Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - 1991-06-17
1W .t ., 3 AGENDA ''6` CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD ,r. h CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS,CITY HALL,380 'A' AVENUE j A "4 'f • Monday,June 17, 1991 r• 7;30 P.M. 9; : CALL TO ORDER .. � ROLL CALL tl� /; APPROVAL OF MINUTES ,,, ,.i. .., ' .'/ A , November 20, 1989 ° = November 28, 1989 (Second Vote w January 15, 1990 (Second Vote) , .,., PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS , PUBLIC HEARING DR 1-91YSD 7-91\VAR 10-9t, a request by Birtcher Frank Properties to develop a free standing, 9,000 sq. ft. retail\medical building on the south side of the shopping center parcel. Two new lots will be created for proposed development requiring a variance to the requirement that every lot have at , ,• :. °. least 25' of frontage along a public sweet. The she is located at the northwest corner of the intersection . r . of Monroe Parkway and Boones Ferry Road (Tax Lots 101 & 200 of Tax Map 2 1E 5AA), Staff •'e • coordinator is Robert Galante,Senior Planner. Continued from May0.�1991 for ftitther Board 4 sonsicluatjs r b 1 ;•: ' : GENERAL PLANNING �' , ,`,. tl '� SD 38-90/VAR 22-90, Wanda J. Wimmer; Request to Rescind " + OTI-IER BUSINESS —Findings, Conclusions and Order ,; SD 6-91\VAR 9-91 — Dimension Homes, Inc. 4..,, , S1 9-91\SD 10-91\SD 11-91\VAR 11-91(;;a—c)\HR 4--91 — Kenneth Guenther PD 3-91—OTAIC, Inc. 4 VAR 6-91— Birtcher Frank Properties1. .. „,, ( VI ADJOURNMEN i •''7,► The Lake Oswego Development Review Board welcomes your interest t these agenda items. Feel free to .' �� -.: and go as you please. a.t ,. . . 0 tl py I. r 1 yr. "-IY U• ! IL it ff• , :+r R4iaer't H.Foster,Chair Tom Coffee,Planning Director � Sltazi Stanaway,Vice-Chair Robert Galante,Senior Planner J,ui s A.Bloomer Hamid Pishvaie,Dev.Review Planner 'L:itert D.Greaves Catherine Clark,Associate Planner imager Renry Jane Heisler,Associate Planner l:G 'N.Starr Michael R.Wheeler,Associate Planner �i:rman J.Sievert Barbara Smolak,Associate Planner Cindy Phillips,Deputy City Attorney .`b f '� Barbara Anderson, DRB Secretary 1 � r Kathy Avery,PC Secretary • } • i ,lHh Yy Y, a: Y d; t 6t ' Y' Y[ +. _ I ,. .. y :`�`f 1,rr 1l , 1J, if I 4l�: _ 1 4 •A «Illi. Oc S O M. • "4 , F '. OREGON • • ;, DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT o MEMORANDUM �' T_ TO: Development Review Board Members ,Sy FROM: Robert Galante, Senior Planner ,1 ` SUBJECT: DR 1-91 Additional Exhibits from the Previous Record of DR 25-79 and DR 1-83 on Oswego Towne Square DATE: June 7, 1991 .,4', 4 I have enclosed the pertinent portions of the records for DR 25-79 and DR 1-83 as requested by the Board at the May 20, 1991 public hearing. The following exhibits are hereby incorporated into the record for DR 1-91/SD 7-91/VAR 10-91 by reference of this memorandum: 'r Exhibit 33 DR 25-79 Design Review Board Staff Report, dated September 27, ` 4 1979, 4pp, Exhibit 34 DR 25-79 Design Review Board Minutes, dated October 3, 1979, 3pp, Exhibit 35 DR 25-79 Design Review Board Staff Report, dated April 9, 1982, lOpp. Exhibit 36 DR 25-79 Memorandum in Opposition, lOpp. Exhibit 37 DR 25-79 Design Review Board Findings, Conclusions and Order, :+ dated June 24, 1982, 36pp. Exhibit 38 DR 25-79 City Council Staff Report, dated August 9, 1982, 1 1pp. Exhibit 39 DR 1-83 Previous Submittal Comparison, 2pp. Exhibit 40 DR 1-83 Development Review Board Staff Repon, dated March 1, 1983, llpp, ,'l ` Exhibit 41 DR 1-83 Development Review Board, Findings, Conclusions and Order, dated April 5, 1983, 39pp. Exhibit 42 DR 1-83 Development Review Board Minutes,dated March 16, 1983, •% ,. • 7PP, Exhibit 43 DR 1-83 City Council Staff Report, dated May 9, 1983, 12pp, Exhibit 44 DR 1-83 City Council Findings, Conclusions and Order, dated June 8, 1983, 21pp, Exhibit 45 DR 1-83 City Council Minutes, dated May 17, 1983, 4pp, • Exhibit 46 DR 1-83 City Council Minutes, dated May 24, 1983, 7pp. Exhibit 47 DR 1-83 (Remand) Development Review Board Findings, Conclusions ' S and Order, dated January 17, 1984, 8pp. at 4 Exhibit 48 DR 1-83 Development Review Board Minutes, dated January 4, 1984, 8PP• 380"Arr Avenue • Post Office Box 369 • Lake Owego,Oregon 97034 t � " Planning Division.(503)635.0290 • building Division:(503)635-0390 • FAX(503)635.0269 • Ar U•. 1'• J ot Exhibit 49 DR 1-83 (Appeal of Remand Decision) City Council Staff Report, • dated February 7, 1984, 12pp. • Exhibit 50 DR 1-83-97 City Council Findi'gs, Conclusions & Order, dated February 21, 1984, 8pp. r • Exhibit 51 DR 1-83 City Council Minutes, dated February 14, 1984,9po. Exhibit 52 DR 1-83(Mod. 1-88) Development Review Board Staff Report, dated July 15, 1988, 8pp. 1 `' Exhibit 53 DR 1-83(Mod, 1-88)-589 Development Review Bard Findings, • ( Conclusions and Order, dated August 1, 1988, Tipp, Exhibit :'i4 DR 1-83(Mod. 1-88)Development Review Board Minutes, dated July 27, 1988, 6pp, Exhibit 55 DR 1-91/SD 7-91/VAR 10-91 Applicant's Updated Traffic Analysis, 5PP, Also note that an updated traffic analysis, Exhibit 55, has been prepared by the applicant's traffic consultant. Howeve7, due to time constraints the City Engineer has not yet reviewed this information. �,. /ba 1110B)<Caira>DR9+Monti DR1-91.6-7-91 00040,1111 a k'' y • *; • • ,• . • • , Y 1 . STAFF REPORT ' 440 . ,. or September 27, 1979 { DR FILE DR 25-79 a ,LPpLICANT James M. Manley _;CATION Northwest corner of Boones Ferry/Monroe Parkway intersection. ,ESAL DESCRIPTION Block 10-31 , Block 5 #5, Block 1 #10, Mountain Park. L=^LICANT' S REQUEST A request for preliminary design review approval .c allow construction of a 163,000 sq. ft. neighborhood commercial complex_•- 13 acres at the northwest corner of Boones Ferry Road and Monroe Parkway- .Mountain Park P.U.D. , . El 'STINT: CONDITIONS 1, -^e site slopes downward toward the east (and Boones Ferry Road) dropping sore 50 feet in approximately 1000 feet which is a 5% slope. The lower portion of the site, along Boones Ferry, is a wetlands and is designated as a Distinctive Natural Area in the Comprehensive Plan. Cher natural features of note are a double row of Lombardy poplars a carpet of horsetail grass in the wetlands and a large old oak upsinnd ' :-e southwest corner of the property. • ^terestingly, the rushlike horsetail grass the Carboniferous or Paleozoic period (equisetum)xibit is a survivor (see Exhibit "H" of applicant 's :-coosal for natural features) , u ch of the site' s soils are extremely disturbed, having been the recipient c= thousands of yards of fill of varying qualities, Original soils are •' Cascade and Delena associations , both of which are ver s ' ' t loans, Y poorly drained *: d,'acent land uses include condominiums to the west , a commercial area to .-esouth, lower density single-family residences to the northwest and east , a-c undeveloped land just north, The property is partially in Clackamas c nostly in Multnomah County, A '. '-. - Cor,prehehslve Nan addresses the development of the site, specifically r'' :vidinc conditions and directions : { ' /-is+ Monroe/Boones Ferry Site ` . The 13 acre site is designated for retail and office commercial uses, The overall building area on the site is not to exceed 163,000 sq. ft, • The site developmentplan appro �d as p pp part of the PUD should be revised to permit commercial uses which would be appropriate for present needs for tyres of commercial uses. � a1�e1 • ''° 4.J • ref A a ' Staff Report DR 25-79 -2- September 27, 1979 1] Pedestrian access should be provided. : ;, b 1\i a> { 3. Development will pay a pro-rated share of the cost of improvements ..1 to Boones Ferry Road, and providing traffic signalization which may be required because of traffic generated from the site, r 4. On-site drainage retention may be required, as feasible Springbrook Creek. to protect All utilities are available to the site, however, Boones Ferr undoubtedly require some improvement - wideningand Y Road will ,,?~ the details of which will be worked out with the TrafficaEn I0'r'r4ndlization - erl "'ETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL "" The major part of 163,000 square foot complex will consist of 14 rnodu°es `M tied together by a system of pedestrian passages , gardens , plrros and t ;. decks, which are covered by a glass "space frame" or uni-structure to ,` protect customers from rain, but cut out over garden areas, providing natural moisture to plant areas. Plans for the bank and restaurant to e located at southeast "1 r� time. The major complex sunder nreview proatr this ty, atimeocontainsed 3t t5 u+; square feet of retail space and 46,950A,, 1sp,ce,, square feet of of, ice space Me major complex is to set into the slope, with the offices oriented .+" toward the upper parking and adjacent to residential and °.,, s orienting toward lower, east parking. retail uses - e proposed site plan includes preservation wetlands) , proposing to utilize this natural oretentiyontarea �ve tb seta:eak runoff increases generated by development. Capacity is also pin aailable to retain some peak increase generated by adjacent areas, and the applicant is willing to accommodate this volume,whicn c;,,i , sc-,e of the existing downstream rune. f help problems. a r _ • ^e plan also integrates the double row of poplars into tr.:,t ' lizing this feature to enhance the site' sdevelopment, c .te. Likewise , the old oak tree w 11 be pedestrian circulation 0, , ''' preserved within a 40-foot ,,. 4d..,are planting area, �5 parking spaces are proposed. The upper y1 tt L•Rnd, of trees running parallel alongrthe rterrraceeslopeso be terrace nw :-oviding aesthetic as well a. functional enhancement e `ade the asphalt in the summer to keep te.nperatures pleasanttonthisll s est side, �..adscaping ' e theme of the landscaping is the poplars and the marsh gives the 2. 'andscaping a setting or focus. *s`a.entioned, the mature poplars will remain , framing a long boulevard- `i promenade, New poplars will be used to dignify -oughout the site. Other plant material lncludesapprofusian ways profusion of oaks /`. 4 r ' ••� ' S 4 i i . . Staff Report DR 2 5-79 -3- September 27, 1979 { and maples on the south and west , which will provide allow light and warmth into the building in the winter hmonths. �uThick er and groves of native willow will continue to nestle around the marsh area - Douglas fir stands will buffer the north. Native shrubs will be used ornamentally in and around the mall area itself. All the parking areas are abundantlyr J a• `. will be taken off Boones Ferry over apbridge spanningt'the marsh uand accesslar fff Monroe Parkway. off ` . STAFF EVALUATION r i Code Compliance proposal meets City zoning code requirements, Comprehensive Plan .. The proposal is in compliance with conditions and development directions imposed by Comprehensive Plan policies , including those policies which address this specific site. The Distinctive Area and other notable natural features are preserved; the square footage and 9 proposed us are ,, 'n keeping with Plan policies, s, � The applicant agrees to participate in , ate cost of improvements needed ' on Boones Ferry, generated by this development, C'esion r The proposal relates very well to the site; it sets into and moves down ti\ the hill gracefully, and its elevations reflect the conditions of their -ientation. The south is open and lets in lots of sun , even though "" this is not a principal facade. The north and west have few exposed areas , reflecting the extreme conditions found in these orientations , '"tee east, which is the primary facade and has a view overlooking the Mural area, is very open and inviting, The proposal meets all the requirements for preliminary design review acaroval , ECOMMENDATION Preliminary approval , with the following conditions : Applicant 0 l l pa y y pro-rated share of improvements required at Boones Ferry intersection, Retain peak runoff generated from off-site, where City Engineer deems appropriate, and to extent capacity is available in applicant's retention area, `*. xHIBITS 1110 - - Tax Map - Site and Landscape Plan p r , , r Staff Report DR 25-79 -4- m N ` September 27, 1979 r : EXHIBITS (continued) "+fin - Level 1 "D" - Level 2 "E" - Level 3 M "F" - Elevations • • 1.: . 1. f:P 1. 1 • , % ,,. ; s „ 11.4t f, .. '!ti . !. .. r • . !•" zi 11 ., . '4 1 1{:/ , tY• •yl >. . 1 1 ! L' _`2SIG,i REVIEW BOARD MEETING -3- October 3, 1979 1 1 f Design should be studied further to see if north facing side can be protected somewhat more and south facing side opened up more - perhaps a greenhouse off kitchen of unit 2. Grant variance to allow three stories. l T Fevised elevations , landscape plan showing driveway cut and gradual slope, :,, which would not require retaining wall , submitted. Kathryn expressed :oncern about how grading plan related to landscape plan and that erosion ,; -eating and appropriate ground cover would be necessary. , ,;chn Shepard, general contractor, explained proposal . From street will see project at an angle, will see corner of house only. Asking for ' A :-e' iminary and final design review approval . , T , " f':ard expressed concern that plans submitted were basically the same plans ` as those submitted at the preliminary hearing of July 18, 1979, and did not :ccress the concerns that were brought up at that meeting. Aesthetics should be addressed, how building works with the site. Grading and drainage :,t resolved. Horizontal siding suggested as way to reduce massive `4pearance. Applicant should look again at plans , try to respond In more czsitive manner to the site, including looking at possibilities for solar access. Height of structure a key problem. 7--elect was examined under LOC 50.880, preliminary design review submittal -e:,uirements, and was found to be in compliance. Discussior by Board —Members followed. tt I; -4hn Spencer moved to deny DR 20-79, Pam Eldred seconded the motion. *°:tion passed unanimously. It -dings of Fact Landscape plan still not satisfactory, needs to mesh with grading plan. More detailed consideration of drainage elevations to reflect grades, Building needs to be looked at as to mass and bulk, energy conservation, , � and efficiency. Building should conform more to site, terrain. Different materials could be used to bring down scale. . '. Variance for three stories could be eliminated depending on how building relates to site. :5-79 (NOV ArchitectsManley) - A request by James Manley for preliminary a. . :es+ gn review approval r,%' `allow construction of a 163,000 square foot ' e'ghborhood commercial c mc' x on 13 acres at the nortF..fest corner of ic+ones Ferry Road and Monroe Parkway (Mt. Park Lots 10-31 of Block 10; g E XlHila4'P _'ock 5, Mt. Park No. 5; Block I , Mt, Park No. 10) . I ',r,, , . v . 3t+1 : i EXHIBIT Dr41-ql e..i-c,:' (40 • _.__ . �,. . • r t { w` ' `:. ).' I l ‘I .. ,'" I +:. 3'... ,, •, a ',, 4 _ h . t' x I :=SIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING -4- October 3 , 1379 yj a• �aathryn Gray read the staff report and presented the exhibits. Staff ti . -ecommended preliminary approval , with the following conditions : ' . Applicant will pay pro-rated share of improvements required at v; " •'�� Boones Ferry intersection. Retain peak runoff generated from off-site, where City Engineer deems appropriate, and to extent capacity is available in • applicant' s retention area. 4 V' . Arbor i st on-site to see that natural features are preserved as `'- " much as possible. ey =^t Bonney expressed concern about traffic problems on Boones Ferry ::ad. Kathryn stated that Traffic Engineer had no objections to plans __ shown. Discussion of traffic generated, and possible road widening, ,." °,,e Vaivoda , HDV Architects, explained proposal . Bank and restaurant _t' ll in preliminary stages, will be related architecturally to rest of ,, c-ciect. Will ask for preliminary and final design review approval at _-e time for those structures. Discussed plan development and major =c-m determinants. Explained building design , will be mainly office and -etail use. Grading plan submitted based on initial grading plan for te, determining factor in how structure was designed. E...clained landscape plan. Landscaping will be mixture of evergreen and ceciduous trees with 6' strips of rhodies, azaleas, and flowering shrubs ,,•, - parking lots. Wetland area will be preserved. Building will have -- ,:ecar siding, or cedar shingles as an alternative. Concrete base to _-ctect structure near grade. Domes will be made of acrylic. Signs 1 he 3' wide sign band and will run across retail side of structure '. . location of project sign will be on Boones Ferry Road. ::eer Derr, 20 Condolea, concerned about lights , air conditioning units roofs, and privacy, would like low lights to light ground and not sky. • do we need this shopping center? Ned will explore use of low lights , said air conditioning units will not be on roof. Kathryn stated that :c-,prehensive Plan determined area to have a need for this type of facility. :a,e Newman, 82 Greenridge Ct. , concerned about school children walking ='cog Boones Ferry lid. to get to school , would like to see sidewalks put '{ - before structure is constructed. Alex stated that Boones Ferry Rd. is , , . ...- er County jurisdiction. -eral discussion of Boones Ferry Road and Monroe Parkway , narrowness, • -.ffl c, and possible signalization. "a-, i'rom the audience, 21 Condolea, felt deciduous trees would block off "„ s.-, leaves would blow in their yards. Ned stated he was willing to : :' ^eet with residents to try and resolve any difficulties. , / • • t,y, ♦4."i 4ESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING -5- October 3, 1979 x , : 1J rave Newman expressed concern about noise problem from cars parking in ' g oao of buildings. Ned felt landscaping would mitigate noise. . eff Kaufman, adjacent owner to the north, concerned about buffer. Asked '.'ow much buffer and what materials? Ned stated there would be a 20' fire � , .,,• 'ane, 10' to 15' plantings, for a 35' total buffer. Landscaping will be retailed at time of final hearing. Mr. Kaufman stated he wanted a substantial buffer to be maintained. rave Newman expressed concern about standing water which didn ' t show up + ' ;' � _� plans , but was likely to occur in the winter, Ned stated that plans ' x� ` ,ere based on 100-year flood calculations. t =n: Quigley, Orchard Hill Rd. , wanted sufficient plantings along north side , structure, wants continuous tree line blocking north side, ' -onv Engala, Orchard Hill Rd. , expressed concern about Boones rerry Road. :,'ex stated Boones Ferry Rd. belongs to both Clackamas and Multnomah County. there will be any improvements, it will be years from now, as it requires 'arge capital investment. Dave Newman felt center should not be built until , -gads are improved. Patrick Barrett asked if traffic study had been done. \ . 'red stated that traffic counts were from City, client will need to :articipate in improvements. Willing to encourage Counties to work on road i'.'den i ng, o ♦ ' t =atrick Barrett expressed thanks for receiving letter notifying him of � ' I :jblic hearing and would like future notices of hearings. s •' 'I ,+o:Pan from the audience asked if residential property across the street =wom this project would remain residential , Kathryn responded that it �.. would. =^ger Derr complimented Kathryn on her help in explaining project when -e came to City Hall . Lang Bates encouraged neighbors to work with Ned '; .. e'voda on project, felt it was a good opportunity for them to make their ,. =eelings known. .chn Spencer felt that addition,il stuay ",,as needed from Counties on __ones Ferry Road widening, traffic generation, and pedestrian s . ` '" -culation. Would like to see: analysis and reporting back to Board, p, -chn Spencer moved togrant �- approvaly p prpliminary to DR 25-79� City .;.r E^_ineer to do traffic analysis , and find out from County plans for _ ' cewalks and road widening, ,.andscapiny should be better resolved at : -+e of final hearing, consideration of evergreen trees in parking lot. :alicant should meet with neighborhood to resolve landscaping and ' hting. Lang Bates seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously, ,d '1 ' ii A.`4'. 11. .. 1 �• r ' " °'. •. sit + K" li 1. I t ill'; ,. 0 . ., . . r • •,. 7• e i. r• • 0 . d . ' 1•, . 6b r 'r • • • ,$ dr.. 1 e ,. ....• , r 1r 1 , . .. . . . • . . . 1. : . . . . . , ,:, , . . , r L. . STAFF REPORT April 9, 1982 i =LE DR 25-79 '., --: CANT Brugger Farms, Inc . ` ` ' "SON The Northwest corner (13 . 3 acres ) of Monroe Parkway and • • E_ : s Ferry Road . ;/ ___.2. DESCRIPTION Tax Lots 200 and 101 of Tax Map 21E SAA, Clackamas , _ - _- and Tax Lot 10 of Tax Maps 4226 and 4227 Multnomah County, .' , • I - - -:EORHooD ASSOCIATION Mountain Park -- 2_=C ANT S REQUEST Final approval to allow the constructiri5n of a ___ 155 square foot shopping center . , C - __=;IA AND STANDARDS 1'. 't(.� �... : -M . 300 to 49. 335 MAJOR DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES • 'PMENT STANDARDS (THOSE APPLICABLE) �a - _ . ng Design Fences _a-.as Drainage for Master Development - _ . Lights ►, Utilities . ":t Access ::rculation - Private Streets/Bikeways and Walkways " __ _ .:,3 Open Space/L' andscaping, Street Trees, Screening, Buffering .-/. - ENSIVE _ _._. PLAN: ~wal Land Use Policy Element pp. 63-68, VII Mountain Park • s _ _ real areas, VII-B. Monroe/Boones Ferry Site pp 78-79 . `_ �-:.:5 CONDITIONS AND HISTORY ' 7:n4 7:a,:ne Square at Mountain Park is within the Mountain Park PUD on T'reme eastern side of the development at the intersection of • *:::-..r:s Parkway and Boones Ferry Road. It contains 13 .3 acres • •'?-- ' --+v within the City of Lake Oswego but divided between Multnomah r• :_ackamas counties . The property is designated neighborhood " ,�,q' , ..__ clal Use . The site slopes 50 feet from West to east over a � � :. _s --ce of approximately 900 feet (slopes approximately 5% ) . Durin g ^e ::-struction of Mountain Park the site Was used as a depository ' =_:.1 ranging in depths upto 25 feet . • The fill is of poor ' 4111 .° . Original soils are of Cascade and Delena associations, both IBdT iB EXHIBIT �. '' � f • AIk' ' jl . 0 ---. 7 ,4. _ _ A=_ REPORT (DR 25-79 ) April 9, 1982 Page 2 . f w :ch are very poorly drained silt loams . - I` The lower portion of the site, along Boones Ferry, is a Wetlands and ,.r• _s designated as a Distinctive Natural Area in the Comprehensive _ _a:. Other natural features of note are a double row of LoieJardy _a_s and a carpet of horsetail grass in the wetlands and a large , :- _o o&z up in the southwest corner of the property. In addition, a A _n __ orchard, a number of hawthornes, and some maples exist, _crizarily in the east half of the site. _ --tent land uses include condominiums to the west , condominiums and a __ ercial area to the south, single family residences to the undeveloped land to the northeast , and single family homes - Boones Ferry to the east. The property is partially in .:_aca.=as and mostly in Multnomah County. ..' S:ncle family homes along the north property line are constructed on a substantial amounmt of fill . At the base of that fill and running ,.,, length of the north property line the City of Portland has a 20 ' ;R. wide utility easement, upon which they will not allow the planting of • Comprehensive Plan addresses the development of the site, sz,ec:fcally providing conditions and directions : 0 • . • '_`I_-_ . Monroe/Boones Ferry Site , �.. . The 13 acre site is designated for retail and office .. • • commercial uses . The overall building area on the site is not to exceed 163 ,000 square feet . The site development plan approved as part of the PUD should ' be revised to permit commercial uses which would be appropriate for present needs for types of commercial uses . Pedestrian access should be provided. Development will pay a pro-rated share of the cost of improvements to Boones Ferry Road, and providing traffic • signalization which may be required because of traffic • generated from the site . +,. ` • Dr,-site drainage retention may be required, as feasible, to • � protect Sprihgbrook Creek. Tr. :otober 3 , 1979 the Board granted preliminary approval for a ' she ping center on this site to dames Manley who oas the previous • ap licant of record . The staff believes that the previous approval, an.led with conditions, is still valid and that the proposal now • y � • • . ► . ;',• ; REPORT April 9, 1982 '':::::.: Page 3 c,='- e thr: Board is in substantial conformance to the original plans _h be reviewed for final approval . e ' _rIgina1 approval illustrated a 20 ' to 35 ' wide landscaped buffer a the north property line, however a 20 ' fire lane ws required a portion. Tree planting is also restricted in this area by A tne - -ty of Portland easement . The plans illustrated a storm water r ..eon pond constructed along Boones Ferr Road to Y preserve the ' , ,:.,,:„J. ;;r c..a_ "ter and water storge capacity of the wetland area of the site . mature poplar trees on the site were proposed to remain and ' a cnal plantings were proposed . The Board granted approval with p' -_'owing conditions : That the City Engineer do a traffic analysis and work with the • County on plans for sidwalks and road widening . That landscaping be better resolved at the time of final hearing. That the applicant meet with the neighborhood to resolve landscaping and lighting . y .:.cra complete record of the applicant ' s original proposal and the • e action can be found in the Staff Report of September 27 , 1979 O 1 :• t B) , in the minutes of October 3 , 1979 (Exhibit C) , and in th __iminary file for DR 25-79 . es_ ly Boones Ferry Road has a right-of-way width of 70 ' in both Clac n:as and Multnomah Counties . Thirty feet of setback is required • n 1-.-. ones Ferry Road and 40 ' is required along Monroe Parkway. Of that setback, 30 ' along Boones Ferry and 20 ' along Monroe Parkway is .equ_ to be left in open space or landscaping. A pathway is �•.31 - , e to be within the setback area alon g Monroe Parkway "= to the Mt . Park Phase II and IV Plats . T: e C trehensive Plan projects the average weekday volume of traffic -c be rout 17 , 000 trips on Boones Ferry Road and 12 , 000 trips on . ., -e_parkway by the year 2000 , Current (1977 ) traffic volumes are "= e.ed in the plan to be 5, 400 trips for Boones Ferry Road and • = , OC: trtps for Monroe Parkway. A traffic study commissioned by the applloant for this project updates the existing volumes to 6 , 200 and f , 50C -r Boones Ferry and Monroe Parkway, respectively ?=t:: _ s are (Exhibit R) . presently designed with two travel lanes and a stop s:gn otntrols traffic from Monroe Parkway on to Boones Ferry, ° . .. Esc :W_20N AND ANALYSIS F.'csed development called The Towne Square at Mountain Park ,:-.tain approximately 90,000 square feet of retail and 40,000 . /, { i �.. { STA_'� REPORT April 9, 1982 Page 4 • "� square feet of office space . 