Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 1992-03-30 t erLAKE' OSWEGO J L N.1'`W ING EP' . aC ILES DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MI UTES i air .00 17, • • • Y\_ ti CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOA '.D MINUTES - „ „ MARCH 30,1992 '' [11 11) 1 + Ii �, CALF T4 ORDER _ i h , . I. ...� � ,., ,. The Development Review Board meeting of March 3 ,1992 was called to order by Chairman Foster at 7:30 p.m. IL ROLL CALL, Board members present were Mr.Sievert,Mr. Stanav,ay,Mr, Foster,Ms. Remy and Mr. Bloomer. Mr.Greaves was excused. Also present were Tom Coffee,Planning Director; Robert Galante,Senior Planner;Hamid Pishliaie,:Devclopment'Review Planner, Frank Charbonneau,Consulting City Traffic Engineer;Jeffrey Condit,City Attorney and Barbara Anderson,Senior Secretary, III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES `' IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS t equest for Reconsideration—SD 25-79(Mod. 6-90)/1HR 15-90 II Mr. Galante explained that there were two letters from Hilary Mackenzie. The first letter was a request for reconsideration, He discussed the pmcvious hearing on the matter,explaining that the Board found that the design was not compatible with the historic structure adjacent to the site. Mr.Galante noted that the applicant was asking the Board to reconsider that decision before the findings were signed. He further noted that the applicant had also submitted a new application that was substantially different, Mr, Galante recommended that'the Board sign the final order and not allow the reconsideration. He mentioned that the new hearing had been scheduled for April 6, 1992 and that proper notice had been given to the neighbors. ,,.1, Mr:Galante discussed the second letter, stating that the letter had been written; ,len,the findings were in rough draft form. He stated that many of Ms.Mackenzie's concerns had been addressed in the final draft findings. r The Board agreed not to make a motion on the requ .st for reconsideration. Mr.Galante noted that by signing the written Order the Board would preclude the applicant from the option of reconsideration. V. PUBLIC HEARING DIR 15-5)1v ')(..2t, a request by GSL Properties,Inc. for approval to develop a 360— unit multifamily apartment complex. The site is located north of Kruse Way,south of Paurkvierj Drive,east of Westlake Meadows Apartments,and west of the proposed , Baptistti Church (Tax Lot 1( of Tax Map 21E 6). Staff coordinator is,ftamld Pishvyh,, Chairman Foster discussed the hearing procedure and timelines for testimony. He asked 410 the Board members if there were any ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Ms. Reny stated that she had worked indirectly with GSL in the past. She mentioned for the record that her past experience with GSL would not affect her abilit.,,to hear the DRR Minutes 03/30/92 Page g 1 , �tiar matter, Chairman Foster also noted he had worked on a project With GSL several years f filoago. He too stated that he would not be biased, Mrs Stanaway declared that he had worked with one of the consultants for GSL in the past;however,he would not be influenced on this matter. Chairman Foster then as ed for the staff presentation. 1i Mr. Pishvaie noted a correction to the agenda description of the rrposal. He stated that ;i p there were 352 units proposed,not 360. He stated that the Board should have the January 10, 1992 staff report, the February 7 and February 27, 1992 staff memorandum, on the project, Mr.Pishvaie mentioned that the January 10, 1992 staff report was ``�' prepared based on a different set of plans. He explained that because the Planning Commission had denied the variance request for access onto Kruse Way the hearing before the Development Review Board was delayed and the applicant had to redesign the site plan to eliminate the proposed ICruse Way access. E Mr.Pishvaie discussed the revised proposal regarding mning and the previous Westlake ', PUD master plan, as detailed in Exhibit 3. He gave a brief history on the site concerning a previous approval for a 360 unit apartment complex. Mr. Pishvaie noted that decision was appealed to the City Council and remanded to the Board, He noted that the remand never occurred because the application was withdrawn. Mr.Pishvaio stated that during this time there was a decision from,LUBA regarding traffic. Mr.Pishvaie stated that there were several issues that were going to be rain ed by the opponents regarding the wetlands,traffic,open'space,etc. He mentioned a stream corridor on the site, stating that the applicant was proposing to realign the stream further to the west and make several improvements to the area. Mr.Pishvaie explained that these improvements included mitigation to the wetlands and storm drainage improvements. He pointed out that both of these were allowed under the standard. Mr. Pishvaie noted that the site contained.32 acres of wetlands and the,proposal would impact.24 acres. He stated that with the proposed mitigation the wetland would be410 improved to .34 acres. He noted that two wetlands which were shown to be impacted in the previous submittal will no longer be impacted by the revised site plan. Mr.Pishvaie '' ' referred the Board to Exhibits 21 through 24 to the review the landscape theme. Mr,Pishvaie discussed the park and open space issue noting that 40 acres were al.