there were sonic items that were similar but remarked that there were enough significant changes to merit a new hearing. Vice-Chairman Stanaway stated that the application was not significantly different. Vice-Chairman Stanaway and Ms. Remy agreed that changes had been made to the application but they felt that they were not significant. Vice-Chairman Stanaway suggested that the Board make a motion. } Mr.Hathaway requested that he be allowed the opportunity to make one comment before the Board voted. Vice-Chairman Stanaway denied the public the opportunity to make additional comments or testimony. Mr. Hathaway requested that he be allowed to 4111111 comment after the Board completed their vote. Mr. Bloomer discussed some of the reasons he felt the application was significantly different from the original application. He explained that any development of the property would be similar to the present proposal due to the topography of the site, He remarked that if there was any doubt in the mind of Board members, he felt that the benefit of the doubt needed to be given to the applicant and the Board should go through the process rather than deny the hearing, He further explained that in the end, the Board may not agree with the applicants proposal, but they would have at least been ,::i given an opportunity to go through the process. Ms. Remy stated that although she felt that the application was similar,she would be willing to hear the application and she agreed that the applicant should be given the benefit of the doubt, Vice-Chair Stanaway also agreed that the applicant should be given the benefit of the doubt, Ms.Phillips expressed concern with the concept of giving the applicant the benefit of 1' the doubt. She explained,that the applicant carries the burden of proof. Mr,Bloomer ,' inquired if the Board mush be fully convinced that the applicant had submitted an l' application that was:not substantially the same, or if any doubt they had was reason enough to allow the hearing to continue, Ms. Phillips responded that the Board must determine that the applicant had shown.the Board that it was,more likely than not, not substantially similar, Mr. Bloomer moved to continue with$12.169.1 according to the delibes atlons of the Board. Mr.Stanaway seconded the motion, 6/3/91 DRB Minutes Page 4 of 14 10 Mr,Wheeler noted that the motion did not satisfy the question of whether the 0 application was or was not substantially similar and he requested that they clarify their motion to address that issue. ,' Mr, Bloomer vithdrew his earlier motion and moved that SO 8--91 is substantially different from the previous application as determined by the deliberations of this Board,based upon storm drainage,Future Streets Plan,;a stream corridor pathway,� and building envelopes that have been submitted with this application, Mfs.Remy seconded the motion and it carried with Mr, Stannaway,Mr. Bloomer and Ms.Remy voting yes. Mr.Starr voted no. Vice-Chairman Stanaway requested a report from staff, Mr, Wheeler explained that the application was a proposal to partition a 1,2 acre site into three parcels and he described the site, He discussed various aspects of the �� proposal and he noted a few collections to the staff report, He concluded by stating that staff found the Future Streets Plan adequate to serve the area and was capable of being constructed. He explained that the applicant's soils investigation and proposed drainage installation comply with the Drainage Standard for minor development and the applicant demonstrated pompliance with the Solar Access Ordinance through the design of the parcels. He further concluded that other applicable development requirements and standards could be achieved through the imposition of conditions, He stated that staff recommended that SD 8-91 and the applicant's Future Streets Plan be approved subject to nineteen conditions; he discussed those conditions. He noted that there was an addendum which had been distributed to the Board which • included Exhibits 24--^7,and Exhibits 28-31 were presented at the hearing. Mr. Starr referred to Exhibit 5 and he noted that the Future Streets Plan took a substantial portion of Tax Lot 1100 to be constructed and he inquired if the owner of that lot was to agreement with the proposed Plan. Mr.Wheeler pointed out that Exhibit 31 was a letter front the attorney representing the owner of Tax Lot 1100 who was basically in support of the proposal, Ms, Remy requested an explanation as to why the applicant needed to provide a Future Streets Plan for this proposal, Mr. Wheeler responded that it was an attempt by the City's regulations to preclude there being adverse impacts on neighboring properties through the development of the site. He stated that when undeveloped parcels could only achieve access from Country Club Road, a Future Streets Plan needed to be devised which afforded all of the property owners an opportunity to develop their land. Ms.Remy summarized by stating that temporary access could only be granted to Country Club Road if a Future Streets Plan was in effect and Mr. Wheeler agreed with her statement. Mr. Wheeler explained that the Future Streets Plan would remain in the record as a guidance for development of the area. He noted that it was subject to modification as the area was developed. Vice-Chairman Stanaway referred to the future Sheets Plan and inquired if them needed to be a consensus of propertx owners or if it could just be imposed on them, Mr.Wheeler responded that there did not need to be a consensus of property owners. 