546 parking spaces are divided between upper and lowerparking '. lots which are accessed at three points . The 111. ry access is located approximately 350 ' west of Boones Ferry Loaf, arch a secondary access from Monroe located approximately 400 ' :rt,-_er west . Another access is located on Boones Ferry Road appr: mately 180 ' from its intersection with Monroe Parkway. A serv:cs drive connects the two parking lots and provides emergency=n= rye access to the rear • (along the north property line) of the 'b - e c;ect addresses the Development Standards as follows : , The e :I =.'_ DESIGN b. The staff believes that the two story,finish, .ic plaster exterior steel framed structures with a class: on the office structure and clear tglass ed ton the al fretail ing, 4structure are -ererally complementary to adjacent structures of good design. • While the materials and colors are not the same as those of • stru:t res adjacent to the site, the pastel nature of the colors used • and t .e overall proportions of the structures help to soften the the larger buildings . In addition, the siting of the west ,sin rf the shopping center into the sloping P g ground and the grading 4110 ''. ' : to pr:vide for the main access drive, aid in reducing the apparent hei_`t. of the buildings. '•'.echa . :cal equipment has been screened from view in penthouses above the zffices and grocery. These penthouses break up the overall 4 1 prcpert1ons of the buildings and create roof lines Which are • . cos.pl mentary to the scale of the structures . Covered walkways and i -s r: as with a sign band above aid in defining the first floor or F, . reta_ _ cornice height of the center . The sign band , however , is '. ` ..lus rated to vary in vertical dimension from 5 ' to 7 ' . The staff 11 s the vertical dimension of the sign band should be reduced to• g` other signage has been proposed, and letter size and style .as been illustrated . The setbacks required for this development have been observed, ' , s,'..v_r the staff believes screening and buffering of the project oulf be increased, as described later in this report . • ,,,.. 5 • ,s described previously in this report and in the report of September h 2- , 1 . "'9 a wetland noted as a Distinctive Natural Area in the • Comprehensive Plan exists on this site. ^'ne preliminary review of devel:pment on this site determined that the development� .:ompa:I p proposed Was . ble with the functions of the wetland provided that a storm ;,ater detention pond was developed With plantings which supported the / , ar,ctiz n and character of the wetland . • • REPORT (DR(DR 25-79) April 9, 1982 Page 5 posal of the applicant in the wetland area is to create a r_w water detention pond, however , none of the existing vege _�vosed to be saved and the character of a wetlands is nottation _s =:red in the landscape plan for that area . The staff believes - �',rtion of the proposal should be revised. _ _._ LIGHTS '' - all exterior site lighting . The applicant _ _ -andard applies to %-, 7... .. = -posed using a 250 watt high pressure sodium lamp mounted at • -• e type of luminaire and pole has not been specified . ff believes the lighting levels produced from the lamp,` = mounted at 20 ' , is in excess of City standards . the luminaire andpole In �,.• _ � • -_, „ proposed should be provided for `b IT SYSTEM =-Y a bus Stop exists at the corner of Monroe Parkway and Ferry Road . The applicant has not provided a pedestrian path __ther street frontage connecting to the development to access - s stop . This should be required . — AND LOADING .e = =l :cant has provided a tntal of 546 spaces divided among the illustrated below: =�tall -- y�-=:ea 42 , 000 S .F.. Parking Required 143 • Parking Required 10$ Detail Area 19 , 050 S .F. Parking _ -_ Parking ?�staurant 4, 050 S . F. Required 64 Required 54 - l : lding Area 39 , 360 S .F. Parking Required 132 Total Required 501 Total Shown 546 :.ttal , half are proposed to be compact spaces, alternating standard size spaces , They are all illustrated to be full _ -.wever, and those located near the grocery store are -e_ 0 ' wide and 20 ' long. It addition, no bumper overhang is d.. By using City standards for full size cars each stall -• :..: .tribute an additional 64 square feet to landscaping or to=ice - _r pedestrian paths to reduce pedestrian/vehicular conflicts. yet significant, savings could be made by more creative Use y ' ^» _: parking . Aisle Widths in the area of the grocery should _ re= -.. from 33 ' ( scaled, not dimensioned ) to 28 ' . • ,d • n 4 ^ Y STAFF REPORT (DR 25-79) April 9, 1982 Page fi r 'eluction in parking numbers has been utilized byapplying ties:.rian and mass transit access modifiers . The ta eleves the 1 = '-4 .ng lot should be designed to City standards to reduce asphalt , p4 _.-e run-off, increase landscaping and to increase pedestrian e-r A•. . fe,t-.'. The number of parking spaces should be reduced . capped spaces appear _ ld , to be provided, however they are not _- = 7:2 D OPEN SPACE/LANDSCAPING, SCREENING AND BUFFERING • --- fing to the project data chart on the site plan (Exhibit E) the ::nt proposes to provide 208, 673 square feet of the 570, 348 - feet site in landscaping and/or open space . This amount of __ exceeds the requirements of the standards, however the staff_.. ,Res the following issues should be resolved prior to the final -_ ;'- l ♦ 1 a Buffering the residential areas from the development is proposed primarily by the installation of a 6 ' high fence along the entire west property line by the planting of scotch 1 . k pine and by planting of California wax myrtle . Additional plantings have been provided in the parking lot adjacent to E,. ,,. the residential area to the west . The staff believes that the buffering of the residences to the west has been maximized, • ," however recommends that both deciduous and evergreen plantings be placed in the planting area along the west property line. This should be done in a fashion to preserve residents distant o . views and to maximize solar exposure for the units in the , �' ' winter . The staff believes buffering along the north property line should be increased by removing the last row of parking , ;t~ spaces in the northwest corner of the upper parking lot and by _laming trees in their place. In addition, plantings close to the buildings on the north side should be designed to break • .;p the view of the buildings . • The landscaping of the storm water detention pond should be revised, as previously described, to be compatible with the funtion and character of a wetland . Street trees should be provided, where possible, along Boones • .perry Road end Monroe Parkway. . 4 . Landscaping should be coordinated With recommended parking lot revisions and pathway designs . km irrigation system is specified to be used, however no plan `as been submitted . The plan should be submitted when the 410 •. ., . .. a u 1 ♦ .. ... .' is V• REPORT (DR 25-79 ) April 9, 1982 Page 7 • . _a._dscape plan is finalized. -z CES `-=: clans have been submitted to the City for review of a fence, 'r.M.ever the fence now under construction (or .•est property line is acceptable to staff completed)( see phoottoo,, Exh ib the ibitt N) . INyGE FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT✓UTILITIES - .._ s for storm water management facilities, sanitary seWtir and water ' - '.nection have been provided . Additional guidelines for landscaping . •, grading the storm water detention pond can be found in 11 . 025 ( 1 -- - cf the Drainage Standard . These standards support the - _ _-us recommendations of staff . 2 ;: -= ty has reviewed the plans and finds that they meet City __ ;aids for, drainage detention, however it is expected that run-off 17- excess of a 5 year storm will overflow the basin and flow down __ _ ,es Ferry Road, across McNary Parkway and then into Springbrook eel: . The developer is providing oversized drain lines through the - _ to carry run-off from above the site , however the City' s drain s =e^ downstream is inadequate which could cause the pond to "low. The City will investigte effects downstream and plan .;. a.res to resolve the problem. `' la. = for traffic control signs and devices, lip ,t;.n • .� � . are listed as utilities, have not been finalized and sidewalks 1:SS SITE CIRCULATION STANDARDS-DRIVEWAYS AND PRIVATE •--- BIKEWAYS AND WALKWAYS —�__ , . 4N - access locations described earlier meet City standards, however `p" aff believes that the driveway from Boones Ferry rt � .1, " - - ± ze from 30 ' to 28 ' at its throat and from 30 to 24 ' asd should be as it n1e :-_ _:_s the parking lot except where 28 ' is required for back-up ^ ace - The upper access drive on Monroe Parkway should be narrowed • == ' to 24 ' and the 12 percent grade as the drivewayapproaches _he _.:blic roadway should be reduced to a maximum of 5 percent .` • . ' ,. ,`j =h` staff believes that the service driveway causes a conflict h 4 e t - Ina traffic from Boones Ferry and should be revised to re-enter t :wer parking lot at a point closer to the grocery. This should i.. e 4e• reconfiguraion of the short row of parking at the east end of `"`' "a t• :e design of Walkways to allow pedestrian access to the site has not een crovided , The staff believes that a walkway should be required • " µ :Monroe Parkway at this time and that a design for one along . , y April 9 , 1982 '� • _ _ _ REPORT ( DR 25-79 ) Page 8 _ .a Ferry Road should be prepared for future construction. A _ __won and non-remonstrance agreement should be signed for future _ __ _at improvements along Boones Ferry Road. • The applicant has submitted a traffic study which projects the 1985 traffic volumes with this development to be 8, 600 average daily trips on Boones Ferry Road . These projections are consistent with the projections of the Comprehensive Plan. The traffic study shows that : These increases would not create any major congestion problems along the existing roadway sections . However, the analysis i..'� examined the volume of the peak hour generated traffic at the key intersections to get a better guage of any adverse traffic 4.�. impacts. ' •,.,. The traffic generated by the fully developed site can be . '..,. expected to produce excessive delays to the motorists eastbound on Monroe Parkway during the p.m. peak hour if the intersection remains as stop sign controlled. These delays r ° . may not actually be seen at the intersection because of0 traffic diverting to other streets like McNary Parkway to r avoid the congestion. The level of service for the • intersection would be "E" . The report concluded that a 150 ' long left turn storage lane to provide northbound traffic on Boones Ferry Road good access to Monroe Parkway was required. . The staff believes that this development requires the signalization of the intersection of Monroe Parkway and Boones Ferry Road and that improvements to both streets are necessary. The traffic study fails to include the restaurant zse in its calculations , however the staff believes the „ off-site improvements necessary for development will not change . The developer should be required to signalize the intersection and make necessary street improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer . w: Tree Cutting - The applicant has submitted a tree cutting • application to allow the cutting of all the trees on the site •fi•' except for one mature oak tree : The staff believes with • Grading changes, landscaping changes, and preservation of the °h .' character of the Wetland area that additional trees can, and should, be saved . 4111 --.* • Y . , . . . • . M• , .. ... , , , ,. 0. , , . ., ... : .. . . . . . „. . . . . J ''. 1 4 i s. .' . ti. `> yl .7 REPORT (DR 25-79 ) April 9, 1982 Page 9 Development Schedule - The a licant " . PP proposes to begin construction upon issuance of permits and complete the grocery by late fall 1982 . Remaining retail will be completed by ' Spring 1983 and the office portion will begin 1983 . The staff believes the dates should be more specific and that a • completion date for the office should be specified . In addition, phasing should address landscaping. A plan with phase lines may help in the review of the development schedule. The applicant should provide evidence to the Board of Acceptance of their plans by the Mt . Park Architectural Review • Board . =.---2 .:A' EtiDATION - Denial , until the following items are addressed _a__ _ _ac'torily: • That the sign band be reduced in vertical dimension to 2 ' and that letter style be illustrated. That the storm water detention pond and its landscaping be revised to preserve the character of the wetland. ' ` ' That site lighting be revised to the satisfaction of the City ,. r. • ' Engineer . That a Walkway be provided along Monroe Parkway and that it also connect the development to the bus stop. S • That the applicant plan for a walkway along Boones Ferry Road . That the applicant sign a petition and nonremonstrance ` agreement for future improvements on both Boones Ferry Road • and Monroe Parkway. ; ` ti That the applicant provide for signalization of the • ` • ,�. :ntersection of Monroe Parkwa:, and Boones Ferry Road and that " ° + street improvements be proposed to the satisfaction of the oM , City Engineer . • .� ` _ That the parking lot be revised to the satisfaction of the : - City Engineer to reduce the number of spaces and reduce the amount of paving. ` h• ' • ':'hat the landscape plan be revised to show street trees, - • additional buffering and deciduous plantings; and to preserve • the character of the wetland. Every effort should be made to saving more existing trees. That an irrigation plan be provided . • �;' . =:F REPORT (DR 25-79) '` April 9, 1982 Page 10 - - That driveway widths be narrowed and that access grades provided to the satisfactionof . _ y Engineer be the Cit _- • That the service driveway be realigned to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. .. - - That a revised development schedule with specific dates and accurate phasing plan be provided. =SITS Sax affap Report of September 27 , 1979 - Minutes of October 3 , 1979 Project Narrative - Site Plan F,. . - Landscape Plan Grading Plan .. Elevations (3 pp. ) Floor Plans (4 pp. ) Boundary Survey Utility and Easement Survey -1 ::: :.7 Utilities (2 pp. ) '`• Lighting Data (2 pp. ) `� Photos • - Color Board aY` - Tree Cutting Plan and Application • Construction Schedule Y . . Traffic Impact Study r '' , , . 'y o . 1. . 1. • S. - ,•/ • i�' • ^ • •: 'art' { .4.,; '' . "i. .' ,t V +1 -#..... ..'''r n ` 1 i . BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD ;; yt OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO IN RE: DR25-79 (Brugger ) Farms, Inc. ) ) MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION I . INTRODUCTION ` VY THIS MEMORANDUM is submitted in opposition Lo the above- referenced application by the following parties in interest: Park-Highlands-Sundance Coalition for Responsible tevelopment JOANNE N. BALKOVIC, 2322 S.W. Knaus, Lake Oswego, Oregon C.E. WARD, 2704 S.W. Orchard Hill Lane, Lake Oswego, Oregon C.T. MOORE, 12735 S.W. 22nd Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon P.H. BARNETT, 12743 S.W. 22nd Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon PAUL BASABABA, 127145 S.W. Boones Ferry Rd. , Lake Oswego, Oregon JOHN H. WHIPPLE, 12708 S.W. Boones Ferry Rd. , Lake Oswego, Oregon MARY L. STASACK, 96 Greenridge Court, Lake Oswego, Oregon KENNETH H. WEBER, 12542 S.W. 27th Place, Lake Oswego, Oregon TONY & CHRIS MARKS, 2405 S.W. Knaus Road, Lake Oswego, Oregon •• � ' 0 J. KAUFMAN, 12433 S.W. Orchard Hill Rd. , Lake Oswego, Oregon • DOUG & DONNA BEADLE, 13120 S.W. Thoma Road, Lake Oswego, Oregon a • F The parties are property owners within sight and sound of the proposed development. The opponents have several objections, . t- both procedural and substantive, to the referenced application, and each objection will be addressed point by point. ♦ II . PRIOR APPROVAL INVALID The former owner of the subject property, James M. Manley, 11111 obtained preliminary design review ap proval Y g to allow construction of a 16 , 000 square foot neighborhood commercial complex a +-h EXHIBIT ' EXHIBIT 1 - MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION 1 ? /opp , . ' + • . -.,. 41" 'xff4. October• 3 , 1979 meeting of the Design Review Board. The staff �.• report on the present application for final approval states that, "the previous approval , granted with conditions, is still valid and***the proposal now before the Board is in substantial confor- �,4 ,7- mance to the original plans and can be reviewed for final approval . " The prior, preliminary approval was invalid because a 129 , 000 square foot shopping center is inconsistent with the definition of -::' •; "Neighborhood Commercial Use" contained in the Comprehensive Plan : Y' and Development Ordinance. The Comprehensive Plan adopted July 18 , 1978 , changed the area ' s designated "General Commercial" in the Mountain Park PUD to "Neighborhood Commercial" , "to ensure .\ that retail .commercial uses principally served the residents of Mountain Park" . The Comprehensive Plan policy adopted with respect to the subject site requires that the original PUD site plan "be revised to 1 r' permit commercial uses which would be appropriate 4110 .% • ': for present needs for types of commercial uses" . See Comp. Plan, , pp. 78-79 . The Comprehensive Plan defines the market area for Neighbor- , . hood Commercial development as follows: "Commercial activities primarily required by families at intervals of less than a week, with a service area radius of about one mile or 3-5 minutes travel time, containing a population of approximately 5, 000 to 7, 500 persons . " ` See Comp. Plan, pp. 65. The applicant ' s supporting documents refer to a contemplated market area consisting of Mountain Park. and North Lake Oswego, a a4 market area far in excess of the Comprehensive Plan ' s restriction ck for Neighborhood Commercial development. P• 2 - MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION . A. ' . 6 Mr ,i III . CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES ;;;;,,,,'J° : The staff report dated April 9 1982 J , , presumes the validity .. • of the Design Review Board ' s preliminary design approval in 1979 and does not take into account whether or not need for the project has diminished over the past three years or whether the project is out of scale with the development that has occureed on surrounding properties in the interim. In spite of the Comprehen- . sive Plan redesignation of the Mountain Park Neighborhood Commercial '.. areas "to assure that retail commercial uses principally serve the residents of Mountain Park, " the applicant ' s traffic study indicates that the majority of vehicle trips into the proposed center will originate from outside the Mountain Park residential area. The applicant has not proven a need for the level of retail development contemplated. High vacancy rates is nearby general. . commercial developments indicate that there is no need for another commercial development in this area of a scale contemplated by the application. IV. APPLICABLE STANDARDS The proposed development did not obtain final approval prior to enactment of Ordinance No. 1807 . The preliminary design . approval granted in 1979 does not preclude application of the new development standards enacted under the Development Ordinance. The standards for a Major Development under LOC 49 . 300 should be applied and the applicant bears the burden of demonstrating compliance with all applicable standards . . *.: , .. IP : ,„ . . . • , 3 - MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION . • • V. WETLANDS AND DISTINCTIVE NATURAL APEA Section 4 . 015 of the Lake Oswego Development St andards defines a "wetlands" as "those areas that are inundat ed by surface or ground water sufficient to support prevalence of vegetation or aquatic life which requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for 1_y �> growth and reproduction" . The subject site contains a swampand marsh which ' habitat, a site of rare wetlands vegetation, provides wildlife g tion, and natural amenities for the surrounding residential are as . The subject site has been designated as Distinctive Natural Area the Natural Area Policy and Map containedNo. 51 under in the Comprehensive Plan. The site is also an "essential wetlands" as defined in 4, Section 4 . 015 (2) of the Development Standards ' � . Essenti al wetlands are defined as those "designated as such on the Hydro0 .. , those determined to be s y logy Map and uch after site analysis and application of the criteria set forth in §4 . 035 (l) " . The subject site is , : .• designated a wetland on the cityhydrology map and, therefore, must be protected an essential wetland under the Development Standards. The staff report for the October 3, 1979 hearing on r, nary design approval for the subject development stated that, "the Distinctive Area and other notable natural features are :reserved" by the proposed development. The present application proposes to "relocate" the existing wetlands and convert it into l an artificial detention pond for storm runoff. 'This is 1nCOI1Si5- tent with the Comprehe.flsive P] an ' s polity to preserve dist inctive natural areas . The application makes no mention of the Distinctive• 4 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION r , Natural Area found on the site and does not comply with LOC 49 . 315 (2) (F) (iii) , (iv) , and (v) , which require that information concerning the site ' s natural features be contained in the application. li The applicant's wetlands study, designated as the Bierly Report, admits that the wetlands on the site has been designated as an "essential wetland" on the cityhydrology y gy map. However, the Bierly Report then addresses each of the criteria, found at §4 . 035 of the Development Standards, for designation of a wetlands--... as "essential" , and concludes that the site meets none of the • r. criteria. What the Bierly Report ignores is that compliance with the criteria provides an alternative means of designating • "essential wetlands" and the subject site has already been desig- nated as "essential" by virtue of its reference on the city hydrology map. • Section 4 . 020 of the Development Standards sets forth the standards for approval of development within essential wetlands . Section 4 . 020 (1) states that development within essential wetlands shall be allowed only to the extent that it "preserves and is compatible with the functions of wetlands as listed in §4 . 035 (1) . " Section 4 . 020 continues with an identification of certain develop- , ments that may take place within essential wetlands. Among the permitted developments are conservation of soil, vegetation, water, fish, wildlife; outdoor recreation including hiking, nature study, camping and swimming; walkways, docks; and uses associated with adjacent development including yards and play areas . The essential 410 wetlands on the site would be paved over as a parking area under the proposed development. Such a proposal is clearly inconsistent 5 - MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION with the Comprehensive Plan and with the Development Standards mandating preservation of essential wetlands . Section 4 . 020 (2) sets forth the criteria which must be met before development is allowed in essential wetlands . Those criteria are as follows: "a. The proposed development is primarily dependent upon • being located in, or in close proximity to, the essential wetlands; "b. There are no feasible alternative sites available outside the essential wetland; "c . The applicant has PP provided sufficient information to demonstrate the need to locate the proposed development in the essential wetland, and the lack of feasible alter- native sites; "d The proposed development would not significantly damage, reduce or pollute the essential wetland; and, "e. The applicant has demonstrated that the design and construction of the proposed development provides for protection and enhancement of the essential wetland to the maximum practical extent. " The applicant has failed to meet its burden of proof in compliance with any of these criteria. The Bierly Report states, • at p. 9 , that: "The proposed development at Mt. Park Center will substantially alter the existing wetlands . " This statement con- , •: stitutes an admission of noncompliance with §4 . 020 (2) (d) . • , Nor has the applicant provided sufficient information to demonstrate the need to locate the proposed development in the essential wetland or the lack of feasible alternative sites. The applicant has made no effort to show the proposed development to be primarily dependent on being located in, or in close proximity to, the essential wetland. The Bierly Report discounts the site' s designation as a istinctive Natural Area by stating that, "The area has been 6 - MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION • • _ . {• / r .. . . V . nominated but not ado ted". „,._ p (Bi10erly Report at 8) . The Cornprehen- .. , ,.. . . _ — sive Plan makes no reference to any "ado tion r p p ocedure" through which nominated Distinctive Natural Areas must receive final ;. .a approval . Adoption of the Comprehensive Plan by the City on July 18 , 1978 , constitutes adoption of the Distinctive Natural Areas designated in the Plan. Section 4 . 035 (1) (f) states that k designation of a wetland as Distinctive Natural Area will t.1 establish that wetland as an "essential wetland" , without reference to any of the other criteria contained in §4 . 035 (1) . Because the city has included the site in its ins✓cntory of Distinctive Natural Areas, State-wide Planning Goal 5 requires the applicant and the city to complete a conflict resolution procedure balancing economic and other interests against the ,:, ..•..' ,,.:,'„' • recognized need to preserve identified natural areas . This was not done. . + , Section 4 . 025 (1) of the Development Standards_ requires that construction affecting an essential wetland must be conducted in such a way as "avoid' clearing or removal of wetland vegetation" . The record will demonstrate that preliminary grading and clearing . • ' work completed on the site has resulted in substantial destruction of wetland vegetation in violation of the standard. VI . IMPACTS ON DRAINAGE The subject property,P y, in its natural state, provides needed open space for absorption and retention of storm runoff. The staff report dated April 9 , 1982 , states, at p. 7, that: "It is expected that run-off in excess of a five year storm will overflow the [drainage detention] basin and flow down boones Ferry Road, across McNary Parkway and then into Springbrook Creek. The developer is P providing oversized 4110 drainlines through the site to carry run-off from above the site, however, the City ' s drain system downstream is • 7 - MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION . , ' - 'e r , a • inadequate which could cause the pond toThe City will investigate effects downstream andzflow pla,n .measures to resolve the problem. " b +. The staff report demonstrates that the applicant has not ade q ly ' uate addressed the impact of several acres of asphalt and other impervious surfaces on the site 's ability to handle storm runoff without causing substantial damage to adjacent roads and properties . Section 3 . 