+�eady provided as required in the estlake master plan. He stated that there Were five remaining'acres of open space to be distributed between three sites [multifamily,phase I. multifamily phase III(subject site); and single family,phase II). `'le stated that the applicant had proposed the wetland mitigation area to meet the operespace , requirem ,� ents. Mr.Pietvaie mentioned the recent LUBA case(Hoffman decision):regarding traffic, He stated that the traffic requirements had been addressed as part of the original PHIS approval in 1981. Mr.Pishvaie pointed out that it was the City's decision to recognize the LUBA.case and not require,any further traffic information; however,the applicant had submitted three additional traffic zeports addressing the project with access onto Kruse Way and without access onto Kruse Way. Mr.;Pishvaie summarized the findings of these traffic analysis,stating that the adjacent streets and intersections will function adequately with the project. He noted that the analysis identified two improvements that would be necessary to accommodate the year 2000 traffic. Mr.Pishvaie pointed out that those improvements are not necessary at this time to make the project work; thereforle, a condition of approval requiring a nanremonstrance agreement was recommended. 410 Mr.Pishvaie referred the Board to the February 7, 1992 staff memorandum which contained the revised recommended conditions of approval. He noted that them was a ORB Minutes 03/30/92 Page 2 of 8 '' I °z ' 7r 0 0 n correction to Conditions A.2,and A.9. Condition A.2.should mad: "The applicant shall submit a final drainage plan for review and approval of City,an near(pcac City. standards). The plan shall show an adequate access to the proposed dry►filter pond NW Aiiii „ forbay." Cotindition A.9. should read: "The applicant sign a nonrem,onstrrancc y Ap 8 agreement to allow the formation of a local improvement district(LID)for future street improvements at theu'intersections of Kruse Way and,Carman►Drive,and ICruse Way and Westlake Drive(per Exhibits 36 and 52). IIe concluded that the proposal could be „ approved with conditions, Applicant ,David Bel,Vice--President,GSL Propertihs,Jnc., ,164 S, J a 'lace Portland 9720$discussed the reputation of his firm in the region and previous awards received , for excellent design. He stated that he had been working with the neighborhood. however,traffic continued to be an issue for the neighborhood. Mr,Bell explained that as a result of the meetings with the neighborhood the proposal for access to Kruse Way was developed. He noted that he had worked closely with staff over the past several months and was in agreement with the staff report and revised recommended conditions,except Condition B.7. .Mr.Bell stated that he had a problem with creating a yy public pathway easement because it created legal implications beyond his control and increased the level of liability. He asked the Board to either eliminate the condition or asked the City to provide an indemnity against liability. NYnwza thr an,O'TAtK.m11c.. 1 stated that before any design of the project was proposed the applicant worked with the neighborhood to understand theirconcerns. He discussed OTAK's involvement and history throughout the development of Westlake. Mr.()thrum mentioned that the 411 proposal mitigates the concerns relating to the wetland, He stated that even though the applicant was aware of the LUBA ruling on traffic, the applicant went to the time.rind expense of preparing traffic analysis to help solve some of the traffic issues. Mr. Othman pointed out that the neighborhood also had concern about design issues and that those concerns were incorporated into the design of the projects Ralph TnhranOTAK discussed the result of the four neighborhood meetings, He explained the design f differences and similarities between the Dominion project and the(ESLl project. Mr.; i Tehran stated that the density was reduced, the buildings lowered to two levels'kpushed back from streets to increase the setbacks and created less impact or.the wetlands. He mentioned roof design,.massing and materials. Mr,Tehran discussed the pedestrian access for the residents and the public,stating that everything internally feed out to the public pathway which followed Parkview Drive. He mentioned that the landscape plan focused around privacy of patios and tree canopies