410 He explained that it was a planning tool which the Board had the authority to approve, He further explained that.Future Streets Plans provide a reasonable route for future 6/3/91 DRB Minutes Page 5 of 14 o tl u streets to travel. He state that the Development Code identified the need to provide a 0 Future Streets Plan on properties within 250 feet of the site being considered for development. , Mai Remy discussed the abandonment of the temporary access and she asked who was responsible for closing off the access and paying for it.-Mr.Wheeler responded that it. .,, would likely be dealt with by the developer as a part of A maintenance agreement for each of the owners of the three lots. Applicant rrr Greg Hathaway stated that the proposal addressed the issues and concerns of the previous application,and with the conditions recommended by staff,would satisfy the applicable criteria. liek stated that the applicant proposed a specific drainage plan which; satisfied staff's concerns. Building envelopes were also provided on the site which Ynet the Code requirements with regard to setbacks and other dimensional requirements. The applicant ensured the dedication of a public pathway along Iron Mt.Creek. The site plan was modified to try to save as many significant trees as possible and was further enforced by condition 12, lie noted that conditions 6 and'7 would ensure that no development would occur within the Distinctive Natural Area on the site. The roadway was moved away from the west boundary in a curvilinear fashion with the intention of providing a better buffer along that boundary, He emphasized that the Future Streets Plan did not utilize Xnaus Road,which was a concern of the Board lit the previous application; He pointed out that staff was in concurrence that the application satisfied all the applicable criteria through the application of conditions. He referred to the Future 0Streets Plan and be noted that the City's Code required that the Future Streets Plan be designated at the Board level and he reminded the 1oard that the Plan was only a guide that the developer was required to prepare, and the issue could be revisited in the future, Oruce GgIdscIlq,stated that the plan was environmentally sensitive and addressed the concerns of the neighborhood. He referred to Exhibit 3 and noted that no significant trees over 8"in diameter would be removed for the purpose of installing the access road and he stated that the trees were clustered around building envelopes. Ho pointed out that a buffer strip of varying widths was proposed to bonder the meandering private drive, He submitted Exhibit 32 for the record which was a plan depicting a road alignment. He responded to concerns that the access onto Country Club Road was unsafe. He reviewed the criteria for intersections,LOC 44,386,which described the:safest=access as one at right angles, which was what was being proposed. He cited LO1S 19.020(2.b.) which addressed the proximity of a driveway to another existing road and listed the minimum distance as being 30 feet and he noted that the application proposed 100 feet. e discussed sight distance and he noted that the site distance for the proposed access exceeded the 40 mph requirements by twice the re uired distance. He also noted that they were proposing to restripe the existing roadway to continuo the left turn lane down from Kna' s Road to include the private drive.: Ile referred to Exhibit 46 from the original application (81)53-90)and explained that it was a Future Streets Plan offered by an opponent as a possible solution and he noted that Exhibit 5 of the current application was an improved version of that plan, 410 `' �/iie��f ltll�lvlirtutcs :ram He,,noted that a drainage plan had been provided and exceeded the standards fo ;water' 4ualit `0 Y#= tlizaketiLIMitzztileatnee stated that she was a real estate agent and had been Working with the Spears for eleven years to develop their property, She explained that Mr.DuClos was aware'when he purchased his adjacent he/mesite that a three lot subdivision was proposed for the lot and she noted that she had even furnished a preliminary map to the listing salesman to pass on to future buyers, She stated that building three homes and adding three families would not adversely affect the neighborhood, She noted that the lots were proposed to be much larger than other lots in Lake Oswego. ;V'Vimlian Spears stated that he was the owner of the property and while they had it originally planned to build a house there,the City convinced them,that they needed to " wait to annex to the City of Lake Oswegoitltil the rest of the Forest Highlands neighborhood annexed. He noted that they had since made other arrangements for their dwelling and were seeking to sell the property, tielett SpeAra pointed out that the subdivision would increase the value of the neighboring homes and would enhance Country Club Road, Qpponents didn't feel that