005-040 of the Development Standards sets forth the requirements for development within stream corridors . §3 . 015 (2) defines a "stream" as: "A natural body of running water flowing continuously or intermittently in a channel on or below ' the surface of the ground" . , (emphasis added) Section 3 . 015 (5) defines a "major stream corridor" as follows: "A stream corridor is a Major Stream Corridor when any of the following exists: a. It serves as an essential element of the drainage system within the City; b. It has a beneficial or effect on water quality; beneficial q , ' Y; and/or O c. It is associated with any 'Distinctive Natural Area ' as designated by the Lake Oswego Comprehen- sive Plan. " A Since the site has been designated by the Comprehensive Plan as a "Distinctive Natural Area" , development on the property must comply with the standards for protection of a Major Stream Corridor. Those standards are set forth at §3 . 020 of the Develop- ment Standards . The applicant has failed to deal with any of n .. those standards in its application. The site is also designated as a stream corridor on the Lake Oswego Hydrology Map. The applicant has failed to meet its responsibility under §3 . 040 (2) , . • 6- MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION ° ' requiring it to provide all information needed to implement the Development Standards for stream corridors . The developments potential adverse impact on storm drainage and the a P is pplicant s failure to deal with this issue constitutes a violation of Goal 7 . VII. ADDITIONAL APPROVALS REQ� UIRED The elevation drawing submitted with the application indicates ,. . that a mechanical tower proposed for the future retail bu ilding will be 74 feet in height, which would require a variance. No s' variance request is contained with the present application, } although the proposed building is contained in the ' first stage of the development schedule submitted. The opponents are concerned that inclusion of the height g on the site elevation maps not be construed as implicit a ro a variance for the building at some later da te. PP val, of 0 In addition, the traffic study submitted with the application PP tion makes reference to a restaurant as part of the proposed development. A rest ::''''''':::' aurant is only allowed as a Conditional Use in a Neighborhood Commercial zone. LOC 52. 020 (5) . Failure to request a variance or conditional use or mention that contemplated development will require such approvals q pprovals violates LOC 49 . 315 (12) (M) (i) , which requires a project summaryexplaining • how the proposed development is related to existing site conditions" P s re and demonstrating compliance with the Com hen - ive Plan, develop- ment code and applicable State-wide Planning Goals. For the reasons Stated under paragraphs V and VI; sera, the applicant • has failed to demonstrate compliance with applicable Goals. • VIII . LACK •OP COORDINATION '. A minimum of four jurisdictions are directly affected by the 9 - MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION . • • yam, proposed development, i .e. , Lake Oswego, Clackamas County, Multnomah County and Portland. The dividing line between Clackamas County and Multnomah County bifurcates the subject property. Adjacent roadways in Clackamas County and Multnomah County will ne substantially burdened by the additional traffic resulting from the development. The record fails to disclose any effort by the applicant or the City of Lake Owego to coordinate the development with other affected jurisdictions . Such failure to coordinate with the plans of affected governmental units constitutes a violation of Goal 2 , Part I . IX. CONCLUSION For all of the above reasons, the opponents respectfully request that the application herein be denied. R spectfully submitted, • • Jess M. Glaeser Of A torneys for Opponents A 3 1 r , 1' 1, . . 10 -MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITIONe; , • • LCDC GOALS AND GUIDELINES Parallel Development Standards Comprehensive Plan Objectives Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement Summary of Evidence A public hearing on the application was held on April 19 ,1982, before the Lake Oswego Development Review Board , Prior to this hearing , notice of the p',biic hearing was newspaper once a week for t,r�. (2) successive weeks ee s priord in the i hearing which notice gave tl� time, to the ,• ''• proposed action , the date , place , nature of the . . purpose of the hearing , and stating the availability of the application for public inspection . Notices were posted in City Hall not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing . Notice was mailed not less than ten (10) calendar days prior to the date of the hearing to residents and owners of the property subject to the proposed change, to residents and owners of property within two-hundred (200 ) feet of the proposed development , to the recognized neighborhood association for the area , to affected • government agencies , and to the applicant . A substantial number of citizens appeared at the public hearing . Based upon the testimony �, , '.' presented at that hearing , a decision was delayed , and an additional public hearing was scheduled and noticed for May 17 , 1982. A large number of interested persons appeared at this hearing and requested that a new hearing be scheduled because there was not enough room in the Council chambers for all of. those ' and because they wanted additional timer toe review athe nstaff hearingeport and other evidence . A decision again was ` additional public hearing was scheduled for June 1982 •anAll notices required by the Lake Oswego Development Ordinance were given ' with regard to the June 7 , 1982, hearing . The �Y,r has also received extensive coverage in localnewspaeasdevelopme.Y� The architects involved in the proiect have met with the . . Mountain Park Architectural Review Committee on three (3) occasions , being : February 5 , 1982; March 16 , 1982 and May 20 , 1982. The •,architects for the ;r project met with the Board of Directors of the w Mountain Park Homeowners ' Association on March 22 , 1982, on '414 May 24 , 1982 and on June 3, 1982 . "" In addition thereto , mow, representatives of the applicant have met with various ad hoc • ' community homeowner association rou S at least six (6) occasions. g p interested in the proposal on 4 .Y Finding There has been both opportunity pportunity for and actual wide spread citizen involvement in all phases of this application / . sufficient to meet the commands of LCDC Goal 1. ' Et) PAGE 6 MARK DEVELOPMENT RE TOWN SQUARE. 5 V EXHIBIT • lo12,1-ct I 4..fiL Y✓• • Goal 2 - Land Use Planning : Summary of Evidence In considering this application , this board has applied the criteria contained in the land use planning • the City of Lake Oswego Deve lopmentOrd inan d ceu& Standards ,elines of tthehe iJcDC, proposed City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, the City of Lake Oswego Sign Code , the City of Lake Oswego Tree Cutting Code , the City of Lake Oswego Planned Unit Development Ordinance , and the Department of Environmental Quality Regulations regarding noise and indirect source emissions . The specific portions of these documents deemed relevant by the board will be identified in this decision . The Board has taken into consideration social, economic , energy and environmental needs of the City of Lake Oswego. Finding : The final decision of this application has Been the result of the application of all relevant land use planning '; : . processes and policy frameworks . Finding : Based on all of the evidence in the record , the proposed development furthers the social, economic , energy and environmental needs of the City of Lake Oswego. . • 4 • .,•: • PAGE 7 MARK DEVELOPMENT RE TOWN SQUARE. 5683E/FSr/c3 r r' • • • i Goal 3 - Agricultural Lands : Summary of Evidence The property is located within the city limits of the City of hake Oswego and the Metropolitan Service District Urban Growth Boundary and the Lake Oswego Urban Service Boundary . The property is not presently and has not in the recent Past been used for agricultural purposes . The Comprehensive Plan Map designates the land for neighborhood/commercial use . The subject property is not within an exclusive farm use zone . The subject property is ' .11 substantially surrounded by residential and commercial development . Soils in the area are of Cascade and Delena Associations , both of which are very poorly drained silt loams. • Finding : The g property is not agricultural land within the meaning of Goal 3 because of its proximity to existing urban development and poor quality soils . Finding : The development will not inhibit the preservation • of agricultural land for agricultural purposes . Finding : Construction on the property will preserve other. 0 more suitable agricultural 'Land for agricultural, use by placing needed commercial development on land use . poorly suited for agricultural r i cu ltu r,a 1 Finding : The property is within a fully urbanized area and • "t therefore not subject to Goal 3. . • • • • i •• 4 PAGE 8 MARE DEVELOPMENT RE TOWN SQUARE. 5583E/rSC/dir •• . :\ u. ,'1 w, i Goal 4 - Forest Lands : Summary of Evidence The property does not presently contain , and has no potential for , forests which are suitable for commercial forest '`y use. The property has not been inventoried as forest land . The property is not significant from the standpoint of watershed protection, wildlife and fisheryhabitat exist no extreme conditions of climate , soil orc topography Twhich require the maintenance of vegetative cover . The topography property is moderate , a of the approximately 5% slope . The existing vegetation on the �,;• property has little value as a windbreak or sceni :.- corridor . The property is within the City of Lako Oswegn Metropolitan Service District, Urban Growth Roundar , t the Oswego Urban Service Boundary . The } and she Tea related uses . property is not zoned for forest Finding : The property is not forest land within the meaning of Goal 4. Granting a permit for the will not violate the command of Goal 4 to conserve oforestsed vlands efor forest uses. Finding : The property is within a fully urbanized area a is therefore not subject to Goal 4. • • ,' , 0 • • 47 PAGE 9 MARK DEVELOPMENT RE; TOWN SQUARE. 583E/FSC/d;r 9 y . i* ; t :, �.. q a n ,, V r . Goal 5 - Open S aces , Scenic and Historic Areas & Natural ra 1. Development Standard 4 Resources : Development Standard 8 Comprehensive Plan Objectives - p . 25 , 26 , 38 , 86 and 87 ' Summary of Evidence The total site consists of thirteen square feet . The site is the largest (13) acres or 579 ,348 '�� �• of Lake Oswego designated for purely parcel rhof od-commercial u City It is the only neighborhood-commercial site in the city of use . sufficient size to allow the proposed development .area , 208, 673 square feet or 36% will consist of, Of this total ., parking or other open space . The land has no knownnmsneril aggregate resources , is not a neral or significant fish and wildlife habitat , has enenoyecologic l or is not a ` ' tifically significant natural areas other than the existing land , has no outstanding scenic attributes , has a small wet lands area, is virtually surrounded by residential and commercial � ' ' ' development eliminating its usefulness as wilderness and has no historic , cultural or significant recreational potential or significant waterways. None of the property is within the open space system shown in the comprehensive plan or withinp proposed public space or park. ` No inter-city bike/pedestrian P . proposed to Y ike/pedestrian pathways are pass through the area. While the existing trees on the property will be removed , the large mature oak tree will be maintained as a specimen tree . The property has no significant .,r • topographic variations , significant recreational opportunities , scenic view or vistas , ; , The existing wet land is seasonal, approximately acre in size and can be classified as shallow marsh . t .6 of an srf7f a channelized and unchannelized local runoff system and small pond that is approximately twenty feet and an area of saturated soils . Th (20) lent by thirtyd , in (30) form, was created by the construction ofeBoonesn its present dumping of fill on the Ferry Road , by propertyi faill property and by storm water directed onto the: properties . Its hydrologic value as to modification of flow and water on are in moderate classification, and its wildlifeoandtbiological values to uniformly low. Its visual, cultural and economic values are also rp uniformly low as are its uses for wildlife, biological production , , ,,%. open space and educational values . Its detention primary value is storm water • The site is not a natural ground water recharge area , has minor storage capacity and has an t, and absorption of nutrients from runoffrwater . tTheidity reduction proposed , PAGE 10 MARK DEVELOPMENT RE TOWN SQUARE. 5563E/FSC/61r • dal / -rM1. - c f development will alter the existing wet land . The developer le proposes to install a drainage detention pond near the existing wet ' land . This detention pond will equal theprimary ,�' �•' qu wet land values of turbidity reduction and nutrient filtration and will enhance the • storm water storage values of the existing wet land . The plantings incorporated into the landscape plan will provide replacement values �`' ,, ; for natural biological functions , including the value of the wet 1' lands as a unique species habitat, a diverse species habitat, y surrounding habitat values and productivity. Proposed landscaping ' 1; will also maintain or improve the scenic, value of the property . The proposed development has been planned so as to place the buildings and associated structures and parking as far from the ' , wetlands as possible in order to minimize the impact on the A' wetland . • rz 4.1 The subject property has been identified as a distinctive natural area as a swamp and/or marsh in the City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Map on Pages 28 and 29 . d An expert witness testifying on behalf of the opponents of r ., the project testified that it was highly unlikely that the shrub salix bebbiana actually existed in the wetlands because it is known only to exist on the east side of the Cascades . This specie of willow is an endangered specie . The proponents expert testified "' '„! ' that he may have been in error in his identification of that particular type of willow. The Board believed a recognized expert would be necessary to conclusively determine if the willow had been identified correctly and that it would accept the opinion of Dr . Kenton Chambers of Oregon State University as to whether the disputed willow was present on the site. The wetlands has not been used in the past for educations' purposes and is located on privately owned property, Discussion : Section 4 . 020 (1) and (2) of the City of La ce Oswego Development standards allows development in essential �. wetlands upon the meeting of the criteria stated therein . It Y i , therein provides that such development is permissible if "the '//:proposed development would not significantly damage , reduce or pollute the essential wet land . . . " . The primary value of the wetland is storm water detention and water quality protection. The remaining values are low. Because of the small size of the wetland and the uniformity low values for other than storm water detention and water quality protection, the Board believes that the wetlands values can be met by the proposed detention pond area ' , and associated landscaping . The Board does not mean to Imply that this would be possible as to other wetlands in the City. • • The City of Lake Oswego Development standards serve to implement the directives of the Comprehensive Plan . The standards II ',: ' , . • PAGE 11 MARK DEVELOPMENT RE TOWN SQUARE. 568?E/PSC/d;r ' • r„ 1: 1 x • Y ti.. ® • �'�.;' must , therefore, be read and interpreted in light of the provisions of the Plan. The Plan states with regard to land falling within the PROTECTION open space category that the essential natural processes of such areas should be preserved. (Page 88) • The proposed develop- C, ' ment will preserve wetland processes and enhance storm water: storage capabilities . The Comprehensive Plan also contains a wetlands policy . General Policy I prescribes designation as Protection Open Space c ..• 11 wetland areas which are essential to stream channel protection (not '• r applicable to this application) water quality and retention of storm water runoff. General Policy II is concerned with the preservation of natural functions of the wetland described in Police I . The Plan indicates that storage of storm water runoff is one of the most impor- 40 ant wetland functions . LOC 4. 005 is the standard designed to impler..t. the Plan policies . Given the Plan ' s emphasis on the preservation c wetland functions , the Board concludes that a development which in f . _•':\ provides equal wetland functions , including an increase its capacity store storm water runoff, meets the requirement of LOC 4 . 005 and the • . wetlands policy of the Comprehensive Plan• 1 Finding : The proposed development will provide at least • the equivalent wetland values of the existing wetland through the , . '% ., construction of the detention pond and incorporation of proposed landscaping . There will be no net loss of any wetland values . Finding : The existing wetland on the property is of such . 4 small size and modest value as a wetland that it does not have a 1 • "high priority" for acquisition as public access open space . ., . Finding : The proposed development provides to the maximum practical extent for the protection of the essential wetland through w . . the construction and landscaping of the detention pond , Finding: The provision of the detention pond constituting open space serves to protect the natural processes of the wetland in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan of Lake Oswego , Finding : Educational value of the wetland is , >nsidered t ' . lot, . Findin : Because of the limited amount of land available for neigh or ooa-commercial development and the unique size of this parcel , there are no alternative sites available outside the essenti,,.._ • ' wetland and the proposed development is primarily dependent on 'being ` ' located in or sn close proximity to the essential wetland, The applicant has •n provided sufficient information to demonstrate the „ ' need to locate the proposed development in part of the essential ' wetland, • PAGE 12 MARK DEVELOPMENT RE TOWN SQUARE , 5683E/FSC/djr R • Mhw. • Finding : The proposed development incorporates wetland features such as ponds and vegetation. Finding : The construction of the detention pond will increase the buffering between the adjacent project and Jproperties . • Finding : The development will increase the storm water retention capacity of the site. • • • 4. • • • • • • • • Y{{ µ •i,`• I 'N1 PAGE 13 MARK DEVELOPMENT RE TOWN SQUARE.. 5663E /FGr"./d ~ sue" Goal 6 - Air , Water and T,and Resources Quality • Comprehensive Plan Objectives Pages 24 and 32 .� Summary of Evidence Both City sewer and City water are property. There will be no waste in available to the businesses in the development. Commercialo process discharges ageservice from the available for the removal of solid waste . garbage is a have a significant impact on airy The development will not submitted a noise study showing compliance nwith DEea•noise standards . has Q standards , • Finding : Proposed development will not have an adverse effect on air, water and land resourcesdisposalay', quality because of 1) the • pollution , and 3) the forecastofble,noise ) the levelsawithinsDEQilimits air DEQ limits • . • • • 1 ,gal„ 1 • • i T 1 } 4 ,.� f ! Y I4 11 y A • I PAGE 14 MARK DEVELOPMENT RE TOWN SQUARE. 5683E/FSC✓dj.r • •Z h_ ell. " + 1 11. ,�. Goal 7 - Natural Disasters and Floods : Comprehensive Plan Objectives pages 7, 31 and 32 Summary of Evidence The area of the proposed development is not subject to • natural events known to result in death or to endanger the works of man such as stream flooding , high ground water , erosion , land ° slides , earthquakes , weak foundation soils and other hazards . Th proposed Comprehensive Plan does not designate the e potential landslide hazard (Page 30) , does not indicateeweakas a foundation soils (Page 33) , and has not identified the property as subject to erosion . The average slope of the Property is 5 `' Finding ; The subject property is not subject to natural . disasters-aria-Floods as described in Goal 7 . Go 1 7 therefore does not apply to the proposed development. • - • • • It D. • 1 , c 1 • PAGE 15 MARK DEVELOPMENT RE TOWN SQUARE. 5683E/FSC/dr , . , • � F • _.t Goal 8 - Recreational Needs : Comprehensive Plan Policy page 87 • Summary of Evidence • The subject property lacks unique or extraordinary recreational opportunities or potential . Tt is not presently used or developed for recreational uses . The subject proposal will not result in a significant increase in the recreational needs of the City of Lake Oswego. Other lands within the City of Lake Oswego are presently planned or developed for recreational needs . Y A substantial portion of the property is covered with fi'.'. of varying quality . There are large park open space and public areas in close proximity to the development , lying south along Boones Ferry Road and on boths sides of Country Club Road as indicated by the Comprehensive Plan Map. The subject property has not been proposed for acquisition as public open space by the • proposed Comprehensive Plan (Page 88) . • Finding : The development of the subject property will not have an adverse effect on the recreational needs of the citizens of either the state or the City of Lake Oswego because it will not ►`' increase recreational needs . It does not have any unique or extraordinary potential as a recreational area . ` o Finding : The development will not have an adverse effect on public access to special and unique areas for recreational use . ' Finding : The development will not interfere with any significant existing recreational use of the property.• • • • PAGE 16 MARF DEVELOPMENT RE TOWN SQUARE. 5683S/PSC/61" r. • • • Goal 9 - Economy of t he State : f� •,.1• :, Comprehensive Plan Objectives Page 49 Summary of Evidence The development has potential to .provide jobs for 250 people . Total yearly payroll of the employees will be approximately •" 1 . 5 million. Hard costs of construction will cost approximate F . 71 million . Approximately 100 people will be employed in development and construction . Finding : The development will have a positive economic r impact on the City of Lake Oswego and the surrounding area. • A 411/0 • i› I • • • I\ j• I 4110 : ?AGE 17 MARK DEVELOPMENT RE TOWN SQUARE. 5683E,/FSC/cir * r ; ' '1 • 1 1 y f '•1 1 '. 1 1 17. ,, Goal t0 - Hou sin »; Comprehensive Plan Objective i ve page 57 Summary of Evidence V I tl The subject Other lands within therCi�tytofiLakes iOsweeofandrthe surrounding use . have been zoned for residential use , both in existingthe hr�Zoni area Ordinance and in the existing Comprehensive Plan Map. nine •• property does not abut a residential street . The sub7ec;t Discussion : ` Generally speaking , lands suitable for residential development will also be suitable for commercial. development. Virtually every necessarily conflict with and excludeltheroone type sofe use will .. ` :.' commercial uses of land will conflict with thesuse ofe •that la housing , e of land as and vice versa . As long as adequate provision is made for .,, both uses, one will not conflict with the other .in f ____din : The proposed development;, does not violate the provisions of LCDC Goal 10 housing needs in the Cityof LakeuOswe pooh isi.on has been made for Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances. y the existing Lake Oswego I ,S14 1`f `y i ,tl V 6 410 4 4 PAGE 1E MARK DEVELOPMENT R8 TOWt7 SQUARE. r 568E/F5r/[ijr • J. • ri Goal 11 - Public Facilities and Services : Comprehensive Plan Objective Pages 17 , 19 , 21, 52 and 112 r D i Summary of Evidence Public sewer , public water , fire protection, planning , 1, • zoning , telephone service , electric service , and natural gas are all available at the site . The drainage detention capacity of the wet " :'• lands will be equal to or will be increased by , the detention pond . A drainage plan has been submitted by the applicant . The plan complies with the drainage standard of the City of Lake Oswego as set forth in Section 11 . 005 of the Development Standards Ordinance . • The developer has provided oversize drain lines In order to handle additional runoff from adjacent developed properties which has beer, diverted onto the subject property . Proposed utility services are located underground . \ . Finding : Adequate public facilities and services are available to service the proposed development. .;j Finding : The need of the proposed development for public • services and facilities will not exceed the ability of the City to provide those services . Finding : The proposed development will not have an adver effect on the quality of the City of Lake Oswego 's public services . It will not cause any significant deficiency in its ability to provide them. . • • hQ' 7 . i . • rI , PAGE 19 MARK DEVELOPMENT RE TOWN SQUARE, 5681E/FSC/djr • ry . • Goal 12 - Transportation : Comprehensive Plan Objective Pages 90 , 92 and 101 Development Standard 6 Summary of Evidence • The proposed project is adjacent to Boones Ferry Road and Monroe Parkway . Boones Ferry Road is an arterial, , and Monroe Parkway is designated as a collector . Tri-Met buy service is available adjacent to the development . The developer has agreed to provide walkways which will the Tri -Met bus stop,whto provide access to thq developmenn t and provide signalization of the intersection of Monroe Parkway and Boones Ferry Road and to pr,Jvide a left turn storage lane for access of North bound Boones Ferry Road traffic to Monroe Parkway . The dewelopment will generate 8 , 00 daily trios on Boones Ferry Road by 1985 . These volumes are not sufficient create congestion levels that would change travel tterns to g area . The developer will alsotiate in the traffic . Provide walkways for pedesstt rian Finding : The proposed development makes adequate for safe , convenient and economic transportation systems . provision P ;; Finding : The proposed development will enhance pedestrian traffic in the area of the development by virtue of the walkways to• be provided . Finding : The arrangement of parking areas is safe and convenient, does not detract from the design of proposed buildings . and structures , and does not detract from the neighboring properties . • Finding : The development proposal provides adequate facilities to serve the Tri.