between buildings. The-Board asked if there was any fencing for the project, Mr.Othman cx lained that there was no fencing proposed around the project; however,D SL(Divist t of State Lands)required fencing along the wetland area. ,, LL. ()PPonettLi r 97035 noted for the record that he appreciated working with the applicants; however,he was still concerned about traffic. He ex.ressed concern that the development would have an adverse impact on the neighborh,44# Mr. Barton talked 411 about the Planning Commission denial of the proposed access onto I(rusc Way. He discussed the previous approval,appeal and withdrawal of the Dominion project, Mr. DI II) iy lnutes 03/30/92 Pap 3 of 0 n n Barton submitted portions of the Council Findings,Conclusions and Order on the 0 Dominion project(Exhibit 61). He asked the Board to support the Council decision, require an independent City traffic analysis and to ignore the Hoffman decision. Mr. Barton stated that the traffic concerns related to safety and livability. n Beverlea Krarnlich, 14251 Camden Lane,Lake Oswego,9703S stated that the application under--xeepresented the existing traffic levels in the Westlake area. She discussed the Clackamas County Traffic Study which showed the traffic levels to be one level higher than the applicant, Ms,lKramlich was concerned that the application failed to evaluate traffic in a comprehensive way. She mentioned several other developments in the area that were already approved but not constructed that would add to the traffic impacts in the area. Mr. Karamlich submitted her written testimony, Exhibit 62,into the record. ;, Kevin Robertson,5044 Oreenaborough,Lake Oswego,97035,was concerned about traffic, He stated that the development would cause traffic to severely impact the neighborhood. He discussed other sites in the area that had a major impact on the traffic (i.e.,LDS Temple,Baptist Church, grade school,Westlake Park, neighborhood commercial site,etc.). Mr. Robertson commented on his disappointment relating to the Planning Commission denial of the access onto Kruse Way. He was also concerned about the design, stating that it was not in keeping with the single family architecture, which the entire Westlake area was made of. Erin Meadows,5261 Coventry Court,Lake Osrve o,97035 asked that the Hoffman C decision,the City's written briefs relating to the Hoffman case, traffic studies as noted in Ms.Kramlich's written testimony,DR 13-90 traffic study prepared by ATEP and the Lake Oswego Oregon Transportation Study prepared by Clackamas County all be (11) entered into the record. Mr. Condit noted that the Hoffman decision did not need to be entered into the record because it was a legal decision and official notice of the decision could be taken. He suggested that the record be held open for 7 days to accept the remaining documents requested by Ms. Meadors. l,C " Meadors addressed LOC 4h 105,Revocat.; �Ivts.� � ion of Approvals,as�it relates to the Hoffman'decision. She stated that this aspect of the Zoning Code was not brought before LUBA Ms,Meadors stated that at the'time of the original PUD approval,the Bunke Impact Traffic Study,misrepresented facts. She claimed that because of this misrepresentation of facts it was appropriate for the Development Review Board to exercise the opportunity provided under this Code section, Ms.Meadors discussed"Service Level D",as it relates to the Comp rehensive Plan. She indicated that throughout the Plan this was the standard. She noted that LOC 48,315 requires that assurance of the function of Kruse Way and the adjacent street system be within "Service Level D" at P.M.. peaks. Ms, Meadors mentioned specific Comprehensive Plan policies which require that the City assure adverse impact be mitigated,assure safe circulation and require the developer to pay for an equitable share of identifiable cost of public facilities required for or because of the development. Ms.Meadors submitted the Mt.Park traffic analysis into the record. She noted that Mt. Park was also a PUD' however,the methodology in the Mt. Park traffic analysis was a much more comprehensive analysis compared to the study provided by the applicant. 