Tax Lot 1300 was suitable for the development of three homes,especially of the size that the illbuilding envelopes indicated. He referred to Exhibit 3,and pointed out that the building envelopes encompassed more than 50% of the lot, He stated that Exhibit 3 was incorrect because he measured from the monument at the northeast corner of Rnnus and Country Club to the culvert and it was 142 feet the exhibit showed that it was over 150 feet, He suggested that the developer would have to build a bridge in order to accommodate the 50 foot—wide,double flag access. He pointed out that,in all the lots affected by the Future Streets Plan, all but two property owners had no intention of allowing the development of the plan. He suggested that only two homes be built on Tax Lot 1300,situated so that they wouldn't impact the existing neighbors to the west, stated that he abutted the property to the east. He expressed concern with the ground water and he noted that there were many springs on the property. He mentioned that there had been talk of capping the springs and he suggested that the water would then drain down to his property and he was really concerned with additional water runoff, }-lc noted that a storm drainage system was proposed along the east property line,which abutted his property, and he noted that there wereetnany large fir trees that he was concerned wouldn't be adequately protected, He suggested that squeezing three homesites onto the lot would adversely affect the character of the neighborhood, rtaltiattiktne4,8Qri ,Lake Oswelii7D noted that one of the'reasons for requiring a Future Streets Plan was to restrict access to arterials,and she questioned why the Board was considering allowing access to Country Club Road for the present 0 application, She suggested that having a Future Streets Plan applied to the neighboring'. lots might adversely affect the future sale of those lots. She disagreed with allowing a 6/3/91 1)It13 Minutes ?ego 7 of 14 K 1i G developer to d, sign the Future Streets Plan and suggested that the neighborhood should have been allo ed to provide input for the design of the plan, 0 stated that lie was speaking as an individual,not representing the neighborhood. He was opposed to the future Str�tits { Plan and felt that it should have been considered legislatively, He suggested that It : ,., would be very diffi ult to turn left from the site onto Country Club Road since there would be no middle lane to pull into. He explained that a projected traffic map showed Knaus Road traffic increasing 100% by the year 2010 and he noted that would increase the pressure on what was already considered a hazardous intersection. Mary Fiabpr,,705 Country Cltlb R 4 stated that she was a geologist and she suggested that there were a lot of numbers in the staff report that had no credibility. She provided revised calculations for Exhibit 7. She noted that the Rp value was much larger than shown and the consequence of that miscalculation needed to be examined and its implication taken into consideration. She suggested that the proposed handling of storm drainage was grossly inadequate. Mr.Wheeler suggested that Mrs.Haber submit a calculation format into the record so that her figures could be compared against Exhibit 7 and their accuracy determined, Susan Nachtrab, 14100 Knaus Ruad,Lake Oswego 97034 stated that although she was sympathetic to the Spear's need to sell their property,she wanted more control over what was happening to her neighborhood. She disagreed that the property values of Ir neighboring homes would increase. She suggested that only one or two homes should be allowed on Tax Lot 1300, She stated that the property was too fragile to accommodate three homes. 40 Ce rdpn_flabt' stated that he was a biologist and his observation was that the gravel bed of the stream had been reduced from 70%of the stream bed to approximately 20%of the stream bed. He s'iiggested that the reduction had occurred as a result of silting up, the silting up as a result of erosion, and the erosion as a result of development. He stated that the development of the lot would adversely affect the environment downstream at Iron.Mt. Creek and Tryon Creek. jinus4,c go 97034 suggested that all of the homesits developed along the Future Streets Plan would use the Country Club Road exit rath.ir than the Atwater Road exit when going south. He stated that the proposed road wo ►ld pass ten feet from his bedroom window. He felt that the proposed development would decrease the value of his home. He suggested that the Future Streets Plan just disguised the developer's intention to exit onto Knaus Road. I i DuCJos,0141,311.1inausiloadaak' Ct,; g ? ! noted that Exhibit 5 showed the structure on Lot 1400 as being a church and she clarified that it was her house. She noted that the proposed road was 15 feet from her deck with no buffering. She stated that there was already too much noise from Country Club Road and the proposal would make things even worse, Jo.0 Duct asugazia4 testifying individually , responded to an earlier comment that he had known about the proposed three lot subdivision. He clarified that he was not aware of such a proposal at the time he 411 purchased his home. He stated that the proposed