-Met bus stop (multiple passenger transit) . • • • PAGE 20 MARK DEVELOPMENT RE TOWN SQUARE. 5583E/FSC/d jr A ;. \, v ' \ _ v Goal 13 - Fnerg Conservation : comprehensive Plan Ob3ective Page 344110 ..- Summary of Evidence The proposed development incorporates d ' 1, commercial use in one existing development . different types of in close proximity to existing residentialIt is also located • potential customers „ areas as the sourof � is poop , A walkway is provided to The building design on the the tei-Met ent energy conservation principles project incorporates including current t . environmental glass which insulates mand rreflectscl.adian 100% shaded clear glass to reduce radiant heatts {� system insulation to maximize ice adin radiant energy, gain , exterior wall ultra-efficient state of the art heatingg andlca�enr`'' and minimize energy consumption . ventilating system to P The nearest similar supermarket is approximately two miles farther from Mountain Park development. then the proposed 3, . Findin : The proposed development will further conservation through the use of multiple retail, and which encourage combininggh thu various energy office uses , • . reduce the amount of travel time purposes in one trip, and will reach alternative existing developmennd tspense presently needed to • 0110 : ' • 410 . ' • PAGE 21 MARK D13VFLOPMENT RE TOWN SQUARE, 5683 /Ffir!d,,; 4. • • y 'ro ....... . • Goal 14 Urbanization : Comprehensive Plan pbjecive page 12 Summary of Evidence ;. The proposed development is Service District located within the Metr limits of the CitytUrban Growth Boundary and ` � 000li ��ar; `, at the of Lake Oswego. The is in the of ra characterpresent time. Property is notrural city substantially surrounded byThe subject property is in development and is in a fullyxurban zed sting residential and commercial urbanized area , transition �o- 9: The subject development change from rural to urbanist does not involve a pp1i cable . land use ,, and Goal 14 is therefore ina • • ,'• ^ v c i • . of '., • 4. ... ' .a,. e • • 'e .� • • • • 0 40 • i PAGE 22 MARE DEVELOPMENT RE TOWN SQUARE. 5683E;/F'Sw/c;-ir g. - q T. V t_ /.: ♦. Summary of Evidence The proposed development does not lie within the boundaries ' 0 i. • � applicable. Goal • - Estuarine and Resources : Goal 17 - Coastal Shore Lands : •_ Beaches + • • 1'',N i i Summary of Evidence The proposed development is located approximately 75 miles " '' . . , .,,, from the Pacific Ocean and will have no impact thereon. ' '.— this proposal. not applicable to ' ' or 1 S• M_ , 1 ,, l.. ,,t 1 ♦ • • dPAGE 3 TOWN SQUARE. • • , d a' b V, • Ln. , Y. . DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO r,, , (1) Historic Resource Preservation: 1 ., ,.. ...:, . Summary of Evidence '� The property on which the place has not beene determinedync byproposed development is to take a,, . • of Historic Places as being of istorice asignif or ica National Register 1 significance . F'in-- a: The historic resource preservation guideline not apply to this development . e does r. f dill. b' r. r 4: 414110 . ,� . 1 i t � t • 1 • r 1 I 1 • A• • 4 • r 1 • • •. , PAGE 24 MARE DEVELOPMENT RE TOWN SQUARE. 5683E/FSC/dir co, r r rr • . , • r ' t . ' ',/ ' ,s, 7 (2) Building Design : Comprehensive Plan Objective Page 15 Summary of Evidence The proposed building design includes two-story steel frame structures with plaster type exterior finish , painted metal roofing , reflective glass on the office structure and clear glass on the retail structure . The pastel nature of the colors and the overall , proportions of the structures help to soften the impact of the larger buildings . The west wing of the shopping center. v s` _pry, .,into the slope. That , combined with the main access drive , 9ra�ling to provide tnFt ive , aide in reducing the zparent height pthe \\L. building . of �' i The mechanical equipment on the buildings are screened from view in penthouses above the offices and break up the overall proportions of the buildiing �and��createnthousr s rooflines complimentary to the scale of the structures . Covered walkways and entries aid in defining the first floor or retail cornice height of the center . The proposal meets the setback requirements applicable to this development . One large mature oak tree will be left on the site . The proposed development will not , block the view of any existing residences or other commercial development. P The foundation design matches the scale of the building being supported . }' y Building mechanical e ° quipment for heating , ventilation, ,etc . is ,h ',used on the roofs and is fully enclosed in metal roofed • "`,',; • penthouse structures . The electrical transformers are pad-mounted . Proposed operatior of the grocery store includes silencing of refrigeration units while on the site . Based on its current design the proposed development can operate within applicable DEQ noise;!' limitations . However the, Board believes measures , such as restrictions on the hours of operation of equipment , should be 0' ; „ specified by the applicant as part that the City can adequately monitor fthe loperation s moft the oshopping • center with regard to DEQ compliance . The building design includes roof angles , overhangs , flashing and gutters that direct water away from the structure , Finding : ' The existing development has been designed and located to compliment and sites environment . Preserve the existing elements of the Finding : Special restrictions on the hours of operation of :' noise generatingequipment e�: ipment may be necessary to comply with DEQ regulations . PAGE a `� SQUARE. 5583E/FS^ ri-ir • 5 lARK DEVET,C1pME(;. RE TOWN ,• . a,i • d _ _ . . , . , .. . , „if ,) 0. 4110 (3) Stream Corridors : Summary of Evidence • .d There exists an intermittent flow of water over the1. �• property. The flow is the drainage . As such there is nounaturallt of rbodycoflwr diversion nofg storm continuously or intermittently in a channel, on or below flowing ° the s �'' of the ground within the meaning o � channelsurface Section 3 .015 (2) and (3 ) . Finding.: : There is no strain corridor on the subject , property . • • • 1 • I • M , ' • . . ' c n f' `' i PAGE 26 MARK DEVELOPMENT RE TOWN SQUARE. ' „' y6�3 �F��,/d it • _. 0, (5) Street Lights : Summary of Evidence The two (2) public streets adjacent to thery. not residential streets , development are " x ' ' Monroe Boones Ferry Road „ ,<<> Parkway is a collector . The CityM is an arterial , and applicable lighting standards for these streets . Manager has determined the ; public pathways and a.�cess ways of less than Lighting for. with a maximum uniformity of illuminatingratio ;�r to h arera . 3 averagefotx ee candles• provided by the proposal. The design af ftlltl exceeding 20 the project avoids theproy unnecessary glare upon adjacent rt lighting o£ Finding : ]scent properties . 1 ___,_ The proposed lighting is adequate , minimizes ' glare on adjoining properties , q City Manager , and , meets the standards determined by the as to the public pathways and access y the requirements of LOC 5. 020 (3) . ways meets . N, � 1 3 6 • yl r • 44 1 i el PAGE 7 MARE DEVELOPMENT TOWN SQUARE. • 5683F,iFySC/d-jr r • (6) Transit System: nr Summary of Evidence Tri--Met bus service is available at the corner of Parkway and Boones Ferry Road adjacent to the development . MNoroe ., additional adjacent transit faciJ ities are o anticipated that much of the patronage of the complexwilllbe b private passenger automobile. Hard surface �'provided to connect the development with the pexistingnPrpaths i-Metwbus be stop which is the nearest adjacent multiple passenger exchange facility. Finding : The proposed development meets the technical requirements of Development Standard 6 .005, Finding : serve developmentmultipleppapsendetr transit. provides adequate f=^cilities to 9 anszt. t' y.• 4 • ` • • . j • • • , r, "1 , , , PAGE 28 MARK DEVELOPMENT RE TOWN SQUARE. 5583E/R5r/djr , . • , • 1 1 p , • f / (7) Parking and Loading: :` Summary of Evidence ' The proposed development will generate a parking need. All parking is off-street and on-site. The dimension and layout of parking spaces and number of parking ' spaces specified for each type of use meets `' or exceeds standards of the ordinance. Handicapped parking and ramps are provided in accordance with the Uniform Building Code. The parkirx �, ' 'y• plan adequately insures that the parking of any vehicle will not interfere with parking or maneuvering of other vehicles . Loading berths to the commercial activities are provided without interferet:7ou .' .,. with off-street parking . The proposed parking meets design standard . 020(7) relating to size of parking stalls and (a) relating to number !. of parking spaces required based on type of use. The proposed develop- ment is not recreational in nature. Finding : Adequate provision has been made for parking and .� loading in conformance with City requirements . • • • • • h • y • • a • • 4111 1• PAGE 29 MARK DEVELOPMENT RE TOWN SQUARE . 5683E/FSC/djr • . Fr . ., . __ - . , . _ . . . . , ., (9) Landscaping , Screeningand Buffering : .� • Sui'mary of Evidence The proposed development is commercial in nature . Of the total land area of 579 , 348 square feet, 208 , 773 square feet will be in landscaping and/or open space equal to 36% of the total area . The parking lot will be visible from the street at several Substantial plantings and the development of a storm water detention pond are planned near the boundaries of the pro-iect to screen and • separate the project from neighboring residential, uses . Operation a of the proposed project will not result in significant odor , dust , smoke , fumes , glare , heat or vibration to adjoining properties . Finding : Adequate provision is made for setback and scL e-n ing of the project from adjoining properties . Finding ; The screening and buffering that are planned for the development adequately screen the parking lot , separate the proposed commercial use from abutting residences, and mitigate • noise , lighting and other impacts . • J a • • • 0 A . oy . PAGE 30 MARK DEVELOPMENT RE mGTIN SQUARE. 566 3 G/FSG/d i t • • ' • i y1 , M1 • t 1 ; / Ip\1 • (10) Fences : 1 • ' Summary of Evidence ' .' No residential frontyards or residential zones are involves ,/ in this development with regard to fences . A fence on the west border of the property has been installed in cooperation with and approved by contiguous homeowners ' association. • • Finding : The fence is of an appropriate height , considering the nature of the adjoining property and the proposed project . • �S. _ 1 I • • • • • • 1 e C PAGE 31 MARK DEVELOPMENT RE TOWN SQUARE, 5633E/FSC/dir 4 • , r •; (11) Drainage Standard Summary of Evidence Drainage management measures are accessible provided for access upon acceptance by inspection, and easements are for city the City for maintenance . The detention pond to minimize waterpolluptantseindstormge system includes While a runoff in excess of a five (5) r runoff. year storm will overflow the basin and flow down Boones Ferry Road , this inadequate City drain system. This problem is attributable to proposed development will not significantly oblem alter. nthe presenttly sn and the "}} drainage pattern . 1 • The storm water detention attributes of the existing wet lands will be equalled or exceeded by the detention pond . This . detention is sufficient to maintain runoff rates at their natural undeveloped levels, Findindrainage set fit in`' standards The proposed development meets the ' development standard (91 , for , • . . /44 i e , • • ,1 • • ��` .. 7 . r PAGE 32 MARK DEVELOPMENT RE TOWN SQUARE. 5683E/FSC/der 4 , v <Y I (12) Drainage for Minor Developments : Summary of Evidence F The proposal is a major development within the mean �i the ordinance. • ng of filling: Standard 12 does not apply . (13) Weak Foundation Soils : • Summary of Evidence 4 None of the area in the subject development has be identified as containing potential weak foundation soil en •n�. ls . Finding: Standard 13 does not a PP1Y ' (14) Utilit Standards : Summary of Evidence All utilities re . , Plans and Specifications required in accordance with City Standards , telephone and other utilitiespservice ated the site . Electric , under proposed to be • I • � ground . located Finding: Utility standards of Standard 14 have been complied with. • • PAGE 33 MARE DEVELOPMENT RE TON SQUJARE. , 5683E/FSG/djr s - • M t (15) Residential Develo ments • Summary of Evidence The proposed development is commercial in nature . developments,`• Standard 15 does not apply to commercial (16) Erosion Potential : • Summary of Evidence This development does not include hillsides with significant erosion potential. Average slope or other areas a, is 5%. ' n— = does not�� Standard 16 V . •' apply to this development . �,� • i • (17) Flood Plain : Summary of Evidence This development is not within a flood plain . development.nd`1.'na : St, ndard 17 does not apply to this . Standard , '. opment. (18) Access : Summary of Evidence r Permanent access has been N• is designated as a collector, street .Provided to Monroe Parkway defined ih the No residential streets, which Standard, abut the development . mhe proposed development abuts Monroe Parkway for more than 25 feet . r. , Finding: d heoac1eo s proposed meets the requirements o Development ndar , t . . . 4110 . , ,;. P AGE 34 MARJ( DEVELOPMENT RE TOWN SQUARE. 553E/FS^./djr , . B • / 11' (19) Site Circulation Standards —Driveways and Private Streets : Summary of Evidence • The proposed development includes in the definition of the Development Standard No. 19 . 1e 05 . Thetswith planr, and specifications have addressed the requirements as to private streets . Finding : The proposed development complies with z! > requirements of Standard No. 19 of Development Standards . (20 ) Site Circulation Standards - Bikeways and ,Walkways : " Summary of Evidence The proposed development ' walkways. No proposed bikeways are p provides for certain designated provided . The existing walkways tie the public streets . The public walkways are located either in a public ^"�` easement or open land dedicated to the public . X . Finding : The standards applicable to bikeways and walkway are met by the proposal. p • • + • • r • 41 li • 1 A ,' e • PAGE 35 MARK DEVELOPMENT RE' TOWN SQUARE. 5683F1FSt:%r1;° • • • 0 ,' • , y ' 1 .. L \ .. (,1 4' Specific comprehensive plan reau irements : ' 4'' • Summary of Evidence • ' . • The subject development is located adjacent to the Mountain ` Park residential. area. Mountain Park contains 2, 722 dwelling units �" with a population of 9 ,000 to 10 ,000 persons . There are ;: approximately 7 , 000 to 8 , 000 persons within one mile of the subject development in Mountain Park . The total number of persons residing within one mile of the project is approximately l 2, 000 . The revised <` 1980 population of the city of Lake Oswego was 22 , t527 . The city itself consists of approximately eight square milr}t; ror an average density of 2, 816 persons per square mile. Based on buying power , purchasing for ret•111. expenditures is $6 , 855 . 00 per capita per year in the city of Lake Oswego . The per capita expenditure in the city of Lake Oswego nor Year on neighborhood convenience retail items which will be Provided in the � ' proposed development is $4 , 043 .00 . The approximately 7 , 500 residents within one mile of the development living in Mountain Park : ;c represent 30 .3 million dollars in retail purchasing power per year . .�; Gross sales for the development will be 15. 16 million dollars per year . The approximately 12, 000 residents which 1•: ve within one mile of the development will spend 24 . 25 million dollars per year in the development . , In order to support the retail portion of the development , it is necessary to attract 9 . 8 million dollars in retail spending per year . Therefore , the proposed development can be supported by " 7 , 500 people or by those persons residing within one mile of the :�. project . It will not be necessary for the project to attract . customers from outside a one mile radius in order to support the project economically . It can thus he said that the proposed development is of an appropriate size and scale to nerve the `\. ,k surrounding "neighborhood" . At present , the nearest comparable shopping areas lip approximately two miles away . They exist in downtown Lake nswec:o and in Lake Grove , The proposed development would reduce the need =. .. for residents of the Mountain Park community to travel outside of the area to meet their retail purchasing needs . , . d' The development proposes the construction an of ho i Ftway grocery store , dry cleaner , camera shop, shoe repair ,:end other ^' similar types of uses . These types of commercial activities are utilized primarily by a'amilies and typically at intervals of one week or less . , . , . 0 i PAGL 36 MARK DEVELOPMENT RE TOWN SQUARE. • 4 41 t . 1.1 A' ♦ a vu i 1 •. tl t • .• n. 1•d r • • '' .� •� 'A 'r I. �tl • ,i' r ; n, ..ei k /w,r�r�r zh . , • i / 1'flA''1 ,'Fd1,t: t * -v tM 1 � � r i,�z 4)" ,''' Between 1976 and 1980 ; N , the c *retail groceries square footage in k7r =e p,�SQ city of Lake Oswego declined approximately 3, 000 square feet ri v�el>�'` f while the population of Lake Oswego during the same period �vr. , i e P lod inc rea,.r� , "` j o z The proposed development ce' / Aes -f � 4,1. types of commercial activity provides for a mix of various �e e M, i Office space is also available which ' has the potential for governmental, social or cultural activities, ; ; �� � t All needed public facilities are available at the site h `` �u ,es developer will provide signalization of the Monroe Parkway-B M } A y '"nb , " Ferry intersection and a left turnv Boon��n ! , '�\4`�, r ; 'x lane on Monroe Parkway , ": ,� ' , Q a Substantial attention has been paid by se screening the project acid buffering its impacts the adjacent er to �• 4 , �r - • residential areas . The bu i?ding space of the yr '..', .t �. k is 30 ,000 square feet less than that proposed developraPnr ordinances. More than the requiredPermitter' by applicable A '- ;�• +�� proposed . Department of Environmental am©Quality unt of open spacerg i s ,1, ar , standards will be met under the noise regulations z i9 from the development which will require la DEQpermit .There are no emissions r' Y ,fY- i ,'If. ! v ! �, Discussion- ___________:. �,,. rrP� "u mA1��` A d © a\. The definition of neighborhood commercial in the comprehensive ';,'aa, rr plan describes "commercial activities �,., ,, � err required b families at intervals of less than a week layservic" '-,"` �! ti ,, area radius of about one mile or three to five minutes travel time, v: ,`u ,' »s•` A containing a g Population of approximately 5,000 to 7 ,500 ' 'Y ;� service area with a radius of one mile comprises 3. 14 square A ,^"�� 2 0f Within the city of Lake Oswego a 3. 14 square mile area will include e. q r miles . ,� .=: ' 8 , 841 persons. The Board does not feel that it was the intent o _ ~'F�h4r , is4, , the plan to restrict neighborhood commercial to on l those f a density of 7, 500 people per 3. 14 square miles , y areas of t the opinion that a neighborhood commercial area is one Board is of , ,:eNi contains commercial activities t� one which r„ �.u. , intervals of less than primarily required by families at a week with a service area radius of one ir,y „ ^r three to five minutes travel time or containinga of approximately 5,000 to `� 500 population u,n, activities of the type described In other words , commercia', f' t t 4 ac_i are appropriate scribe�7 with a service area radius of o,*��; , <� r eehappropriatele revensthough more than 70500 withinttihees onewou be Otherwise a7.? people mayo residec . ,';.. neighborhood commercial is~, 4 excluded from an the criteria of distance and o ' 'rea which did not " ' ---- weer both Ae population in its service area radius ;''�a;. ', thereby effectivelyexcludingthat type of activity from most of the �;�M1 city of Lake Oswego. �z'� " " ;�' The Comprehensive Plan also spec ifi i t of the site up to 163, 000 square feat .` ca l_y a]. ows development +°; 129 ,000hes square feet . The Plan , therefore ,1esppec if proposed is k . development on the site of the S�• .r, provision applicable to the s scale proposed . given this ,be-'i !'i ec i f i c site under _ , ------T..,,_ .L�___.____. cons?c7era ton , t / t+` PAGE DARK D \I . MT RE =It • F]LOPME. TOWN SQUARE. Al, 593F�'Pr ; „ s N ' 6 . :::•k r :.. Y }, J t 1 }Y �V. cannot be said that the size of development violates the Comprehensive Plan. (p • 64 Definitions , p 65 General Definition of Neighborhood Commercial, pp . 78 & 79 Site Specific Plan Provisions , Findings: 1. The proposed development is a neighborhood commer.cia; use within the definition of the comprehensive plan, 2. The subject development is designed to meet the needs • of the community 's consumers. 3 . The proposed development provides for a mix of commercial activities with the potential for socLL11 , cultural and governmental activities in the same shopping area . 4 . The proposed development is of an appropriate size to serve the area within a one mile radius of the development and can be supported by customers residing within one mile. 5. Adequate streets and public facilities are available at le the site. IP ` 6 . Adequate measures have been incorporated into the design of the project to assure minimal negative impacts on adjacent residential areas. • • • • • 4. • • y , u t _ • wq A• � �M1JJ AI `l r .° PAGE 38 MARK DEVELOPMENT RE TOWN SQUARE.' 5683 /FF te • a I E • 4 .. . ...1✓, t�' • .M1• - et.C s.. .r •� �1 ', L f.. 'Q- , I , ' r Comprehensive Plan policies applicable to Monroe/Boones Ferry site The comprehensive plan specifically addresses the Monroe/Boones Ferry site at page 78 . The ll building area on the site is not to exceedp163 ,lan 000vsquareides hfee et . As proposed the development �..p to ment will have a building area of 1.29 .000 square feet. The proposal provides for pedestrian access from the Tri-Met bus stop and from the adjacent J public streets . The developer has • executed a waiver of remonstrance as to improvements on Boones Ferry Road , has agreed to provide traffic signal.ization at the • , intersection of Boones Ferry Road and Monroe Parkway and an additional left turn lane from Monroe Parkway . n on site drainaar! retention pond is proposed which will equl r exceed values of the existing wetland . The P poseddr,mmnagetretention�, . approaches the limits of feasibility in its, protection of Springbrook Creek . Finding : 1 . The proposed development complies with all specific policies of the comprehensive plan specifically applicable to the Monroe/Boones Ferry site . • • • • • • • • • S PAGE 39 MARK DEVELOPMENT RE TOt N SQUARE. 1 D CITY CODE PROVISIONS LOC 52 .010 to 52 .080 Neighborhood Commercial Zone LOC 50 .020 (19, 38 ) Height , Story - LOC 50 .330 General Exception to structure height " limitations LOC Chapter 47 Code Sig n ::::: - •Summary of Evidence 7.;,' - - The Zoning Map of the City of Lake Oswego lists the alt ,� as Planned Unit Development (PUD) . The site was platted with a : General Commercial overlay, however it is restricted by the + "' Comprehensive Plan to Neighborhood Commercial and mast comply wit:, ; - the provisions of that zone. The proposed uses for the development include a grocery 4 • ''' A- store, retail stores and some office space . All business activity .; � „� will be conducted wholly within an enclosed building . The proposed setback from Monroe Parkway is in excess of fifty feet . Visior, £..; ,. .Y, , _ clearance is in excess of fifteen feet. x The known uses of the shopping center are permitted uses on the site. The project has been designed to meet the lot size, setback, and lot coverage provisions of the Neighborhood Commercial Zone . :- The project consists of two independent structures which are considered separately. The site is a difficult one with a fall of 50 feet from west to east . The site sits at a low point in 5 •p respect to the surrounding neighborhood with most adjacent . - - structures above the site , ♦r , _ The retail/office structure is considered two-stir• �. , building with a basement by virtue of the first office floor be:: g less than six feet above grade for more than 50 percent of pis ". , perimeter . The height from grade to the highest point of coping f•h" ! - the two-story portion is 30 feet . Mechanical equipment on top o: h roof is screened from view by an enclosure integrated with buildA:g , ,, forms and materials consisting of a monitor with roof. The mechanical monitor is considered a general exception to structure �` height limitation as it is a housing above the roof of the ouildIng - to shield equipment from view and sound pollution . 1; The grocery/retail structure is a one-story building with a mechanical monitor over grocery portion . The height frcrt '• r =* grade to the highest gable is 29.99 feet . i • N The signage proposal reviewed by the Board was riot complete enough for adequate review. The Board believed that tr,e , 25 plans should be revised and finalized, and be brought back f..,r * .... c.' t" review. l Page (DR 25-79 ) .• y. - • a• li ,,pp{{ n ., i` _x y Y.. 1. * 6 C4,, F• s .!�F •, �" I f! 4 19 ^_ ' 1 .. r jr .ii Finding: The proposed structures do not e:cc'efad the #.` thirty-foot or two-story limitation of the ` ` 1 _ ordinance . Finding: Compliance with the Sign Code cannot be adequately determined until signage pla-::,s n are finalized . w .+ Finding: All other provisions of the Neighboncoo.i Commercial Zone have been met . IT IS ORDERED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD that approval be granted for DR 25-79 . 'r DATED this :� day of CJ U , 1982 . , , • i.' a ma , D elop nt Review Board t j/...,.if+.TTEST � :a ATTEST:1 y Secretary, Development Review Board AYES : Bates , Petrie, Eslick, Clarke . NOES: None ABSTAIN: Bonney "` ABSENT: Nishimura , r fi L • ''l,'1 .. :-prova:. of this Order : { _� A'..