410 She reiterated the fact that the applicant's traffic analysis only examines existing traffic plus the traffic from the subject property. She stated that the applicant's traffic analysis continually fails to include additive trafic to get total site traffic, t1 DRB Minutes 03/30/92 ;, ; z Page 4 of g } 0 Ms.Meadors presented the Keeeh traffic analysis that was prepared for the Westlake neighborhood cominereial(DR 1S 90). She indicated the Analysis stated that the rt projected volumes of traffic welt verylow for the project and that the year 2000 traffic projections in the Kruse Way Corridorwill be exceededin the near future. Ms.Meadors stated that this traffic study found that Westlake Drive and Oise Way were currently at"Service Level ono She argued that the applicant's traffic analysis was in error claiming that these streets were currently at"Service Level C".. She questioned the accuracy of the entire Kittlesaa traffic annalys s, Ms.Meadors claimed the applicant's traffic consultant took traffic counts in August which was not an appropriate time to get true traffic volumes because of summer holidays and that school was not in session. Ms. Meadors discussed the Planning Commission denial of the prop sed Access onto Kruse Way. She stated that one of the reasons the Planning Comm sion dented the request was because it would cause a widening of Kruse Way. She concluded that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof regarding the adequacy of the roadways and capacity and the ability to stay within "Service Level D". Ms, Meadors was concerned about the design materials for roofing. She asked that a condition be Added to require a notnremnonstrance agreement as it relates to possible future improvements at Purkview/Westlake and Parkview/Carmi mrf Ms. Meadors stated that the Westlake Homeowners also had to deal with public pathways and they were not indemnified. She mentioned that the location of the,proposed publicpathway was inappropriate. She said that a room appropriate location would be adacent to the wetland area in order to open the use to the surrounding arree and encourage public transportation. 410 i &dan y A take 0A ego1 ,ii+;a, _ uttrrr +co 0� 97034 explained the Transportation Committee charge. She was concerned that development from Westlake had severely impacted the surrounding neighborhoods. Ms. Bodin stated that the Transportation Committee was concerned about adding additional access to Kruse Wey because every time another point of access is added to a "major"corridor you impact and slow,traffic along the corridor, She stated that the information suppied in the Bunko traffic analysis was not supported by today's records. ,;Ms. Bodin reiterated that there has never been a total traffic study of the area. Vet;both , itt t t727.p0V., agreed that the revocation language was in the Code; howeverr,it involves a procedure that is not before the Board, He noted that the revocation language and process was irrelevant to the Development Review Board proceeding, Mr. Ramis discussed the Hoffman case which states that there is no burden on the :w= applicant to reprove issues that were decided in the original OOPS, He reminded the. Board that all of the new evidence submitted on traffic cannot be used as a basis for the decision either for or against the project. He indicated that the purpose of the Hoffman 4-j 410 rule was to create certainty in proceedings. Mr.Ramis pointed out that LUi3A bed ruled that",,,,the ODPS shall be the sole basis for evaluation of all phases of the Wcstiake development on any issues that it addresses." He reminded the Board that the Council decision on the Dominion project came before the LUBA ruling on Hoffman. DRO Minutes 03/3002 Page S of c 0 o R 0 r Mr,Bamis explained that the proposedpublic easement was;,down the middle of the p project, He stated that it was not like other easements that are owned by homeowners associations who can accept liability. He claimed that this was a different circumstance and created problems for the owner, , ,,,9►703S stated that the Clackamas County traffic study supported the applicant's traffic evidence, He pointed out that the improvements recommended in the traffic study were also supported by the County traffic study,. He stated that these recommendations were standard and would not require the widening of Kruse Way, Mr.Othman stated that since the record was going to be left open they would like an opportunity to address the material submitted. He noted that a written response would be included in the record. ihard Discussion With Staff The Board asked the City Traffic Engineer to address some questions, Mr, Charbonneau discussed his involvement with the City. He stated that if he was going to prepare the traffic analysis for the City he probably would have come up with 98%of the same results as the applicant's consultant. Mr. Charbonneau stated that he had reviewed the Clackamas County traffic study; however,he did not find the data used to calculate the of level of service in the report. Because of this, he stated that he could not determine the level of accuracy for the i tersection in question. He stated that the applicant's traffic report� indicated a"Servid Level "C" and the County indicated a "Service Level D". He noted that either level was acceptable to the City. 410 The Board asked if there was a way to solve the traffic problems with this pro ect, Mr. Charbonneau:indicated that the project represented-a certain phase in long range development in Lake Oswego. He stated that the development itself was not going to