buffer on the west side of the driveway was inadequate and wasn't moved at all near his house. He felt that the she 6/3/91 DRE Minutes Vogt.. 8 of 14 I would only be appropriate for one,or maybe two'homes. Re suggested that if the 0 Board did decide to approve the application,'that the road be moved farther away from the propertycline to iteeetu in late a buffer strip and he submitted a map depicting his) suggestion. He requested gnat the changes bein made by the Planning Commission to increase building setbacks and reduce building height be applied to the-subdivision if approved. He cited WC 48.525 and noted that the front yard for homes located on flag lots needed to abut the flag which would require la greater front yard setback than indicated on Exhibit 3. He expressed concern,with large homes being built in the subdivision and dwarfing his smaller home,and he noted that it went against the , Comprehensive Plan which called for the preservation of neighborhood character. He expressed concern with the impact that the removal of the trees would have on the neighborhood. He concurred with Mr.Abel's testimony regarding drainage. He disagreed with the proposed use of the private driveway to Tax Lot 1100 for the subdivision and he emphasized that the driveway should not be a dedicated future street.' 0_97034 suggested that designating the Future Streets Plan on her property would be an encumbrance that would=decrease her property value. She was concerned about the large number of significant trees that would be affected by the proposed development. limYALY04.9A,16,14.13110:Realls.14015.tg)aittlgo 97034 explained that the neighborhood was interested in purchasing the site for a park, She noted that the site contained a Distinctive Natural Area and a stream corridor which were required to be protected by the Comprehensive Plan. She noted that conditions 12, and hadn'15 18 t been adequately addressed by the applicants. She expressed concern with inadequate Alk emergency vehicle access to the subdivision, Illy Rebuttals Greg iatttnway requested that the mcord be left open for seven days in order to adequately address all of the issues brought up during public testimony; He relinquished the floor to Bruce Goldson to respond to the technical issues. 1)lruce Goldswi noted that the building envelopes depicted in Exhibit 3 were simply the maximum sized envelopes allowed under the present setback requirements and the Code only allowed 30% lot coverage by structures, He also noted that the building envelopes took into account the significant trees. Be referred to comments made during testimony by the geologist and stated that his calculations were correct, with the exception of one figure Which he then corrected, He. stated that the proposed drainage system would collect all the water from inpermeable surfaces. He noted that code allowed the front yard of flag lots to either face the street or face the flag. Mr.Bloomer referred to condition 15 and he asked if they anticipated collecting and conveying all spring water through the storm drainage line. Mr.Gokison explained that they had determined one possible cause for the spring was a failed drain system, but their drain system would collect that type of water, lvlr,Goidson emphasized that the Future Streets Plan did not and was not intended to access Knaus Road. He pointed out that the Fire Marshal recommended that the access to Country Club Road be retained for emergency use only, 4111) s.' 6/3/91 DRI1 Minetes Page9ofi.4 ' 0 0 '' Mr.Hathaway stated that theywould be willing to consider the proposal suggested by Mr.DuClos to move the subdivision back farther from the west boundaryto provide a iiiwider buffer zone. He remarked that they had rotained an environment specialist who G, inventoried the site and was available to answer any questions retarding the natural resources,on the site, He cited ORS 197.763 and requested'that they be allowed to keep the record open for seven days in order to respond to the issues raised. � Vice—Chairman Stanaway inquired if they had met with the neighbors to address their concerns. Mr.Goldson responded that he had met with the neighbors on at least two �� occasions and requested their comments and suggestions. Vice—Chairman Stanawayasked for a response to the concerns regarding the <` environmental effect of runoff on Iron Mt. Creek. Mr,Goidson discussed the storm drainage system and stated that the system wouldcollect storm drainage,surface water, o ground water and roof drainage. He further explained that the system would enhance the ground water conditions to the east of the site and reduce the velocity of discharge into the creek, Ms. Remy in uired about the trees in the vicinity of the proposed storm drainage system. Mr, oldson stated that they would be working with an arborist in order to help prevent root disruption and to preserve as many of the large trees as possible. He explained that when they finalize their constr�+:,+,fin plans, they would be able to better determine the route of the drainage system. . ..i ` Mr,Hathaway noted that the hearing would have to be continued in order to honor their request to leave the record open for seven days and he expressed a desire to feet with representatives