-es : Races , Eslick, Clarke , Nishimura Noes : None . . .; sent : Petrie, Bonney . • • a • 24 1 aC 0 ,', : • Q y. .. s� -1 ,DR 25-79 ) Z494PPage ;RG : mw i�" • .. � 1 � ' . ., . 1, a. T .. .. .. , lti ',' v , 1 11 l. s COUNCIL REPORT August 9 , 1982 . ;; Peter C . Harvey, City Manager ;•!a; ;a ".: Planning Division >n ': S . I ECT: Appeal of the Approval Granted to Brugger Farms, Inc. (DR 25-79 ) on June 7 , 1982 .1 ANALYSIS A9 Background ' The project came before the Development Review Board on • ti April 19 , 1982 . The applicant was requesting approval of a '• " . 129, 285 square foot shopping center at the northwrist corner of the intersection of Monroe Parkway and Boones Ferry Road . The decision of the Board was delayed, however, and . ` ' .: an additional public hearing was scheduled for May 17, 1982 . A large number of interested people appeared at the Ir�l F hearing and requested that a new hearing be scheduled ..00 primarily because there was not enough room in the Council � ,,s- Chambers for all those present to participate in the ; 9,.. hearing . A decision Was again postponed and a hearing was � ► 1. held on June 7 , 1982 at the Lake Oswego Junior High School . The Development Review Board granted approval with conditions, as shown in the Findings (Exhibit 3 ) . y A' The appellants are appealing a number of findings listed in . ' the official order of the Development Review Board which was adopted on June 24, 1982 . A summary of the grounds ? relied upon for appeal (See Exhibit 2 , p. 2, for complete � . .�?I t ,� listing) is listed below. . . ' There is not substantial evidence in the record to -� make the finding that LCDC Goal 2 , Land Use Planning, has been met and that the Board has adequately • considered the social , economic, energy, and • .•M • environmental needs of the City. 2 . There is not substantial evidence and in some cases no evidence to rapport nine specific findings made by the Board with respect to LCDC Goal 5, Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic, and Natural Resources . 3 . There is not substantial evidence to support a finding that the development will not have an adverse affect on air, water, and land resources quality; .:.., • specifically, there is not sufficient evidence to -• support the findng that noise levels will be Within DEQ Limits . • 4 . There is not sufficient evidence to illustrate r '� compliance with Goal 8, Recreational Needs . E X HIQ)T " DP-l'41 ► e IV- M» Y 5 . There is not sufficient evidence to illustrate x'1 compliance with Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services. • d 6 • There is no substantial evidence in the record to . . .•fy support a finding that the proposed developrent is designed and located to complement and preserve the ''`, existing elements of the site ' s environment (Building Design Standard, 2 :020 (1 ) i•t; r 7 . There is no evidence in the record to support the"s,r�h� finding that there is no stream corridor on the '45i subject property (applicability of Stream Corridor Standard ) . (1 • There is no substantial evidence in the record to f1 support a finding that the proposed development meets the standards for drainage set forth in Development IA,+„ Standard 11 . 9 . Pages 36 through 38 of the Findings, Conclusions, and ', ?; Order were not presented before the Board during hearings and should be stricken from the record, as should the six firuings on page 36 based upon that evidence . 10. There is ,,o substantial evidence in the record to support the finding that the proposed development complies with all specific P policies of Comprehensive �• Plan specifically applicable to the Monroe Parkway/Boones Ferry site . 11 . There is no substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that the proposed development meets• the provisions of the Neighborhood Commercial Zone, as aefined in Lake Oswego Code Sections 52 .010 - 52 .080; , , ; specifically in regard to height . 12 . There has been no showing of the existence of a public • need for the proposed development; as required by the Comprehensive Plan. 13 , The applicant failed to comply with a condition of the Board which requested that the applicant obtain approval of the proposed design from the Mountain Park Architectural Review Committee and the Mountain Park Home Owners ' Board of Directors. 14 . There has been virtually no compliance with the conflict resolution provisions contained in Goal 5 of 3 , ' the statewide goals and guidelines . M A review of the evidence submitted during hearings before ;' the Board shows that substantial evidence was submitted and that the Board ' s conclusions were adequately based on the '' ,� evidence . Each of the points raised by the appellant " ' regarding evidence, findings, procedure, and compliance • .., with requirements are addressed as follows : 40 1. Goal 2 - Land Use Planning r 1 r4 4 /y..., Y 11 .. Yu�" .+, The record illustrates that a proper application was F �ti ', made before the Development Review Board, that proper `� ` notice of hearings were given, that a staff report was ' ,' prepared in a timely manner , that hearings were conducted properly, and that an official Order was adopted by the Board , as required . The record also ' ' illustrates that the project was reviewed for compliance with the Development Ordinance and Standards, the Comprehensive Plan, LCDC Goals and the •` 'i' 1 " t Department of Environmental Quality noise and indirect 7', emissions regulations. The Board believed that the project complied with all applicable regulations and therefore concluded that Goal 2 was met. , , 1 4"' The Planned Unit Development Ordinance is considered to be complied with, as the Development Review process meets the substantive requirements of the Ordinance . 2 . Goal 5 - Open Spaces Scenic Historic Areas, and Natural Resources +J Evidence exists in the record as listed below to � " support the findings of the Board with respect to Goal 5 . They are listed in the order refuted by the .4 " appellant . ' A. A wetlands evaluation ( Exhibit 7 ) prepared by Bierly and Associates, Inc . , Wetland and Wate 'way Resource Consultants , evaluates the wetland and , on page 9, concludes that its values can at least be equaled by the proposed detention pond. The f Boaro also reviewed the landscape plan (Exhibit " , E ) , t'hy grading plan (Exhibit 9 ) , the storm sewer plan (Exhibit 10 ) , and a letter from the Director of Public Works, dated June 7 , 1982 (Exhibit ,' 11 ) . Testimony can be found in the transcript of %'. June 7 , 1982 (pp. 9, 50-54) . } *'^ .y B. The Board concluded that the existing wetland does not have priority for acquisition as public . access open space, as it is not listed in the Comprehensive Plan as part of the planned open ' ,,. , space system or shown as being within a park or proposed open space. No intercity bike/pedestrian pathways are proposed to pass , through the site . This evidence was submitted to • the Board in the draft findings (Exhibit 6 , p. 5 ) which were submitted as an exhibit and reviewed at the June 7 , 1982 meeting . �" '' c C . and D. The Board believed that Comprehensive Plan -- and the Wetland Standard, when read together , , " called for the preservation of essential natural processes (p. 88, Comprehensive Plan) . The ' primary funcdjo of storage of storm water runoff _ • is increased by the proposed development and •; other processes are equaled, and therefore meets the preservation requiremen.. of Wetland Standards . The Board based its findiriqs in the .; evidence cited in Section 2A of this report . E. The Wetlands Evaluation (Exhibit 7 ) and - additional evidence described in testimony during •,., `; the June 7 , 1982 meeting (pp. 51-52 of transcript ) provided the basis for the Board ' s ..r finding that the educational value of the wetland .-» is low. •a F. The Board found that there are no alternative sites available outside the essential wetlar'l and that the proposed development is primarily ' ` ' dependent on being located in or in close , ; ;_. proximity to the essential wetland. A review of 0 \;, ,', -:;,.,. the existing Zoning Map and Comprehensive Plan Map illustrated that there is no other similarly a zoned, similar size parcel of land in Lake . Oswego. The site plan (Exhibit 12 ) , reviewed by the Board, is evidence that a project of the size , .r; allowed on the site with the parking and landscaping required to meet City Standards is `, primarily dependent on being located in or in close proximity to the essential wetland . G . Evidence that the proposed development incorporates wetland features can be found in the landscape plan (Exhibit 8 ) and in the wetlands evaluation (Exhibit 7 , pp. 9-10 ) . The site plan . ' and landscape plan show that the proposed project •' :': provides more than double the required amount of • •t • , landscaping and that the landscaped retention .. pond will increase the buffer for the residential .. area across Boones Ferry Road. Evidence that the ,'•.„.- development will increase the storm water "' retention capacity of the site has been listed in Section 2A of this report . 3 . Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality '• �'`'. A Noise Analysis Report (Exhibit 13 ) prepared by "" Seton, Johnson and Odell , a letter dated May 11 , 1982 • ,r (Exhibit 23 ) from John Hector of the Department of Environmental Quality and additional evidence presented in testimony at the June 7 , 1982 meeting (pp. 54-56 of the transcript ) provided the basis for b ,, the Board ' s forecast that noise levels would fall , :, ,, '" within DEQ limits . The Board established a condition (Number 4, Exhibit 3 ) to further insure compliance for E v those noise problems which could be the result of operating procedure and which could not be measured prior tc development . ° 4 . Goal 8 - Recreational Needs , n. The Board based its findings, that development will not have an adverse affect on recreational, needs , that it will not have an adverse affect on public access to special and unique areas , and that the development will not interfere with any existing recreational uses of the property, on evidence submitted in the draft ( Exhibit findings6 , g p. 5 ) . In addition, testimony in the June 7, 1982 meeting addressed that issue ( transcript, p. 23 ) . 5 . Goal 11 - Public Facilities and Services The Board believed that adequate public facilities and ' services were available and that the proposed ! ' development would not exceed the ability of the City to provide services and that it will not have an - adverse affect on the quality of the City ' s public services . These findings were based on evidence found primarily in the grading plan (Exhibit 9 ) , the utility and easement survey (Exhibit 14) , the storm sewer je improvement plan (Exhibit 10 ) , the sanitary sewer and . waterline improvements plan (Exhibit 15 ) and in the Staff Report of April 9 , 1982 (Exhibit 16 ) . These materials provided substantial and adequate evidence . . rtt, Z . Build ng Desicn Standard '• Sri. The board found that the development was designed and A., located to compliment and preserve the existing elements of the site ' s environment. Evidence can be found as listed in Section 2a of this report which speaks of preservation of the wetland. Also the . ` landscape plan (Exhibit 8 ) and the applicant ' s narrative (Exhibit 17 ) illustrate the saving of the significant oak tree on the site . The transcript of the April 19, 1982 meeting of the Board (pp. 39-40) , provides evidence that it would not be desirable to � ," , save the Lombardy Poplars on the site, which have T near. v reached the end of their lifespan and are in t , poor condition. No element of the site or adjacent environment would be affected by the development . 4 , y ::V �OCo 7 . Stream Corridor Standard '' { Despite the fact that the Lake Oswego Hydrology Map IP ,:. -,, . indicates the existence of a stream corridor on the site, the Board found no actual evidence that one existed. Photographs of the site (Exhibit 18 ) and the Grading Plan (Exhibit 9 ) , which shows existing grades, does not illustrate the existence of a stream corridor . Testimony in the June 7 , 1982 transcript (p. 76) provides evidence that the stream corridor does not exist . The only testimony to the contrary spoke of its existence on the Hydrology Map. a . Drainage Standards Substantial evidence in the record to illustrate y' compliance with the Drainage Standard includou the `' " Grading Plan (Exhibit 9 ) , the Storm Sewer Improvement Plan (Exhibit 10 ) , the Project Engineer ' s (City) Memorandum of March 18, 1982 (Exhibit 19) and the letter of June 7 , 1982 from the Director of Public 4. Works (Exhibit 11) . The evidence that runoff in t excess of a five-year storm will overflow and run down Boones Ferry Road illustrates an existing condition �., that is outside of the applicant ' s control . It could � . ; not be mitigated by measures necessary to comply with the Drainage Standard. 9 . Sgecific Comprehensive Plan Requirements 1 ,�' The evidence listed on pages 36 through 38 was presented during the course of hearings before the , Board . The appellant claims they were not . The first three paragraphs of Page 36 were submitted in Board Exhibit UU (Exhibit 20 ) dated June 7 , 1982 . :, , ° The remainder of the evidence was submitted in the draft findings (Exhibit 6 ) , the Site Plan ( Exhibit 'S'L. "' 12 ) , in the transcript of June 7', 1982 (Exhibit 4, p. 63-65 ) and in the applicant ' s project narrative (Exhibit 17 ) . There is substantial and adequate , evidence in the record to support all six of the Board ' s findings on Page 38. 10. Comprehensive Plan Policies Applicable to the Monroe/Boones FerE/ Site (pp. 78-79 Comprehensive Plan) • The Site Plan (Exhibit 12 ) illustrates that the • proposed building area (present and future) of 129, 285 square feet does not exceed the Comprehensive Plan restriction of 163 ,000 square feet for the site. The site plan also illustrates that pedestrian access has been provided in compliance with the original plats of Mountain Park . A pathway is proposed along Monroe . s u / ♦ tit f . '1 Parkway connecting to the existing Mountain Park ' ; pathway system. The applicant has signed a non-remonstrance agreement to allow a pathway to be constructed along Boones Ferry at some future date. ~ ' The site plan and grading plan (Exhibit 9 ) illustrate :, that the Boones Ferry path has been provided for in aY .,. the site design. The applicants have agreed to pay for street improvements to Boones Ferry Road and to provide traffic signalization which is required because of r • traffic generated from the site . Pages 14 and 64 of the transcript of June 7 , 1982 illustrate that the ' ` Board considered testimony that signalization and street improvements would be provided, by the applicant, that met or exceeded the specific requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. A traffic study (Exhibit 21) provided evidence that ." signalization and roadway improvements would be necessary. ; '' As previously discussed in this report (Section 8 ) ° ';, on-site drainage retention has been provided which 6' . , protects Springbrook Creek, which lies off-site to the '; : ' " south. The second sentence of the first of the four items ° requires that: "The site development plan approved as part of the PUD should be revised to permit commercial uses which would be appropriate for present needs for types of commercial uses . " Absence of a Development Review hearing compliance with this Plan requirement would normally require a hearing before the Planning Commission to review the modification to the site ' development plan. The Board has performed this • " function and has met the substantive requirements of the PUD Ordinance. .; .. 11 . City Code Provisions • The Board found that the proposed development met the t ` provisions of the Neighborhood Commercial Zone (LOC . 52.010 - 52 .080) ; however, the elevation drawings (Exhibit 22 ) submitted by the applicant, which dimensioned gross height , required measurement to determine the extent of the mechanical penthouses . The Board coulc not perform this task at the time of the hearing and established a condition of approval (Condition 5 ) requiring the staff to review the structure for compliance with the height requirements of City Code. Pages 74 and 75 of the transcript of �:` ' 1 June 7 provides evidence the Board considered the height of the structure and that it was testified that the tallest structure classifies as a two -story building ( two stories and a basement ) . The elevations "« „,, and grading plan (Exhibit 9 ) confirmed to the Board that the structure meets the story limitations of the4110zone . Elevations drawn in Exhibit 22-A illustrate that the south-facing wing of the shopping center conforms to the 30-foot height limitation of the zone . Any area • ,"i above the 30-foot point is part of the mechanical penthouse assembly. Elevations drawn in Exhibit 22-B illustrate that the east-facing wing measures 33 . 33 feet, exclusive of the mechanical penthouse, and therefore does not conform to the height limitation of the zone. No other structures were considered in this phase of development, as approval of additional -' structures was not requested by the applicant . ,12 . Public Need The applicant has provided data (Exhibits 20 and 6 ) to support the economic basis for development of the site ` .',' ,,. in conformance with the "Neighborhood Commercial" 4' nyquirements of the Comprehensive Plan. The Board "' , hound this evidence adequate. These exhibits also . 04 provided sufficient evidence of "need" for the Board to conclude that, the project meets the needs of the l� ' community. While the evidence illustrates need, it is y . u• not clear that it is necessary to provide evidence of "' .' 'the economic need for a development . The ' 'p portion of t'in Comprehensive Plan cited by the applicant is also .a ,:- refk'rred to in the last paragraph of Section 10 of this report . 13 . Compliance with Development Review Board Conditions The request of the Development Review Board for the applicant to obtain approval of both the Mt. Park Architectural Review Committee and the Mt . Park Tome r Owners ' Board of Directors was not a condition of approval of the Board . Discussion on Page 81 of the transcript of June 7 illustrates that the Board , believed it could not properly be required as a condition of their approval . The Board h:lieved that , .. , conformance to such a condition was outside of the control of the applicant and the City. .. a1 14. Conflict Resolution Provisions of Goal 5 The appellant claims that there has been virtually no a compliance with the conflict resolution provisions of Goal 5 . The Board found as described previously in this report that the proposed project complied with Standards addressing The resources of the site,specifically the wetland, and therefore no conflict of 4111 a ik . IV ., A:, s5 1 y' n, uses existed. Information was collected as illustrated in Section 2 of this report wha,ch provided the basis for their ,action. a . Attachments 1 . Tax Map ;,', ''. 2 . Letter of Appeal (8 pp) :-.:. . " t 3 . Findings of June 24, 1982 ` t'' 4 . Transcript of June 7, 1982 %., -• 5 . Transcript of April 19, 1982 6 . Draft Findings (June 7, 1982 , 33 pp) 7 . Wetlands Evaluation by Bierly and Associates, Inc. (15 PP) 8 . Landscape Plans 9. Grading Plan 10 . Storm Sewer Plan . 11 . Letter from Public Works Director, June 7, 1982 j`. 12 . Site Plan 13 . Noise Analysis Report (26 pp) 14. Utility and Easement Survey 15 . Sanitary Sewer and Waterline Improvements Plan ^r 16. Staff Report of April 19, 1982 ; ` 17 . Applicant ' s Project Narrative _. 18. Photographs i,j ei 19 . Project Engineers Memorandum of March 18, 19E32 0. ,. 20. Board Exhibit UU , �1 • t'di1 21 . Traffic Study (22 pp) • °F4 22 . Elevation Drawings (2 sheets, too large to be included in packet) �+�1'a,°, ' 23 . DEQ Letter of May 11, 1982 {" 24 . Memorandum of Opposition ( 10 pp) .'�`f E Numerous other exhibits exist in the DR 25-79 (Bruggex 4 . Farms ) File. They are not referenced in this Report or by the appellant, but will be available for review. _ . Considerations The Development Review Board believed that there were two major issues to be considered in their review. The first A concerned the wetland noted on the site which has the designations of Essential Wetland and a Distinctive Natural Area. While there was some discussion that the Wetland did not deserve these designations, the Board accepted it and proceeded With their review. The "discussion" portion of g4.': . the Findings (Exhibit 3 ) , pp. 11-12, illustrates that the �1 , major issue confronting the Board was how to interpret the Wetland Standard and Comprehensive Plan as they related to e'`` the aPPlicant ' s proposal. The he proposal preserved the ' character and function of the wetland, but not the actual _. ::: ....A'''' wetland in its original condition and location (as mapped in the Bierly Report, Exhibit 7 ) , A:- '.-;-' 0 'x.;.' The second major issue concerned the review of material ° ,� , submitted to illustrate the proposals compliance with the • w , �, .', 1, Comprehensive Plan ' s definition of Neighborhood Commercial (p. 65 ) and the Plan ' s specific requirements for the site " ; .• The "discussion" portion of the Findings, pp. 37-38, . :..... ; illustrates that the Board made interpretations that satisfied both the Neighborhood Commercial definition of the P ' and the site specific requirements of the Plan which allows up to 163,000 square feet of commercial development. Other considerations of the Board are illustrated in the Discussion and Summary of Evidence portions of the Findings .g Of special note is that portion concerning height, p. 40. The appellants did not agree with the Board and submitted a Memorandum of Opposition (Exhibit 24) at the time of the hearing . _. Conclusion . The Board concluded that the project complied with all • applicable criteria and standards to the extent that . approval could be granted with conditions as illustrated in • the Findings . • I_ . =CLIC'Y ANALYSIS A. Policy Impact If the appeal is upheld it would indicate only that the evidence submitted was insufficient and not necessarily that the conclusions were incorrect. The applicant has t provided a very detailed application and hired a number of experts to present testimony and prepare plans and reports . Upholding the appeal, however, would indicate that even more information is, or could be, required of developers . 4 Upholding the decision of the Board would provide some clarity to the review of Mountain Park Neighborhood ' Commercial areas and to the intent of the Comprehensive , Plan regarding the protection of wetlands . { • Relation to the Comprehensive Plan As described above and elsewhere in this report, Council • action will result in clarification of the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the use of the Standards . 5, AfT I, r Y • . . . • ,• , \r , • , ✓ , ` - . RECOMMENDATION I' 111 A. Action Requested J ' The staff recommends that the appeal be denied . The Development Review Board ' s condition 5 required the staff • to review the building ' s height to determine compliance with City Codes . This has been done, as illustrated in Section 11 of this report, and would require the applicant to return to the Board with modified plans or to return to request a variance. It should be noted that if a new order is not adopted by the Board prior to the effective date of adoption of the proposed Zoning C >de the ppos would be :•, ro r,l f reviewed for compliance with the new Code ( the proposed , � Code lists the allowed height in a Neighborhood Commercial Zone as 35 feet ) . Follow-Up Action • If the appeal were denied, staff would prepare reports to the Board for any building modification or variance request • of the applicant . If the appeal is upheld, or if Council remands the project back to the Board with direction for additional review, additional reports would be required as well , Similar staff work would be required in the event that Council determines the need for a hearing before the Planning Commission. New Findings would be prepared as necessary. p Pre ared ; y {,i Robert Galante . Design Review Planner , i ' • y\ A 412F mw • / t +I� 1 • •,A • • • w • ti • • • y . 1 • • A AM de • F r M y' TUWNE SQUARE AT MOUNTAIN PARK PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL COMPARISON , *...:-.. '. :. previous submittal of this project received approval of P.R.B. on • 7 June 1982. Numerous objections to the project were cited by local residents resulting in an appeal to city council of the D.R.B. approval . The city council on 28 Sept, 1982 overturned the D.R.B. approval for reasons of development size and wetland issues . The following is a summary of changes that have occured to development proposal since the June 1982 submittal ; 1. December 1982 zoning ordinance adopted by city council re olved �' issue of size and use as specifically related to this site, 2. Area agreed to by city staff as comprizing P 9 wetlands ( .6A) has been perserved in proposed development. In addition 1 .87 acres surrounding wetlands have been given to transition area, additional wetlands, or detention pond supporting wetland features. 3. Building area has been reduced from 13 ,235 S.F. to 116,535 S.F. 4. Landscape area has been increased from 216,082 S.F. (37%) to 247,096 S.F. (43%) , • E. Parked cars has been reduced from 522 to 469 cars. • Setback on north property line at grocery store has increased , . from 30 feet to 41 feet. . Setback on Monroe Parkway at Office Building has been increased from 60 feet to 106 feet. Entrance to site across wetlands has been eliminated and relocated to north property line. Setback of office parking north P 9 on property has been increased • from 55 feet to 95 feet, :Z. Monitor on grocery store that extended to north end of building has been reduced to only 60 feet at south end, 1.1. Grocery has been relocated to centerof site to more evenly distribute parking. • :�, Canopy at retail has entrance elements added to better identify i EXHIBIT entrance and further break down mass of structure, i aim 1 • • ' EXHIBIT �� 217' • 0121-elIe • ' ',,„, , I t°'.y dr , , r,4, .. . . . . ii....„ oll I • 13. Color scheme of project has been changed from a pastel one to one using earth tones. 14. Signage for retail spaces has been removed from canopy and placed over windows under canopies. It will be used only by pedestrians or autos on site rather than visible from streets. 15. 24 existing trees will be perserved rather than one in previous submittal . 16. Storm water detention has been increased from 12636 C.F. required by city to 77506 C.F. t�rk 04 n .. 