c, anahavlysis identifiede p at as nd recommendedht thp improvements rove pointed and that staff htra is Y, problemsp a has ` conditioned approval for the recommended improvements., The Board questioned staff about an overall traffic,study. Mr, Charbonneau indicated that the City was close to an updated comprehensive traffic study, lie stated that the best way to go about an overall study Was to prepare individual traffii c impact studies it and work out the constraints that are determined within the fitudies, The Board asked staff about Condition 13.7.relating to the easement for a public pathway. Mr.'Pishvaie stated that the easement was necessary to assure ub!ic access p from Kruse Way to Parkview. He indicated that this was a standard condition, The Board questioned whether or not the pathway could be moved to the exterior of the project. Mr.Pishvaic noted that it was discussed with the applicant during preliminary design;however,it didn't seem feasible because of concerns by the Department of Fish and Wildlife about the wetland, The Board suggested that the applicant and staff review the location of the public pathway because it seemed to discourage public use. The Board questioned staff about the timing of the traffic counts, Mr. Charbonneau explained that there were no definite studies that show traffic counts in residential areas p as being lower or higher during a given period of time, He agreed that they may be higher during the swhool year; however,he could not give a percentage as to how much ill) higher the count would be(1,e. 5%, 10%,etc.). • ORB Minutes 03/39/92 Page dor8 The Board questioneditubStelnaliatitikiallie.entiimiutiteitt ,about the traffic solutions recommended. Mr.Seeman states.that them were two comprehensive traffic analysis donepon this area,the first was the Buttke 1980 study and the second was the ,. recent Clackamas County study. He indicated that both studies agree that with minor improvements at the Kruse Way/Westlake and Kruse Way/Cancan intersections those Intersection will operate in the long term future at"Service Level 1 ► , asked to comment on the time of year and useage of the roadway. She expressed concern that the traffic count i was not accurate because it was conducted during August. She stated,that usage of that area was a corridor for traffic to the freeway from Portland Community College. Ms, 1VMeadors argued that the applicant's consultant could not have been working with Clackamas County on the analysis because their traffic analysis starts forecasting with a different set of facts and results in a different level of service,, Kevin Robert Q stated that the traffic problem with the project was not related to the arterial,in Lead it was related to the access and traffic flow on ParkvieW, J) Iil erntiotl There being no further testimony,Chairman Poster asked for a motion to hold the record open for seven days for written testimony. ., Mr, Stattaway moved for continuance off'15-91/PD 6-91 to April 6,1992 for, ,additional written te.stittoard-tielWttatioth Ms.Remy seconded the motion and it passed with Mr,Sievert,Mr,Stanaway,Mr,Foster,Ms,Remy,and Mr. \\ Bloomer all voting yes. 411 VI. GENERAL PLANNING ' Voting on Chair and Vice-Chair for 1992 The Board members discussed chair and,vice hair, It was agreed to hold the voting on ' April 20, 1992p when„the new members would be present to participate. - -...-...--- r------............-------..-----a--a--..•-u....,.....r---- ` '0 Update on Council Work Session Tom Coffee,Planning Director, updated the Board on the Connell work session. lie explained that Council directed staff to set up a joint meeting with the Development Review Board,'Planning Commission andCounefl to discuss the possibility ofa "' hcarin4s officer. He indicated that the joint meeting would be held on May 5, 1992 beginning with dinner at 5:00 p.m. and the work session would start 5;30. -wk.....y 1.0.4-..r:-.4-+ 0-1.4wx,1..wrW..-a.-4.,..--a..-mF---wi-......h.**w^-w..--r•...*...6- Joint City Tour Mr,Coffee stated that the joint tour between the 13oa i,Planning Conlntfssfon and Council was scheduled for the following week. The tour was scheduled for Tuesday 410 May 12, 1992 from 4:30 to 6:30, He noted that a box dinner Would be included with the tour. DRif Minutes 01/30/92 Pagt17 of S 0 VII. OTHER BUSINESS-»Findings,Conciwcions and Order 110 Ms.Remy moved for approv>i'l of - - , r1 : Findings,Conclusions and Order. Mr Sievert seconded the motion and It passed t, with Mr. Sievert,Mr, Stanaway,' Ms. Remy and Mr. )31c,,iil mer all voting yes. Mr.Foster ',- abstained, V11I. ADJOURNMENT ;� Them being no further business before the levelopmerit Review Board,Chairman Foster adjourned the meeting at 10 30 p.m. ;,K, Respectfully Submitted, , Barbara Anderson Senior Secretary li 41, .. 410 DIUJ Minutes 03/ 192 Page 8 of 8 0 1 p �{ CT & U v 0 r � 0 4 it tr 4' au o • if 12