of the neighborhood association to attempt to accommodate some of ill) their requests. Ms.Phillips explained that the Board could continue the hearing if they found that new ii evidence had been submitted, She noted that the Board also had the option to continue % the hearing in order to take rebuttal evidence only. Seeing no further testimony, Vice-Chairman Stanaway closed the public hearing for Board deliberation. Deliberation f, Mr. Starr pointed out that the access from the site onto Country Club Road would need to be retained since the Fire Marshal wanted it for emergency access, Ms. Remy inquired if the site would have been granted access from Country Club Road if there was only one home on the lot, Mr. Galante responded that if there was okily ono homesite and the lot only fronted Country Club Road,then they would have been allowed one driveway access, Ms. Remy expressed concern with the concept of the Future Streets Plan. Mr. Bloomer suggested that more rebuttal was needed to address the issues of lot coverage, phosphorus removal,erosion control mcasurel, front property lines and the Future Streets Plan. He agreed that it would be a good Idea for the applicant to meet with the neighborhood and resolve some of the issues, Vice—Chairman Stanaway inquired if anyone had reviewed the calculations given in 410 Exhibit 7, Mr,Wheeler responded that Andy Harris who was an Engineering Technician on staff,reviewed the calculations and found them to be accurate, 6/3/91 DRB Minutes Page 10 of 14. ,, Vice-- hairrottn Stanaway inquired if any of the new exhibits would cause staff to modify any of their con dons. Mr.Wheeler responded that the one condition that the Board should carefully review was condition 15 regarding the extent that the storm drainage line should be installed along the easterly boundary, r. Ms.Retry suggested that because of the discrepancies in the testimony bete en the applicants and the opponents, that it would be real helpful to continue the hearing in order to receive staff comments on those issues. She suggested that staff needed to address the accuracy of Exhibit 7 and the Fire Department needed to provide clear direction Ott whether the Future Streets Plan was acceptable. Mr.Bloomer questioned the lack of a condition of approval for erosion control measures and requested that staff address that issue. Vice-Chairman Stanaway requested that Staff address the criteria which were used to develop the Future Streets Plan, Vice—Chairman Stanaway noted that the applicant had offered to meet with the neighborhood association and he asked if any concessions were made during that. meeting by the applicant,whether those changes could be incorporated into the record. Ms.Phillips responded that the applicant and neighborhood ttssocitntion could jointly request that the Board reopen the hearing to incorporate their changes into the record. Ms. Remy moved for the continuance of SD ft-91 to a date certain of July 1, 1991 to give the applicants and homeowners the opportunity to meet and work out concessions on the issues as well as to receive 1)a response from City staff regaafding the phosphorous removal calculations and 2)a formal response from the 10Fire Department specifically regarding access to Country,Club Road and the access through the northerly portion of the site to Atwater Road. Mr.Bloomer seconded the motion and it carried with Mr.Stanaway,Ms;Remy,Mr.Starr and Mr. Bloomer voting yes. �-.--r---- -r--...---/--r--n+—r---.-r----*P--*--_M..i.------t+- -r M- -wM—a,-.Yaw*n — VD 3--91,a',request by OTAK,f nc. for approval of 6—lot single family residential planned development(Casebeer Heights). The site is located at 4118 S.W. Glacier Lily Street (Tax Lots 11900& 11901 of Tax Map 2 iB SCA). Vice—Chairman Stanaway described the hearing procedure and he then inquired if Any Board members had any ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest and there was none. He requested an abbreviated report from staff. I Hamill Pishvaie distributed copies of three new exhibits which had been received after the staff report was published. He addressed the concerns in Exhibit 21,a letter from the}lolly Orchard Neighborhood Association. One concern of the association was that not enough open space had been set aside in the original Grenelefe Subdivision and they would like a 10,000 square foot area slit aside in the present application. Mr. Pishvt►ie noted that their request had no bearing on the present application. Mr.Pishtvaie addressed another concern of the association regarding a pathway. He suggested that if the Board felt it was necessary to require a pathway that the pathway be constructed along with street improvements.in the project. He stated that the association's third concern was the issue of sidewalks along the cttldesac. Mr.Pishvt►e 41) pointed out that the sidewalk concern was addressed in the staff report. 