17. Traffic study has been expanded to include data on, Goodall road r'`� and Knaas road both not ajoining site. i 1 • 1 ► • ,'� , • 411 . yI J. /,. t y 4;,,4 STAFF REPORT March 1, 1983 ^R FILE DR 1-83 • APPLICANT Mark Development Company ., . : L-NCATION The Northwest corner (13 .3 acres) of Monroe Parkway and ces Ferry Road. ^, 31, DESCRIPTION Tax Lots 200 and 101 of Tax Map 2 1U 5AA, Cla=namas County and Tax lot 10 of Tax Maps 4226 and 4227 tlultnomah Cc•Inty. NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION Mountain Park APPLICANT ' S REQUEST Approval to allow the construction of a 116 ,535 �., sq-4are foot shopping center . : ERIA AND STANDARDS y r'n LOC 49. 300 to 49.335 Major Development Procedures ' ` LOC 48 .300 to 48 .315 Commercial Districts r, ,' '. LOC 48.015 (25 ) Height of Building ' `'° ' ' LOC 48 .515 (2) General Exception to Structure Height Limitations ` ' • LOC 49 .640 (4) Resubmittal LOC 48.530 Vision Clearance DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ( Those applicable) F Building Design Fences Wetlands Drainage for Master Development Street Lights Utilities Transit Access Site Circulation - Private Streets/Bikeways and Walkways , 4 Park and Open Space/Landscaping, Street Trees , Screening, ,. Buffering Stream Corridors )• � • , COMPREHENSIVE PLAN • Commercial Land Use Policy Element pp. 63-68, VII Mountain Park • Commercial Areas , VII-B tlonroe/Boones Ferry Site pp. 78-79 ill Natural Resources Policy Element pp. 23-42 Wildlife Habitat Policies EXHIBIT -70 , : EXHI EXHIBIT . Lt7 + 12-Z1-ot 1 t- . . • • STAFF REPORT/DR 1-83 March 1, 1983 Page 2 Distinctive Natural Area Policies Wetlands p. 38 Open Space Land Use Policyp • Element pp. 85-93 Economic Resource Policies p. 49 Housing Choice Policies Growth Management Policy Element p. 57 pp. Public Facilities Land Use Policy Element ,pp PP 111-116 Transportation Land Use Policy Element pp. 100-110 ,h LCDC Goals and Guidelines • 77ISTING CONDITIONS AND HISTORY �• Tne Towne Square at Mountain Park is within the Mountain Park PUD:.h e extreme eastern side of the development at the intersection ofon '.o.nroe Parkway and Boones Ferry Road . It contains 13 .3 acres +entirely within the City of Lake Oswego but divided between Multnomah and Clackamas counties. The property is designated neighborhood oommercial use . The site slopes 50 feet from west to east over a distance of approximately 900 feet ( slopes approximately 5% ) . During j 7.-he construction of Mountain Park, the site was used as a depository for fill ranging in depths up to 25 feet . ` = The fill is of poor a ▪uality. original soils are of Cascade and Delena associations , f which are very poorly drained silt loams. both of y ▪ e lower portion of the site , along Boones Ferry, designated as a Distinctive Natural Area in the ComprehensiWetlanve and . • =Ian . Other natural features of note are a double row of Lombardy Poplars and a carpet of Horsetail Grass in the wetlands and a large ld oak up in the southwest corner of the property. In addition, a -all orchard , a number of hawthornes, and some maples exist, :: arily in the east half of the site. . in • _f:acent land uses include condominiums ^F , oommercial area to the south, single familyto theresidencesWest, vto�the and .7 th, undeveloped land to the northeast, and single family homes cross Boones Ferry to the east . The property is partially in • .. Olackamas and mostly in Multnomah County. Sogle family homes along the north property line are constructed on • substantial amount of fill. At the base of that fill, and running the length of the north property line, the City of Portland has a 2u ' M_.:e utility easement upon which they will not allow the planting of trees . • Presently Boones Ferry Road has a right-of-way width of 70 ' in both Clackamas and Multnomah Counties . Thirty feet of aetback is required along Boones Ferry Road and 40 ' is required along Monroe Parkway. of Y " AFF REPORT/DR 1-83 ch 1 , 1983 rye 3 =at setback, 30 ' along Boones Ferry and 20 ' along Monroe Parkway is • = gzired to be left in open space or landscaping . A pathway is i.cated to be within the setback area along Monroe Parkway rc_ording to the Mt . Park Phase II and IV Plats . Comprehensive Plan projects the average weekly volume of traffic _s be about 17 ,000 trips on Boones Ferry Road and 12 ,000 trips on _:, .roe Parkway by the year 2000. Current ( 1977) traffic volumes are _:l.strated in the plan to be 5 ,400 trips for Boones Ferry Road and :, :;U trips for Monroe Parkway. A traffic study commicsioned by the licant for this project updates the existing volumes) to 6 ,200 and r for Boones Ferry and Monroe Parkway, respectively ( Exhibit Y) . _ _n roads are presently designed with two travel lanes and a stop _ n.. controls traffic from Monroe Parkway onto Boones Ferry . A more -;Mete description of existing roadway and traffic conditions can Cs found in the traffic study. 3`=ttional site information can be found as follows: • Existing Noise Conditions - Exhibit X (Noise Study) \ ' Existing Wetland - Exhibit 2 (Wetlands Report) ;..;�` ': :::: Soils Report - Exhibit AA . , Existing Drainage - Exhibit 00 Slope Analysis - Exhibit D (nap) Boundary Survey - Exhibit E Topographical Survey - Exhibit Q Utility and Easement Survey - Exhibit LL • Noise, Sun, Wind Exposure - Exhibit MM (Map) Natural Features - Exhibit NN (Map) _` ;red setbacks for the project are illustrated on Exhibit PP (Map) , r. _nplicants had previously submitted an application in the spring • y , ..r _9S2, which was considered and approved by the Development Review . ard . That decision was reversed by City Council on October 19, L E7 , after an appeal by citizens opposed to the project. A complete description of the history of development proposed for the site and _f conditions affecting development can be found in Exhibit A Y-story of Project) . _ _ :zr to the hearing of this application, the board should establish that the project is not the same or substantially similar to the rvlous application and should then waive the six month restriction • L :r _esubmittal CLOG 49 .640 (4 ) ] . • i The staff has reviewed the previous s.:'c,�..ittal comparison ( Exhibit KK) and believes that conditions have -hanged to an extent that further consideration is warranted. The slx month restriction should be waived and the new application should ' 3 , be considered . 4 .r .\ y STAFF REPORT/DR 1-83 4111 ' ` Farch 1 , 1983 Page 4 SCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS • 'The proposed development called the Towne Square at Mountain Park 0':. - k,_ll contain 60 ,000 square feet of retail, 30 ,735 square feet of .service and 25,800 square feet of medical/dental office space. 469 parking spaces are divided between upper and lower parking lots which a' are accessed at three points. The primary access is located ==proximately 350 ' west of Boones Ferry Road on Monroe Parkway with a secondary access from Monroe located approximately 400 $ further «. st . Another access is located on Boones Ferry Roan at the :rtheast corner of the site. A service drive conneot;s the two parking lots and provides emergency vehicle access tO the rear (along _.e north property line) of the complex . Setbacks and pathway _.instruction required as part of the original Mt . Park PUD approval a e been provided. projects compliance with applicable Criteria and Standards have • 1 c_en addresed in the application as follows: LCDC Goal Compliance - Exhibit EE Comprehensive Plan Compliance - Exhibit FF ' Zoning Code Compliance - Exhibit HH .. Sign Code Compliance - Exhibit JJ __.ese exhibits describe the evidence that exists in the application _.a provide findings that the evidence complies with the applicable zr_teria and standards. No variance is required to provide . .ccmpliance. :umber of issues are summarized in the remaining portion of this • port . In addition, where the staff has modifications or additions , tz the findings and evidence, they will be discussed . Following _. , a recommendation concerning this application will be provided _ .'r. will include conditions necessary to comply with any modified , findings . LE,.ING DESIGN ` Tne staff believes that the two story, steel framed structures with a s....thetic plaster exterior finish, painted metal roofing, reflective • ;Lass on the office structure and clear glass on the retail structure are complimentary to adjacent structures of good design. While the =E:srials are not the same as those of structures adjacent to the • ai`e, the earthtone colors (rust and browns With green accent on the si _n band - Exhibit CC) and the overall proportions of the strucures ` �^ j'to soften the impact of the larger buildings . In addition, the g of the west wing of the shopping center into the sloping `' r.:::nd and the grading to provide for the main access drive, aid in reducing the apparent height of the buildings , d 1 . f • =T FF REPORT/DR 1-83 March 1 , 1983 _age 5 b o Mechanical equipment has been screened from view in penthouses above the offices and grocery. These penthouses break up the overall . proportions of the buildings and create roof lines which are :::::-:::::::::' .:-.- ccnplimentary to the scale of the structures . Covered walkways and ti' entries with a sign band below aid in defining the first floor or w ,, retail cornice height of the center . Setback on the north property - l :ne is 41 feet allowing a building height of 21 feet in the grocery s cre area as proposed . The setback from the west property line is mrre than 220 feet, allowing a building height of 45 feet . The setbacks from Monroe/Parkway and Boones Ferry road are 106 feet and 1 _f feet respectively. The proposed structure is 45 feat tall in the _rawer area .The proposed office building penthouse shielding HVAC equipment from � .. .-tew rises to a height of 47 .58 feet . The staff believes the project cci:.plies with all setbck and height requirements. =TLAND DRAINAGE . wetland noted as a Distinctive Natural Area in the Comprehensive Plan exists on the site . The wetland is seasonal, approximately .6 • an acre in size. It consists of a channelized and unchannelized .----al runoff system, a small pond that is approximately twenty by Irty feet and an area of saturated so ls. 1 ' The proposed development has located the buildings and associated structures and parking as far from the wetlands as possible in order t= minimize the impact on the wetlands . Setback requirements, height • 1: itations, improvements to Boones Ferry Road by the applicant, ., parking requirements, the actual location of the wetlands on the site site topography all combine to dictate the location of the development . The proposed development Will make minimal alterations _r the existing wetland. The altered portion is higher in elevation w' t..en the balance• of the wetland and does not play a significant role :ten the overall function of the wetland. The existing wetland e_tures are incorporated into the. site design and little or no clearing of natural vegetation is proposed . A storm drainage - ` , management system which includes filtration of storm water runoff to prevent discharge of water pollutants into the wetland is included. The developer proposed to install a drainage detention pond near the ex_sting wetland. This detention pond will add to existing wetland • • values of turbidity reduction/nutrient filtration and storm water storage values of the existing wetland. The plantings incorporated into the landscape plan will enhance the appearance of the wetland. • The city Conservancy Commission has reviewed the development and its • _ r.. act on the wetland . They recommend to the Development Review oard that the wetland has been preserved to the maximum extent practical. • The staff believes that the proposed protection and preservation of the existing wetland and wetland functions complies with applicable ,• • t • • S7A F REPORT/DR 1-83 • sa_ch 1 , 1983 a e 6 „. • _ _y Standards . In addition, the proposed storm water detention pond .' -..- association with the existing wetland will provide storm water =:rage capacity far exceeding that which exists today and eliminate •t ax_sting flooding potential. Landscape Plan (Exhibit N) , Construction Procedures to Protect the Wetland (Exhibit RR) , Wetlands Report (Exhibit 2 ) , Utility Plan _ j Exhibit R) and Grading Plan (Exhibit S ) provide evidence: to support _ridings regarding the treatment of the wetland and drainage. + .. :ESCAPING/PATHWAYS/FENCES -_-'he applicant proposed to landscape 43 percent of the cite. • • x, fence has also been placed on the west property line to screen _es.dents from the office parking area. Scotch Pines and Flowering tapple trees will be planted along the west property line to vide additional screening while preserving the distant view of :acent residents. Poplar trees will be planted on the north -_._ndary line to provide a visual screen for properties to the :_rh . Scotch Pine and Pacific Wax Myrtle are planted along the rth property line to provide additional separation between • :_similar uses. A =athway through the parking lot, bordered by trees, has been ' • Illustrated on the Landscape Plan, however, the Site Plan (Exhibit C) :Ices not accurately illustrate planting island sizes in the parking • lzt . The plans should be coordinated. a-zhway has been proposed along Monroe Parkway as required by the • _ ~-oval of Zit . Park PUD. The staff believes the path is necessary __oxide access from adjacent development existing to the west of ___e shcpping center . While the pathway along Boones Ferry Road is 7.ct required at this time, the applicant has shown its future ation and has signed a Petition and Non-remonstrance Agreement � ; s. �;a. =bit VV) to allow its future construction. Irrigation Plan (Exhibit 0) Which meets the City Standards has n.. ' : -ea: provided. ' ' .=_CC .SS:TRAFFIC '• • 7-..e applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Study (Exhibit Y) -reWared by Wilsey & Ham of Portland, Oregon. The report reveals t:at the development Will generate 2 , 900 additional daily trips South Cr. 17 ,000 daily trips on Boones Ferry Road by the year 2000 (Comp. . :=a.n pg . 106) , This volume is within the capacity of Boones Ferry -cad and will not create congestion levels sufficient to change ' travel patterns in the area. • . ,. . i • S_AFF REPORT/DR 1-83 March 1 , 1983 _ age 7 .71e project has been designed with two access points from Monroe parkway and one from Boones Ferry Road . All have been designed for y ritth ingress and egress. The staff believes that the driveway _ ;'• trenching to the southwest (toward the parking lot) from the _.r.rtheast corner of the site should be changed to be one-way-in. The • :riveway should be narrowed to one lane and signed . In addition, a : '' :eld sign should be provided for exiting trucks at the driveway : ';, rn-off to avoid conflicts with entering cars . Exit to Boones Ferry 'red for service vehicles should be right-only. The service drive entuld be designated by deed restriction as a "Fire Lane" . ;. _rcess from the upper parking lot to the service driveway should be restricted to service vehicles only. Additional signage required «:.11 include no parking signs to restrict on-street parking and ` _r_rking along access roads. _r imposed access must cross Mt. Park common property and will require • --c;roval of the Mt . Park Homeowners Association. The agreement s.. uld be provided to illustrate approval. J .e a?plicant will provide signalization of the intersection of _ znroe Parkway and Scones Ferry Road, including provision of a left y,' ` =•trn storage lane for access of North bound Boones Ferry Road traffic y .•; _: Monroe Parkway. The developer will provide half-street /,.J' •• _: rovements including widening and curbing on Boones Ferry Road as -tart of the project. • : NA3E/VISION CLEARANCE _ rrcosed ground signage shows two pilasters on each side of the __:veway entrances to the lower and upper parking areas , The • _._asters are of brick construction 7 by 18 '4" long with polished _=ass sign plaques (17 .5 square feet each) on one face of each 4 _faster . The message on each plaque is raised, polished brass T" Lettering . The top of the plaque is 5 '4" above grade. The plaque is kited by a single ground mounted flood light . -<e proposed wall signage shows a 2 ' by 20 ' neon tube sign located a�rcve the glass under the canopy. Tubes are mounted on the face of • �:e wall with all connections inside the building . This sign and all f.:ture signs will utilize the same single color neon tube. F� >., Ay:1 signage has been placed to prove vision clearance as required by ,: 1 ..t.CC 48.530(4 ) , however, the City Traffic Coordinator believes that . . traffic and grade conditions may require relocation of signage at the ,. -a:.n access point . • • rA . u c y STAFF REPORT/DR 1-83 , narch 1 , 1983 ~'r Page 8 4110 %.,...,<•' NOISE . 'Tine applicant has submitted a noise analysis report prepared by :Satan, Johnson & O ' Dell , Inc . and a noise management plan consistent with that report to minimize noise emanating from the development . Iv iours for parking lot sweeping will be restricted to between the • hours of 8 :00 a .m. and 6 :00 p.m. Each lot will be cleaned at different times using the quietest equipment commercially available. 'Trash collection will be limited to between the hours of 7 :00 a . m. and 10 :00 a.m. and will be of ony 2-3 minute duration at each of Three pickup sites. Operation of trash compaction equipment will be l_mited to the hours of 7 :00 a.m. and 8 :00 a.m. for durations of less than one minute. All refrigerated trucks will turn their units off 'afore entry on site and until they are off site. Building • meechanical equipment will be operated intermittently to required and s fully enclosed . . The building and vegetation to be placed on the site will reduce the amount of noise reaching adjacent residential property from Boones Ferry Road, Monroe Parkway and the development itself. 1. a . A4PLICABILITY OF STREAM CORRIDOR STANDARD Prior to 1977 , a stream corridor existed on the north and easterly coundaries of the property. In 1977, Multnomah County placed a storm ' sewer line along the north boundary of the property in place of the t, existing stream corridor. This storm sewer line carried the water `�•;. from the stream corridor under Boones Ferry Road and away from the st.te. AS such, that portion of the former stream corridor along the easterly boundary is no longer a stream or stream corridor as defined - .7.: Development Standard 3 . The Stream Corridor Standard is not ar_plicable to this development . SITE SPECIFIC COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES/COMMERCIAL NEEDS :e planned uses for the development comply with Lake Oswego Zoning :rdinance . LOC 48 .300 provides that the uses listed in LOC 49 .305 # . and 48.315 (6 ) , (7 ) have been determined to implement the neighborhood ;a rcmmercial policies of the comprehensive plan. All proposed uses _,::,ply with 48.305 and 48.315 (7 ) . At. present, the nearest comparable shopping areas lie approximately t' o miles away. They exist in downtown Lake Oswego and in Lake • a' •rove. The proposed development would reduce the need for residents , ri. the Mountain Park community to travel outside of the area to meet • .eir retail purchasing needs. . .Yee development proposes the construction of a Thriftway grocery ' store , dry cleaner , camera shop, shoe repair aad other similar type h .'1 v IV , b: a .' . STAFF REPORT/DR 1-83 :.larch 1 , 1983 age 9 r r, .-- uses. These types of commercial activities care utilized ?rimarily by families and typically at intervals of one Week or less . 1 •dditional information can be found in Exhibit FF (Compliance with 2omprehensive Plan) . .!: PARK APPROVAL 7 e development plan has been approved by the c: mittee of the Mountain Park Homeowner ' s Architectural Review Association, the Board of _rectors of the Mountain Park Homeowner ' s- a Association ( Exhibit SS ) Kala How Ya Association of Owners and the Greenrifige Property v .ers ' Board . All approvals were unanimous. The - olea Homeonwer ' s Board is expected prior to thea �initial hearin � • the application. g -- T`a staff finds the Development Schedule . out one year, to be acceptable. (Exhibit W) proposed, of - -h minor changes, illustrated in the conditions of approval, the z_taff believes the project should be approved . During the past few m"nths, considerable citizen input has influenced various aupects of shopping center proposal. Evidence of citizen input can be found -- Exhibit VV Letters support ' (Letters) . Letters in support of the application Lxhibit 6JW) are also included as part of this application. .r::3M•Id1ENDAT ION _ yroval, with the following conditions: - - That the Site Plan be revised to illustrate landscape planting • areas in the parking lot as shown on the Landscape Plan. y• r That the access from Boones Ferry Road be restricted to entrance only for customers, that the driveway access to the • parking lot be one lane and that service vehicle exiting be allowed as right-turn-only. t . That customer traffic be restricted from using the service driveway, That the service driveway be designated as a fire lane by deed restriction, • That the applicant provide documentation of Mt . Park ' s approval of the use of the common area for access as designed, •• •i'r B;? F REPOT/DR 1-83 " •. .arch 1 , 1983 Faze 10 }r. `. . That signage at the main access point on Monroe Parkway be provided to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Coordinator . — ..IBITS E.m.7.ibits are indexed below. Additional exhibits not reproduced or - included with the report are listed following large to be in p 9 the ,\ ___sexed exhibits. �. I70NE SQUARE AT MOUNTAIN PARK :: :EX TO DOCUMENTS - Y Y. ' 1. Tax Map EXHIBIT 1 : '— isdory of project A • Vicinity Map B „ ; _ . Adjacent lots and structures' plan C 7. Slope analysis plan D .. . Boundary survey _ E Aerial photo F _ . Improvement site plan G _ • Building plan H y• " Building plans J •'y - Building elevations K - Building elevations L 4111 . .,. . . - Sign details M ; . • Landscape plan N " . - i- igation plan 0 _ .-site lighting plan P • . Topographic survey Q Utility plan R 19 . trading plan S .... . bite lighting brochure T Tenant sign criteria agreement U • Pnoto of sign type V ii-7.-t7FTEt7615TETIT-TC-B7aule S1 k L- Noise report X • Traffic report Y K M .:_ . 'wetlands report Z ' _ ,, • Soils report AA Materials description BB Color sample board CC 3: . DEQ letter of confirmation DD . Compliance with LCDC goals EE a 1. Compliance with comprehensive plan FF 3.3 , Compliance with development ordinance GG -=. Compliance wit'h zoning ordinance HH signalization - Comprehensive plan and utility compliance II r'v'"Y 3.r: . Compliance with sign code JJ .4 is. '�"' 0. STAFF REPORT/DR 1083 :,arch 1 , 1983 ?age 11 • • • Z.7. Previous submittal comparison KK • Utility and easement survey LL • Noise, sun, & wind exposure t1@1 43. Natural features NN 41 . Existing drainage 00 42. Setbacks/zoning PP �. Landlord noise policy QQ . Construction procedures to protect wetlands RR Mt . Park Homeowner Assn. letter • _t . Miscellaneous data TT Petition and Non-remonstrance Agreement UU _ DITIONAL EXHIBITS (Not Included in Packet) -" � Evidence of Citizen Input • Letters in Support • �.. Corrections and Additions to Application J• Noise Policies (4 pp. ) • • • r •••• • a,. / • RZt s , r • mas/1157P • r, 1 • „•^ . e • � �. t - - Ate• •.. +.- 1 ,• _ ,`�1` _ w d ^ ' ,� I • • • ' • • • p_, 'n. v • t •/I I ` • , � ws i ' BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD OF THE ; CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO : . REQUEST FOR FINAL APPROVAL ) No. DR 1-83 (Mark Development . TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ) Inc . ) 116 ,535 SQUARE FOOT SHOPPING ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER CENTER ) • NATURE OF APPLICATION The applicant is requesting final approval to allow c:.;- • ronstruction of a 116 , 535 square foot shopping cent,. ): located or. 3. 3 acres at the northwest corner of Monroe Parkway and Hocnes Ferry Road (Tax Lots 200 and 101 of Tax Map 2 lE 5AA, Clackamas County and Tax Lot 10 of Tax Maps 4226 and 4227 Multnomah County. HEARING A hearing on this request was held on March 16 , 1983 . Appearances were made and exhibits entered as indicated in the :minutes of the meeting and the staff report of March 1, 1983 . The request was approved with conditions. R TERIA AND STANDARDS • LOC 49 .300 to 49 .335 Major Development P LOC 48 . 300 48 . 315 � rooecre:� •� • 300 to Commercial Districts ( ) LOC 48 .015 25 Height of Building LOC 48 . 515 (2) , Genoral Exception to Struct,.,: 2 Height Limitations LOC 49 . 640 (4) Resubmittal LOC 48 .530 Vision Clearance DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Parking and Load in r g Building Design Fences r Wetlands Access Drainage for Major Development Street Lights Utilities Transit • Site Circulation Private Streets/Bikeways and Walkways Park and Open Space/Landscaping , Street Trees, Screenir,c , ,DR 1-83 ) EXHIBIT . EXHIBIT { Buffering 4110 . Stream Corridors COMPREHENSIVE PLAN • Commercial Land use Policy Element pp. 63-68 , VII Mountain Park Commercial Areas, VII-B Monroe/Boones Ferry Site pp . 78-79 Natural Resources Policy Element pp. 23-42 Wildlife Habitat Policies p. 25 Distinctive Natural Area Policies p. 26 a Wetlands p. 38 Open Space Land Use Policy Element pp. 5--93 , Economic Resource Policies p. 49 • Housing Choice Policies p. 57 Growth Management Policy Element pp. 7-22 Public Facilities Land Use Policy Element pp. 111-116 Transportation Land Use Policy Element pp. 100-110 LCDC Goals and Guidelines CONCLUSIONS The City Manager , by and through the Planning Department or . the City of Lake Oswego, requested that the Board waive the si5: month resubmittal restriction of LOC 49 .640 (4) . This application •-, was submitted less than six months after the City Council 's denial of DR 25-79 October 19 , 1982 . The Board considered evidence submittea by staff comparing the present appiicatrcr, with tha: DR 25-79 . The Board also noted ,that since the denial of DR 25-- the City of Lake Oswego has enacted a new zoning code whic ap?l_ s to this proposal in place of the prior zoning code . The Board ruled . , a that the ordinance did not provide for a public hearing on the waiver issue . THE BOARD FINDS that conditions have changed since the denial of DR 25-79 by tl.e Lake Oswego City Council to an extent 4110 : ' : ''' 2 (DR 1-83) FSC/sp/5 67F ° sufficient to justify a waiver of the six month restriction . This finding is based upon the evidence submitted by staff relating to ,changed conditions . The Development Review Board concludes that this project • meets applicable criteria and standards to the extent that approval :an be granted with the following conditions : 1. That the site plan be revised to illustrate landacape planning areas in the parking lot aw mown on the • landscape plan. ` 2. That the access from Boones Ferry Road be restricted to entrance only for customers , that the driveway access to the parking lot be one lane and that service vehicles exiting on Boones Ferry Road be allowed as a right turn only. 3 . That customer traffic be restricted from using the service driveway. 4 . That the service driveway be designated as a fire lane 1 . by deed restriction. 3 . That the applicant provide documentation of e,lou;,ta_.. Park ' s approval of the use of the common area for access as designed . ,1,, 6 . That signage at the main access point on Monroe Parkway be provided to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Coordinator . ~' * _ CDR 1-83 ) SC/sp/536 V r f/ ' ' • 7 . That a registered acoustical engineer be responsible for noise generating mechanical equipment specifications and installation during construction to insure compliance with DEQ noise regulations . FINDINGS AND REASONS The Findings adopted by the Board to explain their r ,, conclusion are found • n the attached Exhibit A. IT IS ORDERED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD that approval be granted for DR 1-83. ►t,_ DATED this - day of /6717(Zl L.. , 1983 . Chair, Development Review`E`ard ./ . ATTEST Secretary, Development Review Board • , • • ' ' , • AYES: Petrie , Clarke, Takeuchi , Hutchins NOES : ,' ABSTAIN: None ABSENT : EslicK , Reeves Approval of this Order : Ayes : Noes : Absent : r 4 (DR 1-83 ) FSC/sp/5367F • . .• i P. • Q, 4 • • • DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE PAGE NO. PAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS No. 1 - Historic Resource Preservation 1 23 No. 2 - Building Design 3 y' 24 No. 3 - Stream Corridors 6 25 No. 4 - Wetlands 10 5 No. 5 - Street Lights 14 26 • No. 6 - Transit System 16 16 , 27 No. 7 - Parking and Loading 18 No. 8 - Park 28 and Open Space 25 5 No. 9 - Landscaping , Screening and Buffering 29 29 No. 10 - Fences 33 24 No. 11 - Drainage Standard for � ; , Major Development 34 15 • No. 13 - Weak Foundation Soils 42 11 • No. 14 - Utility Standard 44 No. 16 - Hillside Protection and 30 . and Erosion Controls 51 No. 17 - Flood Plains 58 l No. 18 - Access 63 No. 19 - Driveways and Private Streets 65 30 No. 20 - Site Circulation Standards - Bikeways and Walkways 69 31 4 SIGN CODE 34 • PAGE 3. TABLE OF CONTENTS. 3299E/FSC%ss • • • • 1 •. • • • • .• • • • • • • • • • • .. ,T-,�.w-�..._---tea 1 EXH?B I , A EXISTING CONDITIONS AND HISTORY The Towne Square at Mountain Park is within the Mountain Park PUD on the extreme eastern side of the development at the intersection of Monroe Parkway and Boones Ferry Road . It contains 13 .3 acres entirely within the City of Lake Oswego out divided between Multnomah and Clackamas counties . The property is designated neighborhood commercial use . The site slopes 50 feet from west to east over a distance of approximately 900 feet (slopes a the construction of Mountain Park , to hesite twas uely sed as During depository for fill ranging in depths up to 25 feet. The fill is of poor quality. Original soils are of Cascade and Delena associations , both of which are very poorly drained silt loams . • V . The lower portion of the site , along Boones Ferry, is a wetland and is designated as a Distinctive Natural Area in the Comprehensive Plan. Other natural features of note are a double row of Lombardy Poplars and a carpet of Horsetail Grass • in the wetlands and a large old oak up in the southwest corner L of the property. In addition, a small orchard, a number of hawthornes , and some maples exist , primarily in the east half of the site. Adjacent land uses include condominium. to the west , condominiums and a commercial area to the south , single family residences to the north , undeveloped land to the northeast , and "� single family homes across Boones Ferry to the east. The oroperty is partially in Clackamas and mostly in Multnomah County. Single family homes along the north property line ar,= constructed on a substantial amount of fill. At the base of that fill , and running the length of the north property line , • the City of Portland has a 20 ' wide utility easement upon which • zney will not allow the planting of trees . Presently Boones Ferry Road has a right-of-way width of 70 ' in both Clackamas and Multnomah Counties . Thirty feet . of setback is required along Boones Ferry Road and 40 ' is required along Monroe Parkway . Of that setback 30 ' along '' Boones Ferry and 20 ' along Monroe Parkway is required to be left in open space or landscaping . A parthway is indicated to be within the setback area along Monroe Parkway according to • ' • the Mt. Part Phase II and IV Plats . , • PAGE 1. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND HISTORY :. • FSC/sp/5368F • ,. y j JP • �, • Z9 The Comprehensive Plan projects the average weekly volume of traffic to be about 17 , 000 trips on Boones Ferry Road and 12, 000 trips on Monroe Parkway by the year 2000 . Current a (1977) traffic volumes are illustrated in the plan to be 5 , 400• trips for Boones Ferry Road and 3, 000 trips for Monroe Parkway. • • The applicants had previously submitted an application —• ' in the spring of 1982, which was considered and approved by Development Review Board . That decision was reversed by City • Council on October 19 , 1982, after an appeal by citizens opposed to the project. • • 4• • �T• • .a 9 • • 4 • PAGE 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND HISTORY FSC/sp/5368? . a • •, , Ip f}q i Goal 3 - Agricultural Lands: Evidence • The property is located within the city limits of the City of Lake Oswego, the Lake Oswego Urban Service Boundary and the Metropolitan Service District Urban Growth Boundary. The pro ert is P Y not Presently and has not in the recent past been .Lsed for agricultural purposes . The Comprehensive Plan Map p designates the land for neighborhood/commercial use . The • . sabject property is not within an exclusive farm use zone . Th;_ sabject property is substantially surrounded by residential and commercial development . Soils in the area are of .! Selena Associations , bath of which are very , Cascade and ` ',. »., foams . Poor.y rained silt A. Finding: The property is not agricultural land within the meaning of Goal 3 because of its . development and poor quality soils , proximity to existing urban • ••' ,\ j Finding : The development will not inhibit the _reservation of agricultural land for agricultural purposes . Finding: Construction on the property will preserve other more suitable agricultural land for agricultural use by ,. :lacing needed commercial development on land poorly suited for • agricultural use . Finding : The property is within a fully urbanized area and therefore not subject to Goal 3. • • . ., • • • 1 PAGE 3. MARK DEVELOPMENT RE TOWNE SQUARE. 3342F/FSC/s8 Goal 4 - Forest Lands : Evidence The property does not presently contain , and has no potential for , forests which are suitable for commercial forest use . The property has not been inventoried as forest land . The property is not significant from the standpoint of watershed • protection , wildlife and fishery habitat and recreation . There exist no extreme conditions of climate , soil or topography which, require the maintenance of vegetative cover . The topography o_ the property petonls theoderate, approximatelys 5% slope . existing vegetation P Y little value as a windbreake scenic corridor . The property is within the City of or Lake Oswego, the Metropolitan Service District and the Lake Oswego Urban Service Boundary. Growth Boundary zoned for forest related uses . The r The pro offy is not '• I approximately 13 acres. Property consists Finding : The property is not forest land within the meaning of Goal 4. Granting a permit for the development will not violate the command of Goalo4��todconserve forest lands for forest uses . } • Finding : The property is within a fully urbanized area • and is therefore not subject to Goal 4. • • w .d 411 % PAGE 4 . MARK DEVELOPMENT RE TOWN; SQUARE. 3 4 2F/P5G/5s . . ! • / / • Goal 5 Open Spaces , Scenic and Historic Areas , & Natural Resources : Comprehensive Plan Objectives - Wildlife Habitat " Distinctive Natural Areas Groundwater r• Wetlands Protection Open Space \' Development Standard 4 - Wetlands Development Standard 8 - Park and Open Space Evidence The total site consists of thirteen (13) acios or 5 7� ,348 square feet . Of this total area , 247 ,096 srrra, re fee~ r 43% will consist of landscaping , o` • ' parking or other or'n space. T,7e site has no known mineral or aggregate resources , is not a potential energy source , is not a significant fish and wildlife habitat , has no ecological or scientifically significant natural areas other than the existing wetland , has no outstanding scenic • attributes , has a small wetlands area , is virtually surrounded � ,. y residential and commercial development eliminating its • .usefulness as wilderness and has no historic, cultural or significant recreational potential or significant waterways . None of the property is within the planned open space system Comp. Plan p. 88) or within proposed public space or park (Comp. • i' ;: Ilan , p. 96) . No inter-city bike/pedestrian pathways are proposed to pass through the area (Comp. Plan p. 91) . While some existing trees on the property Will be removed , the large • -lature oak tree and other existing trees will be preserved . To ne extent a natural meadow exists on the property in association with the wetland , it will be retained . The property :as no significant topographic variations , significant " , • recreational opportunities , scenic view or vistas . The sub2e . property has Deer, i ,_nri f. ed as z ...stinctive natural area as a swamp and/or marsh in the Clt ' .f lane Oswego Comprehensive Plan Map on races 28 and 29 , Tie existing wetland on site is seasonal, and can be classified as sallow marsh . it consists of a channelized and unchannelized . 'L ` , h cal runoff system and includes a pond that is approximately o enty (20) feet by thirty (30 ) feet and an area of saturated 7•r soils . The wetland , in its present farm, was created by the " construction of Boones Ferry Road , by dumping of fill by storm e ater directed onto the property by adjacent properties , Its • -horologic value as to modification of flow and water quality s ` protection are in the low to moderate classification, and its M;.ldlife and biological Values are uniformly low. Its visual, ;! . .:jtural and economic values are also uniformly low as are its „:ses for wildlife , biological g production , open space and educational values , Its primary Value is storm water • PAGE 5, MARE DEVELOPMENT RE TOWNE SQUARE. 3342E/FSC/ss • r .; r . detention . The wetland site has been used as a dumping site for several automobile tires. The area surrounding the wetland on , • •u the site has been used by an unknown individual for disposing of used building materials. The site is not a natural groundwater recharge area , has minor storage capacity and has a minor role in turbidity reduction and absorption of nutrients from runoff water . The . proposed development will make minimal alterations to the . existing wetland . The altered portion is higher in elevation • ' • than the balance of the wetland and does not play a significant role in the overall function of the wetland . The existing wetland features are incorporated into the site design and ,. little or no clearing of natural vegetation is proposed . A storm drainage management system 4, i,ch includes filtration of storm water runoff to prevent discharge of water polutants into the wetland is included. • The developer proposes to install a drainage detention pond near the existing wetland . This detention pond will and to • •, ':: '. ' `' existing wetland values of turbidity reduction/nutrient . • \• filtration and storm water storage values of the existing wetland . The plantings incorporated into the landscape plan will enhance and add to natural biological functions. The developer will remove the existing automobile tires and other / trash from the wetlands and the site. Proposed landscaping will tie :also maintain or improve the scenic value of the property. The development will result in increased surface water area, increased vegetation , and increased compatable habitat for existing wildlife compared to the site in its undeveloped condition . •` • The wetlands area has not been used for educational " purposes in the east and is located on privately owned property with no pud.,•ic access . The proposed development has been p planned so as to lace the buildings and associated st.'uctures and parking as far ,, ;F. i F w•< from the wetlands as possible in order to minimize the ,�mpact on, ' the wetland. Setback requirements , height limitations , improvements to Boones Ferry Road by the applicant , parking {• , • 1Y requirements, alignment of the entryway with Greenridge Road ,. .. across Monroe Parkway , the actual location of the wetlands on ', ' the site and site topography all combine to dictate the location r � ! of the development . • Section 4. 020 (1) and (2) of the City of Lake Oswego • Development standards allows development in essential wetlands • upon the meeting of the criteria stated therein. It provides :, ,. that such development is permissible if "the proposed development would not significantly damage , reduce or polluteIII ' ::-.... 'PAGE 6. MAP < DEVELOPMENT RE TOWNE SQUARE. 33�2P/F'�C/ss ,Y• , r t: - • \ + a ,.., .. .• r - - .. ,. the essential wetland . . . " . • City staff defined and identified at the pre-application conference the boundaries of the wetlands as it relates to the proposed development to determine the extent of intrusion into the wet land as evidenced by Exhibit NN of the :fi staff report . The Board found that the main parking lot to the shopping center will intrude slightly into one of the higher elevation fingers of the wet land . However , this intrusion will h � not interfere with the natural function of the wetland and is _ not not considered significant by the board . In examining this question of alternative sites outside of the wetlands, the board has reviewed the city zoning map and comprehensive plan land use map as well as the text of the city ' s zoning ordinance. The only other comparably zoned site in the City of Lake Oswego of equal or greater size to this proposed site is the Town Center site . Opponents testified that the proposed development could be developed on that site . However , LOC 48 .315 (6) applicable to the Town Center site limits the allowable amount of square footage devoted to retail use . The amount permitted is less than the 60 , 000 square feet . permitted on the Monroe Parkway site . The board is also of the op'4nion that section 4 . 020 (2) (b) referring to alternative sites . '' available, refers only to alternative sites on the site on which the development is proposed. In considering the application , the board considered • testimony from witnesses both in favor and against the project relating to the social, economic, energy and environmental consequences of this development as it relates to the surrounding properties and to the wetland . The evidence relating to these factors is set forth in this portion of this decision as well as other portions of the decision and findings . These portions include, but are not limited to, gcal ' o , (page eight) r 1:.ting to air , water and land resources quality , goal 7 , (page nine) relating to erosion and flooding , ,: , goal 9 , (page eleven) relating to tht economy , goal 12 (page ' fourteen) relating to transportation and transit systems , goalR 13 (page sixteen) relating to energy conservation , and City o, • Lake Oswego development standard nine (page 26) relating to landscaping , screening and buffering . Finding : There are no substantial economic or energy related benefits realized by the wetlands in their undevelope ' state . Finding : The development , by providing commercial facilities located and designed to serve the residents of Mountain Park will promote a sense of community identity amongst those residents. No significant social benefits have been Ilti+ PAGE 7 . MARE DEVELOPMENT RE TOT'11NE miARE, 334E/r^^SC/..s .. 1 1� `•1:� a te ' ,Ir r 1 ' ia} identified which are realized by the maintenance of the wetlands 1111 in an undeveloped state. Finding : The proposed development has been approved by the Lake Oswego Conservancy Commission. , Finding : The minimal alterations to the existing . wetlands combined with the increase in wetland values supplied by the development does not constitute significant damage , reduction or pollution of the wetland . PP Finding : The proposed development will perserve the great majority of the existing wetland . All wetland values w:.l. increase . Findipg : The existing wetland on the prcipc :ty is of :x such small size and modest value as a wetland that it does not , , have a "high priority" for acquisition as public access open ` . space . Finding : The proposed development provides to the maximum practical extent for the protection and enhancement of the essential wetland . :: Finding : Educational value of the wetland is low. Finding : Because of the limited amount of land available for neighborhood-commercial development in Lake Oswego and the unique size of this parcel, there are no alternative • sites available for a development of this size and nature for ` .kr the types of uses proposed , including 60, 000 square feet of • `` retail space . ` � ' Finding : The proposed development recognizes ana • ncoroorates wetland features such as ponds and vegetation . 'u ,• ' , Finding : The construction of the detention pond will ` Increase the buffering between the pc,:jecz and adjacent ": ',' properties .ropertie , • Finding : The development will substantially increase . . '• the storm water detention capacity of the site . do Finding : The development will increase the wildlife •. nabitat values of the property by providing mechanisms for 1i wetland preservation , surface water area and increasing , '' vegetation. Finding : The proposed development is primarily ', dependent on being partially located in or in close proximity to the wetland . . } PAGE 0 . MARk DEVELOPMENT RE TOWNIE SQUARE. ' 3342F/FSC/ss ,,t r ' 11 f _ • • • • f, Finding : Because of setback requirements , height • limitation, improvements to Boones Ferry Road by the applicant , parking requirements , alignment of the entry way with Green Ridge Road across Monroe Parkway, the actual location of wetlands on the site and site topography, there are no feasibi.e 4 . alternative sites outside the wetland and on site for the development . Finding : The development will not significantly damage , reduce or pollute the wetland . • Finding : The design and construction of the s development provide for the protection and enhancement of the • wetland to the maximum practical extent . • • • u 'rr • • • • • 1 • PAGE 9 . MARK DEVELOPMENT RE TOWNE SQUARE, 3342F/_ SC/ss 1.1 QJS I. F. .• { f , , it ' . Goal 6 - Air , Water and Land Resources Quality: Comprehensive Plan - Air Quality Quiet Environment . Evidence Both City sewer and City water are available to the of property . There will be no waste in process discharges from the ' '" businesses in the (:.evelopment . Commercial garbage service is available for the removal of waste . No activities will be carried on in the development which will have a significant . impact on air quality in the area . The building and vegetation to be placed on the site will reduce the amount of noise • reaching adjacent residential property from Boone: Ferry Road , ,ry Monroe Parkway and the development itself . The applicant nas submitted a noise analysis report a' prepared by Seton , Johnson & Odell , Inc . and a noise management plan consistent with that report to minimize noise eminatinr from the development . Hours for parking lot sweeping will be restricted to between the hours of 8 : 00 A.M. and 6 : 00 P.M. Each lot will be cleaned at a different time using the quietest ` equipment commercially available . Trash collection will be limited to between the hours of 7 :00 A.M. and 10 :00 A.M. and 0 :1:::, ::...,.,,., 1 will be of only 2-3 minute duration at each of three pickup sites . Operation of trash compaction equipment will be limited to the hours of 7 : 00 A.M. and 8 : 00 A.M. for durations of less ' than one minute . All refrigerated trucks will turn their units off before entry on site and until they are off site . Building • mechanical equipment will be operated intermittently as required and is fully enclosed . The board also reviewed and considered a ,, noise report prepared by Daly Engineering and submitted by opponents tc the development. - ^:.e devel�pment will provide a IIl:ration s,,z:.e;,, :.c prevent the entry or pollutants from surface water ran off . e wetlands . �y ininto ` :, Finding : The proposed development will not have a significant adverse impact on air , water and land resources . quality. Finding; The development complies with applicable DEQ noise regulations and standards and adequately considers noise ' control issues . '• Finding : Supervision of the installation of and approval of the specifications for noise generating equipment by •A an accoustical engineer Will help ensure compliance with DEQ noise standards . PAGE 10. MARK DEVELOPMENT RE TOWNE SQUARE. 3342F/FSC/ss a, t y . ` Y • • Goal 7 - Natural Disasters and Floods : Comprehensive Plan Objectives - Erosion Area - Weak Foundation Soil Development Standard 13 - Weak Foundation Soils Development Standard 16 - Erosion Development Standard 17 - Flood Plain r Evidence The area of the proposed development is not 'subject natural events known to result in death or to endanger the wor .a of man such as stream flooding , high ground water , erosion , la;. slides , earthquakes , weak foundation , soils and other naza_dt . The proposed Comprehensive Plan does not designate the propervi • as a potential landslide hazard (Page 30) , does not, ;,ndicate weak foundation soils (Page 33) , and has not identified the property as subject to erosion . The average slope of the property is 5%. The property is not within a flood plain . • " • Finding : The subject property is not subject to natural disasters and floods as described in Goal 7 . Goal 7 therefore does not apply to the proposed development . • Finding : The subject property is not subject to erosion. Finding : The subject property does not contain weak • foundation soils. • • • • • • PAGE 11 . MAR< DEVELOPMENT RE TOWNE SQUARE, 3342F/TSC/ss Y • Goal 8 Recreational Needs : Comprehensive Plan Objectives - Public Open Space Evidence The subject property lacks unique or extraordinary recreational opportunities or potential. It is not presently or developed for recreational uses and is owned. The used subject proposal will not result in a significantly yeas. in recreational needs of the City of Lake Oswego. increase the ne City of Lake Oswego are presentlyg Other lands wt:.in recreational needs. Planned or developed for A substantial portion of the covered of varying quality, Springbrook Park isolocated�so ,� f the file development and the intersection of Boones Ferry `"e Parkway. Road and Monroe It is presently 30 acres in size (Comp. >'; planned to be increased to 52 acres (Comp. Plan Plan P. 88) and is property has not been proposed for acquisition as � 9Ub space6) . Theenuac by the proposed Comprehensive Plan (Page 88 public open rty �, is not used and is not needed for access to, � The subject property areas , any unique or special Finding : The development of the subject property will o have an adverse effect on the recreational needs of the citizensnot ' either the state or the City of Lake Oswego because it will not of •� increase recreational needs. It does not have any unique or extraordinary potential as a recreational area . Finding: The development will not have an adverse effect on public access to special and unique areas for recreational use . r .. dina The development will not interfere with sicnificant e.,sting recreational use ' any of the property. Findite : The development is Development which provides withina Planned Unit 1 provides public open space designed and use ' recreation. _c for 6 , H.,. • • } •• d 43. PAGE 12• MARK DEVELOPMENT RE TOWNE SQUARE. r. � 3392E/FSC/ss Goal 9 - Economy of the State : Comprehensive Plan Objectives - Economic Resource • Evidence ..'. • � The development has p • ...0 '::::: people. Total yearly payroll ofe the aemPtlope�s1W� Jobs for 250 r 1 .5 million . Y z11 be approximately , " Hard costs of construction will cost and construction . approximate million . Approximately 100Proxima�e 5. 7 people will be employed in develcme;,�� Finding : The development will have a positive impact on the City of Lake Oswego and the surround in ar economicc aea. • *. w 1 • • • • PAGE 13: t•1ARI DEVELOPMENT RE TOWNE SQL`ARI; 3342 /PSC/5s .\ r f r Goal 10 - Housing : Evidence The subject property is suitable for residential use . Other lands within the City of Lake Oswego and the surrounding area have been zoned for residential use , both in the existing Zoning Ordinance and in the existing Comprehensive Plan Map. The subject property does not abut a residential street. Discussion : Generally speaking , lands suitable for residential development will also be suitable for co;=ercia development . Virtually every proposal for one type of use will necessarily conflict with and exclude the opposing use . Most commercial uses of land will conflict with the use of that , and as housing , and vice versa. As long as adequate provision is made for both uses , one will not conflict with the other . Finding : The proposed development does not violate the provisions of LCDC Goal 10. Adequate fo r provision has been made housing needs in the City of Lake Oswego by the existing Lake Oswego ' Comprehensive Plan and Zonine� Ordinances. �y a • • I . ?AGE 14 . MARK DEVELOPMENT RE TOWNE SQUARE.. 