6/3/91 D1113 Minutes 0 Page 11 of 14 p� C � { Mr. Pisltvaie noted that the proposal ro osal relied heavily upon the Pfeifer Farm subdivision, , Be0 referred the Board to Exhibit 10. Mr.Pishvaie recommended that the proposal net actually proceed until the improvements of the Pfeifer Paint subdivision were installed and accepted by the City, Mr,Pishvaie stated that he would recommend approval with conditions, ul , iblv i ' stated that he was in agreement with the staffrepert and't coranmended conditions, with the exception of Condition#3, Mr,Bantz told the Board that two tracts made mote sense than the single tract, He explained that the open space was''divided into two trouts because,,the' Casebeer house was still located on the property in Tract`Z, Mr,Bentz stared that the applicant and the neighbors did not want a huge open space tract that would be used for recreational uses. He explained that Tract A would possiblybe fora communitygarden and Tract B would possibly be for'passive recreation area, Mr, Bentz pointed t that each lot abutted,one or the other open space tracts. He stated that if the open space tracts were relocated sa that they would be contiguous then asolar lot would be lost t and Lot 2 would become undesirable to build on, Mrr. Bentz stated that the immediate neighbors did not want a pathway through the site. He discussed a variety of other pedestrian accesses in the neighborhood, keimetiterite Terry Casebeer explained that a lot of thought went into the design of the open space tracts. He stated that the site was small and that there were inherent conditions such as 411 the existing house and mature apple trees, Mr, Casobeer pointed out that the neighborhood meetings had resulted in favorable comments about the design of the ir` proposal. rieliberntiotx Based upon testimony from the applicant, the Board found that the proposed design of the open space tracts was acceptable since it would allow each lot to abut open space land, The Board found that consolidation of these tracts will result in shallower lots and failure to comply with the Solar Access Ordinance; therefore, not appropriate. The Board also agreed with the applicant that the proposed layout will encourage passive use of the open space tracts, The Board found that there was no need for a pathway between Glacier Lily and Casebeer Court, since existing sidewalks along Glacier Lily and Orchard`lay provide adequate pedestrian access in the neighborhood, t The zone requirements for PD 3-91 are the 11,-1O standards described in LOC 4 205- 48.225. The Board found that the exceptions requested and approved were the reduction in the lot size standard affecting Lots 1-3 and 6(to a minimum of 8,752 sq. ft.),and reduction in the lot width at building line standard affecting Lots 2 and 3(to a minimum of 57 ft.), The Board found that the applicant`,$request for a 5 ft reduction.itt side yard setback for Lots 2 and 3 was unaccc ptable because it would result in building envelopes which would be out of character with the established development pattern in the ° neighborhood. 6/3/91 7RB lvlinutcs' Page.1 of 14 Mr.Bla Omer moved for approval of PD -9�,. i tr.Starr seconded the motion and' it a passed{with Mr.Stanaway,Mr.Starr and Mr.Bloomer all voting yes. Ms.Reiny voted no, r, .r�rt w«»wr«�..r..y ar r...�:,.,.R ww+r...-.r+,...,i"bs+..r�.:..�..r h.:r...u..s+.w....,. ... ....�.:.s.w«.r.4)+.n ..+a ,r w«.w.w..d 4.4.1.0.1 4..r C,t k VAR 6-91,a request by Birtcher Frank Properties,for approval to erect signs of 110 sq.`ft.,4S sq. ft.and 42 sq.ft.on a Cirili'a Restaurant. The signs vary from the Code requirements of the Sign Code t47.1104(3)]. The site is located adjacent to Kruse` Vay,Kruse Oaks Boulevard and Centerpointe Drive at the northwest Intersection of Kruse Way and Kruse Oaks'Blvd..(Tax Lot 1100 of Tax Map 1E 6). Stall coordinator is Robert Galante] nior"Planier Mr. Galante explained that the site had recently been npprovedb the Board; however, y the signs proposed at the time were nonconforming to the-Sign Code, He explained that the applicants redesigned the signs and were now back with a request for a variance to the Sign Code, Mr.Galante explained the criteria for a variance to the Sign Code and the proposal. He discussed the types of signs,size,materials and lighting. He concluded by saying that staff recommended approval with conditio..,s, Applicant Ken Lewis,Birtcher Frank Properties stated that he agreed with the staff report and the recommended condition. He explained the location of the restaurant,the onentation to 1-5 and Kruse Way and the need for the size o^the signs and the dependability of drive—by traffic. ' Deliberation The Board found tl:at they sign on the building entry facing Kruse Way should be reduced in size to conform to Code and that staff should work with the applicant to insure that the design was complementary to the structure. The Board found that the applicant demonstrated the need to advertise the business towards 1--5 and that the larger sign sizes were necessary for signs "A"and"C". Ms. Remy moved for approval of VAR 6-91 Mr.Starr seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Stanaway,Ms. Remy,Mr.Starr and Mr, Bloomer all voting yes. VI. GENERAL PLANNING None VII. OTHER BUSINESS—Findings,Conclusions and Order None 6/3/91 DRB Minutes Page 13 of 14 } i G rt it VIIIC. ADJOURNMENT r.. There being no further business before the Development Review Board,Chairman. Remy adjourned the meeting at 12:35 a.m. Respectfully Submitted, Kathy Avery Senior Secretary Ask Vir 6/3/91 DRR Minutes Page 14 of 14 c n o t a 0 0 ci Cr) II a I ki