3342F/FSC/ss Q • . Id M i. Goal 11 - Publ ic Facilities and Services . Comprehensive Plan Objectives - Impact Management Interim Growth Rate 'M Public Facilities .,...;:•_ Solid Waste ;. r : -.H Development Standard 11 - Drainage Standard Evidence Public sewer , public water , fire protection , plannn ,c • zoning , telephone service , electric service , and natural gas a:e all i; available at the site and are adequate to meet the needs of the development . The drainage detention capacity of tnc: existing P ••, , wetlands will be retained . A detention pond will additional provide du :_tio;.al detention capacity. The drainage plan submitted by the applicant meets or exceeds the standards set forth in Development Standard 11. The proposed utility services are located underground . The developer will provide a half-street improvement on Boones Ferry a . Road and signalization of the Boones Ferry Road - Monroe Parkway A • intersection. Finding : Adequate public facilities and services are available to service the proposed development. •` Finding : The need of the proposed development for public services and facilities will not exceed the ability of the City to ,' provide those services . Finding : Theproposed development will not have an adverse , " �• effect on the quality of the City of Lake Oswego ' s public services . It will not cause any significant deficiency in its ability to provide tr.em. Findina : The proposed drainage system complies poi , :: '' 1: requirements of Lake Oswego Development Standard 11. • F indina : Designation of the surface driveway as a - e lane will facilitate the provision of fire protection. yV^• . u. • • . PAGE 15 . `AAR?C DEVELOPMENT RE TOWNE SQUARE. 3342F/FSC/ss t• 4 i• '. • w i •'4si • . Goal 12 - Transportation : Comprehensive Plan Objective - Bikeway Pedestrian Pathways Transportation I�'; Development Standard 6 - Transit System ,k Evidence R �1� ,.'Y The proposed project is adjacent to Boones Ferry Road and � Monroe Parkway . Boones Ferry Road is designated as an arterial , dnd Monroe Parkway is designated as a collector in the Lake Osw_ ;o Comprehensive Plan Traffic Control Map (Page 103) . Tri-Met ..-...us service is available adjacent to the development. The developer will construct walkways to provide access to the development and Tri-Met bus stop, and will provide signalization of the intersection of Monroe Parkway and Boones Ferry Road , including provision of a A R left turn storage lane for access of North bound Boones Ferry Road traffic to Monroe Parkway . The developer will provide half-street improvements including widening and curbing on, Boones Ferry Road as part of the project . , The applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Study prepared by Wilsey & Ham of Portland , Oregon. The report reveals that the • • 4' � development will generate 2, 900 additional daily trips South on • Boones Ferry Road by 1985. The Comprehensive Plan provides for 17 ,000 daily trips on Boones Ferry Road by the year 200') (Comp. Pla, y• pg . 106 ) . This volume is within the capacity of Boones Ferry Road . and will not create congestion levels sufficient to change travel patterns in the area. The conceptual intra-city pathway system map (Comprehensive Plan page 91) does not include any intra-city ' • ,- pathways adjacent to the subject property. �.., • 1, All parking is on site and is separate from adjacent • e - properties either by the building to be constructed o:: ov c,,fr__ zones . Primary access to the development is from Monroe-?a,.. . ' Finding : The proposed ceva:Lonment makes acecuaze p ,or_s:L • a`e . ' . for safe , convenient and economic transportation systems . I' Finding : The proposed development will enhance peaesr.::..: � , traffic in the area of the development by virtue of the walkways rc u be provided . ' 1 tl Finding: The arrangement of parking areas is safe and convenient, does not detract from the design of proposed Buildings ,,' and structures , and does not detract from the neighboring properties , A • �,, Finding : The development proposalprovides adequate ' -. facilities to serve the Tri-Met bus stop (multiple passenger fi. a. transit) . t'IV ,fit PAGE 16 , MARK DEVELOPMENT RE " OWNE SQUARE. ,.C/aa'2 S - .1,; 33y�� �. V , • Goal 13 - Energy Conservation : Comprehensive Plan Objective - Energy Conservation Evidence The proposed development incorporates different types o` commercial use in one existing development .close proximity to existing residential areas last l the s lsosource aofdits ~ potential customers . A walkway ' stop. is provided to the Tri-Met bus F es The building design on the �+ energy conservation i?rojl.ct incorppr.ates current ation principles and ma aerials , inclu;Jt,ng environmental glass which insulates and reflects radiant energy , 00% shaded clear glass to reduce radiant • het system insulation to maximize insulating efficiency nd exterior waive ultra-efficient state of the art heatingg rind ventilating system to minimize energy consumption „ The insulation rating of the walls is R-11 and that of the ceiling is R-19 . The nearest similar ' supermarket is a Park • `hen the approximately two miles farther from Mountain proposed development. ' Finding : The proposed development promotes energy conservation. 1 :: 4 :'.- • n. en 41 ?AG, 17 . MARK O� b 4; DEVELOPMENT RE TOWNE SQUARE, 3342F/FSC/ss v 3� f..r /. 5�/ss 1 \J Goal 14 - Urbanization : a; Evidence • The proposed development is located within the Metropolitan Service District Urban Growth Boundary, the Lake Oswego Urban • Service Boundary and is in the corporate city limits of the City of Lake Oswego. The g property is not rural in character at the present • time. The suoject property is substantially surrounded by existing residential and commercial development and is in a fully urban:zed area . Finding: The subject development does not involve a \; .; transition or change from rural to urban land use , and Goal .4 is therefore inapplicable. • , 4 • 4110 ' .I • • • • • Y y ' • PAGE 18 , MARE DEVELOPMENT RE TOWNE SQUARE, 3342E/FSC/ss • • ., Jn iC ..1'• Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway. Evidence r ' The proposed development does not lie within the boundaries • > of the Willamette River Greenway. Finding : Goal 15 is not applicable . '\ • { Goal 16 - Estuarine and Resources : ' Goal 17 - Coastal Shore Lands : : Goal 18 - Beaches and Dunes: r � * ' • Goal 19 - Ocean Resources : Evidence The proposed development is located approximately 75 miles from the Pacific Ocean and will have no impact thereon. Finding: Goals 16 , 17 , 18 and 19 are not applicable to this proposal. • '. $ b 1 s r' • f ; . ...,:. 0 . . , to• . , PAGE 19 . MARK DEVELOPMENT RE TOWNE SQUARE. 3342E/rSC/ss e �.. . , Comprehensive Plan Commercial Policies - Commercial Needs and Focus Interaction and Identity: Specific Comprehensive Plan Requirements - Monroe/Boones Ferry Site Lake Oswego Zoning Code - Special Requirements - 48 . 315 (7) Evidence The proposed development consists of 116 , 535 square feet of '` . - ',,.. total building area made up of 60 , 000 square feet of retail use ouilding area, 30 , 735 square feet of service use building area Lnd 25 , 800 square feet of office use building area . Lot coverage of the building is less than 50%. The building is less than 45 feet in ; " Height . , The planned uses for the development comply with Lake Oswego Zoning Ordinance. L.O.C. 48 . 300 provides that the uses . ` listed in L.O.C. 48 .305 and 48 .315 (6) , (7) have been determined to implement the neighborhood commercial policies of the comprehensive plan . All proposed uses comply with 48 .305 and 48 .315 (7) . ? At present, the nearest comparable shopping areas lie approximately two miles away. They exist in downtown Lake Oswego and in Lake Grove . The proposed development would reduce the need , ,` for residents of the Mountain Park community to tr.a"tel outside of the area to meet their retail purchasing needs . The development proposes the construction of a Thriftway grocery store , dry cleaner , camera shop, shoe repair and other a,- similar types of uses . These types of commercial activities are utilized primarily by families and typically at intervals of one �. week or less . � F . Between 1976 and 1980 retail groceries scuare fscr - _, ' '`, the city of Lake Oswego declined approximately 3, 033 square fi_et . • ,.h ile the _copulation of Lake Oswego du=ing the same period i. r .:.: . H . The proposed development provides for a ; ix of various types of commercial activity. Office space is also availanle whip:. _ , •. . . Has the potential for governmental , social or cultural activities . All needed public facilities are available at the site . The developer will provide signalization of the Monroe Parkway-3oones • Ferry intersection and a left turn lane on Monroe Parkway . 0 .. .,. , . , , PAGE 20. MARIX DEVELOPMENT RE TOWNE SQUARE. 3342F/FSC/5s • 1 h � ! • 1. `%, ; ..-1, 1� :. • )4 ( / ,r� 1 •-, 1 1 y , n•• ni 1 q � d,.+ j .1 ,l `.'! • i' • t .C,x r 1 i `.i i • •y a- '•.e y.. '', • da' * . ..4i SrS. . bi y• i , y 1 1 I 4 �; iI Substantial attention has been paid by the developer to • screening the project and buffering its impacts on adjacent residential areas . The building space of the proposed • is 46 , 000 square feet less than that development permitted by the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance . The Lake Oswego zoning ordinance section 4ti . 31.5 (7 ) e. - specifically allows 163, 000 square feet of retail y' , ,', service and office use on the site . with the square footage allowed in thehcomprehensive provision es consistent e. applicable to the Monroe/Boones Ferry site (page 78 ) . p 'More thanith z . ` required amount of open space is proposed. De the Environmental Quality noise regulations and standards willbe s' under, theproposal. met ' r An indirect source permited from DEC, has been obtained e proposal provides for pedestrian access from L:he 1_i_Me+ stop and from the adjacent public streets. The developer has :.Ls executed a waiver of remonstrance as to improvements on Boones Fer Y. :�?r ` ' Road , has agreed to provide traffic signalization at the _ r� intersection of Boones Ferry Road and Monroe Parkway and an Y additional left turn lane from Monroe Parkway. An on site retention pond is proposed which , combined with the existing I• ' wetland , will substantially increase site drainage retention � capacity. . , rj ee 4. Find.:21 ` • 1. The proposed development is a neighborhood commercial. use within the definition of the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance . ,y f• 2 , The subject development is designed to meet the needs V of the community 's consumers and there „i ofis an economic need for type development proposed . tne i 3 , The N..o posed development�- - ,, co;rumerc_a.� activities L �Opm nL provides for a T _ with ur the poten�i.al. ::��r social, .,1 ,. governmer.cal activities in e cultural . the same s.•.apping area . �""`` ; 4i The neighborhood commercial ases provided off; t;;i7 ' 'a . ordinance and by 48 .315 (7) applicable specifically to the zr ~ Monroe/Boonies Ferry site implement the neighborhood commercial. - policies of the Comprehensive plan , 5, Adequate streets and � 1 / . the site . public Eac.ilitzes are availab; e at 6 . Adequate measures have been incorporated into the design of the project to assure minimal negative ' residential areas , impacts on adjacent • z PAGE 21 . MARK DEVELOPMENT RE TOW NE SQUARE . " . 3342E/x"aC/as ,., ro' i'. ,w , • ,'1n I + 1 • + r 7. Adequate pedestrian access is provided . 8 . The proposed development complies with all specific policies or the comprehensive plan specifically applicable to the Monroe/Boones Ferry site. r g 9 . There exists in Lake Oswego a need for the commercia' VIA yl � uses provided in the proposed development. 10. The provision for the proposed uses in the Lake Osweq-, • Zoning Ordinance demonstrates a need for the uses provided by she • , development . • • ?. ' 1. 7%fr�., F l r ' • di" m . y ' • 1 ' �YI. 4 PAGE 22. MARK DEVELOPMENT RE TOWNE SQUARE. 3342F/ESC,/ss ' " 4 r 1 Y rl • Y Y IY y., DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Development Standard 1 - Historic Resource Preservation: Evidence • The property on which the proposed development is to take place has not been determined by the State or the National Register of Historic Places as being of historic significance . k Finding : The historic resource preservation guideline does not apply to this development. • • • • 1T' tr , e 'i i .'IFi, °ry PAGE 23 . MARK DEVELOPMENT RE TOWNE SQUARE. 3342F/F C/ss • r I 1 ' r , �. *H ! Development Standard 2 - Building Design : '" Development Standard 10 - Fences : ; Evidence a No buildings are presently on the site . The development will be part of the Mountain Park PUD. The PUD consists largely of multi-family structures, single family structures , some large community structures and two commercial structures . Material on • large structures are metal roofs , tile roofs , brick , wood , glass , concrete and wood shingles . Scale of the structures within ...;a PUD varies from single family residence to large community center to multi-story , multi-family housing . �� The proposed building design includes two steel frame structures (1 to 3 story) with earth tone exterior wall finishes , painted metal roof , reflective glass on the office structure , and clear glass on the retail structure . Sloping roof lines , stepped buildings, articulated canopies and broken massing of facades are used to reduce scale of structures and soften impact on the • environment . The office structure is set one story into the hillside to reduce its apparent heighth . Mechanical equipment is screened from view by monitors over office and grocery areas. These monitors add complementing roof lines and further diminish the scale . A tower structure is located at the confluence of the retai and office structure to identify the community plaza providing a , : turning point to the plan and giving a symbol of indentity to the development . The tower also houses mechanical equipment. Signage has 'been placed under the canopy and over retail windows where it identifies uses at the pedestrian and on-site auto level. Signage has been limited to the use of single color , low-intensity neon tubes to provide a consistent low key Image of identification. The L-shaped configuration of structure.s on sit., ..�11 . to snield residential properties on the north and west fr,t,;, .....i ..� sources on Monroe Parkway , Boones Ferry Road and the reza_: ":.a.r .,...n; -.:: : : : , : area. A fence has also been placed on the west property :Lne to snield residents from the office parking area . The struot,.:al 512. of the fence shall face the owner ' s property. Poplar trees wig.l oe planted on the north boundary line to provide a visual shield for properties on the north . All trash collection areas are enclosed . . . � Finding : The proposed development has been designed and .,•' located to complement and preserve existing elements of the sites • environment . ` PACE 24 . MARK DEVELOPMENT RE TOWNE SQUARE, 3342F/FSC/ss 0 h \ . , Y., dui 4' , V'I Development Standard 3 - Stream Corridors : Evidence The Lake Oswego hydrology map shows a stream corridor line along the north boundary of the parcel. In 1979 , completed a storm sewer line along this line . Th Multnomah qlon the uLake Oswego hydrology map also travels along the eastey'n boundary of zne .• •• site . The southerly portion of this line is located in the area identified as the wetlands . The storm sewer constructed alone the north uoundary line now carries the water from the designated stream corridor under Boones Ferry Road pndvawayly rum the site . The stream corridor on the site as designated by Oswego hydrology the La.,c 9 Y gy map no longer exists because of the contructicn o= the storm sewer line on the north boundary. • Finding: There is no stream corridor on the subject property. - 0 • • • • • • • •, tl 1 s PAGE 25 . MARK DEVELOPMENT RE TOWNE SQUARE. 3342E/FSC/ss • • Development Standard 5 - Street Lights : r, •' Evidence } The two (2) public streets adjacent to the development are not residential streets (Comp. Plan p. 103) . Boones Ferry Road is an arterial, and Monroe Parkway is a collector . The City Manager a ' has determined the applicable lighting standards for these streets . lighting for public pathways and access ways of le :s than . 3 average foot candles with a maximum uniformity of illuminating ratio cf not exceeding 20 to 1 are provided by the proposal. The design of the lighting of the project avoids unnecessary glare upon adjacent properties . Finding : The proposed lighting is adequate; , minimizes glare on adjoining properties, meets the standards determined by the City Manager , and , as to the public pathways and access ways meets the requirements of Development Standard 5. a:a . . . ., • . . • . q,\ PAGE 26 , MARE DEVELOPMENT RE TOWNE SQUARE. 3342F/FSC/ss Develo ment Standard 6 - Transit System: Evidence ; • Tri-Met bus service is available at the corner of Monroe Parkway and Boones Ferry Road adjacent to the development. No additional adjacent transit facilities are projected . It is anticipated that much of the patronage of the complex will be by Private passenger automobile . Hard surface pedestrian paths will ae provided to connect the development with the existing Tri-Met bus stop whici, is the nearest adjacent multiple passenger exchange faci.U.ty . , Finding : The proposed development meets the technical requirement. .:Jr* Development Standard 6. Finding : The proposed development provides adequate facilities to ,' .' serve multiple-passenger transit. /.. „ • 1 ., 1 1. i • M . ' , • •q• a, a .. 0 , , d ' , . . i • ', ' . PAGE 27 . MARK DEVELOPMENT RE TOWNE SQUARE. 3342F/rSC;/5a • i .• 1. • • Development Standard 7 - Parking and Loading : Evidence v • The proposed development will generate a parking need . All parking is off-street and on-site . The dimension and layout of parking spaces and number of parking spaces specified for each type of use meets or exceeds standards of the ordinance . Handicapped parking and ramps are provided in accordance with the Uniform Building Code . The parking plan adequately insures that the parkin. of any vehicle will not interfere with parking or manuvering of other vehicles. Loading berths to the commercial activities are . ' • provided without interference with off-street parking . All parking is on-site . The proposed parking meets design stanaard 7 . 020 (7) relating to size of parking stalls and numbers of parking spaces required based on type of use. The proposed development is not recreational in nature . • Finding : Adequate provision has been made for parking and r ,' loading in conformance with City requirements. rl • • I , • Oi 1 , . .o .1r :4. 4' ° PAGE 28 . MARK DEVELOPMENT RE TOWNE SQUARE. 3342F/FSC/ss it `♦ • , J• � i '4 A,l ti .` „'u t a• � .1 ' K',y I , e. r ,r 1; eP .Y. v 4'4 v" et♦� ee NO. 11 1 1, ♦ i R j Fe +liufjld ,; Development Standard 9 - Landscaping , Screening and Buffering : 1t 1' R` 4 r, Evide nce r 1 „ r ^H The proposed development is commercial in nature . Of the h`�„+..a.l.,+, total land area of 579 ,348 square feet, 247 , 096 h�, ,, in landscapingsquare feet will ae and/or open space equal to 43% of the total area. �t ` landscaping .Design Standard requires 15% of net buildable l,e area to be g parking lot will be visible from the street at in q'' ,, several points. Substantial, plantings and the development o , storm water detentions and are♦+ ' f' project to screen and separate the project near the boundaries o4 �; project uses , project from neighboring ^ F�U4 significant Operatior of the proposed project will nez r�s .: {, ,, in ig fican'_ odor , dust, smoke , fumes, glare , heat or via ra_ cn k y: kt'. adjoinin�;�properties . Poplar trees will be planted �.n a cla-:t; ;;;caa�. lane on the North boundary of the on the west property. A fence will ;, placed • property line to shield residents from office parsing o t ; r ' Monroe Street trees will be provided along Boones Ferry Road and Finding: Adequate prevision is made for setback and ai^++Y }, screening of the project from adjoining] g properties. � � * , ztt Finding: 1`� au ' n The screening and buffering that are planned for A' 1:aie the development adequai-,1y screen the parking lot, separate the , , . proposed commercial) use from abutting residences , and mitigate u.'•�, noise , lighting and other impacts. � , ,,,,;., Finding : As submitted , the parking lot areia of the site`'t ,491 '' plan varies from the landscaping 4y .: P g Plan h ,. n r • lk, d . +r1 d1 a} b^ a 0111 tirt ,iu" ' iY PAGE 29 . MARK DEVELOPMENT RE TOWNE S ttAPE. s 33 4� '/FSC/as "xh, I N 1. '^ 4:R•t 1 c'7.� a . ' I 2s " U'� I 4'. ,4: Development Standard 14 - Utility Standards : :. t Evidence All utilities required in accordance with City Standards, Plans and Specifications are provided telephone and other utilities service ats the site . Electric, under ground, proposed to be located .' .11 Finding _ di : Utility standards of Standard ;;,4 have teen complied with . Development Standard 18 - Access : Evidence Permanent access has been is designated as a collector street. Nodresidentialed to estreets,� which r ' defined in the standard , abut the development . Thls proposed development abuts Monroe Parkway and Boones Ferry y woad for more than 5 feet . Finding,: The access proposed meets the requirements of 1, .,..: Development Standard No 18, . ,... Finding : Limiting access between Boones Ferry Road and the retail ' parking lot and restricting exits on to Boogies Ferry Road to right turns only will reduce the potential for traffic congestion on Boones Ferry Road �''^' ' '' -^.a inQ : Entrances to the site cross „ Mount area controlled by the Mountain Park Homeowners ' ? ,, c' Park co;.;"„.; Development Standard 19 - Si",. Circu' ;; Standards ., Private Streets : ion andarus - t• ,va•... 'A, J ° a�M'Yr ' , 'il" ft'' Evidence rr . ' nr ' ruy¢a! i 4 The proposed development includes private streets '4 the definition of the Development Standard No. 19 . 1C . Th >ila_s •. . r` and ,;pecficationt, Ae plans have addressed the requirements ��s to private • �. ', streets . 1�'4A*i, 71•.•.. C Findi2 n The r : proposed development complies with require;Ments of Standard No. 19 of Development Standards . PAGE 30 . MARK DEVELOPMENT RE TOWNE SQUARE. 3342F/rSC/SS ti A A n •e 1 i f Y 2 rl • Development Standard 20 - Site Circulation Standards - Bikeways and Walkways: Evidence The proposed development provides for certain designated walkways. No bikeways are provided . The existing walkways tie t'e �r public s'-reets. The public walkways are located either in a public easement or open land dedicated to the public. Finding: The standards applicable to bikeways and wal,,wae; are met by the proposal. Finding : Appropriate signage will reduce potential conflict between customer traffic and delivery traffic on the set/ice driveway . J j.• r • 5 I!" • ' 'I c • • • rr x + r ; • • • • PAGE 31 . MARK DEVELOPMENT RE TOWNE SQUARE. 3342r/x'SC/ s ,. 4 � t di , F • 'A 1. Lake Oswego Zoning Ordinance - Commercial Districts (48 . 300 , 140 . 305 48 .310, 48 . 535) Evidence The building space uses proposed comply with the permitter J' v uses in a neighborhood commercial zone pursuant to LOC 48 . 305 (Zoning Ordinance , page 31) . Set back on the north property line :.s 41 feet allowing a building height of 21 feet in the grocery store ,'i area as proposed . The set back from the west property line is more \ 0 _ran 220 feet , allowing a building height of 45 feet . The set aack from Monroe/Parkway and Boones Ferry Road are 106 feet and 35 feet respectively . The proposed structure is 45 feet tail in t:ne tower area . Total building coverage of the site is 80, 790 square feet fc.: k „ ,-, a coverage of approximately 14% . All business activity will be conducted wholly within an enclosed building . ` Findings: 1 . The proposed uses comply with permitted uses in a neighborhood commercial zone. 2. All set back requirements are complied with . 3. The proposed structures are within applicable height limitations . • ii � Q, 4 . A '. t I ,,•. PAGE 32. MARK DEVELOPMENT RE TOWNE SQUARE. 3342r/rSC/ss k. Y r M • 4' ti. City Zoning Ordinance - General Exceptions - 48 .515 (2) ; 48 . 530 : f t' Evidence The proposed office building has a roof structure srriela: HVAC equipment from view which rises to a height of 47 . 58 feet. Tne y4' actual roof height of the building '.s 38 .33 feet . The proposed development has three driveway intersections with streets . Al_ intersections are clear of obstruction for visual purposes in excess of ten feet on both sides. } Findings: 1. The office building roof structures arcs within the heighth limitations of LOC 48 . 515 (2) . 2. . Vision clearance is provided which complies with LOC 48 . 530. • tIt r': • tr Nr; • y I . 7 a M PAGE 33 . MARK DEVELOPMENT RE TOWNE SQUARE, 3342E/FSC,/ss 1 , 1,• 4• • I 1 t• �p A: Lake Oswego Sign Code - 47 . 160 , 47 . 180 , 47 . 190 , 47 . 200 , 47 . 210, • 47 .250, 47 .310, 47 . 340, 47 .410, 47 . 420, 47 . 430 , 47 . 460 Evidence v: Proposed ground signage shows two pilasters on each side of the driveway entrances to the lower and upper parking areas. The pilasters are of brick construction 7 ' by 18 ' 4" long with polished brass sign plaques (17 .5 square feet each) on one face of each L , pilaster . The message on each plaque is raised , polished brass . , lettering . The top of the plaques is 5 ' 4" above grade . The �c- �:qae is lighted by a single ground moun`ed flood light . `' The proposed wall signage shows a 2 ' by 20 ' neon tube sign located above the glass under the canopy. Tubes are mounted on the face of the wall with all connections inside the building . This ,: to sign and all future signs will utilize the same single color neon tube . All materials are of non-combustible permanently mounted 1 '0. materials . The sign is located on private property and is d ti, y . consistent with other signs of similar type in Mountain Park . �'' Finding : The proposed ground sign complies with all applicable standards of the sign code „ e Finding : The proposed wall sign complies with all ° applicable standards of the sign code . z : ', , "1Y L" Finding: Entry signage on Monroe Parkway has the potential . to interfere with vision clearance . ,I ,y 1• J 9 h, r } Y ' I U r lqql ff�� r ' PAGE 34. i°ARX DEVELOPMENT RE TOWNE SQUARE. 3342F/FSC/ss ^. .,; `r:` ' Y. r r 1 .5, � ' ° w• P 14 j°Y I I.h ,4�4 1'7t° [I '+' M r i.M'*... R i. Ff+J' a J .ayxy.4.Aior a , tii a ° •'1 M +.6I CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO C "� ' DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD , ,.: .., March 16, 1983 Development Review Board meeting of March 16, 1983 was called to _ri'ar by Chairman Frank Clarke at 7 :35 p.m. Board members in ,: ••, , . attendance were Chairman Clarke, Shirley Petrie, Lynn Takeuchi, and , . __hard Hutchins . Absent were Richard Eslick, Katherine Ericsson, anf Thomas Reeves . Staff members in attendance were City Planner Bob V. ' ..__ante, and Deputy City Attorney Mark Pilliod. i _ _ _VAL OF MINUTES -'_ approval of minutes was held over . v Y" y=_ _:."vS AND COMMUNICATIONS UNICATIONS } Galante noted that- there were some petitions and communications, c�_..,They were all related to the public hearing, and would be � ' t s-_ :tted later . v. _11-.I C HEARING r- „ �r �Y w/. ' 4'• • :.. =-B3 . A request by the Mark Development Company for approval of a ;' _ 535 square foot shopping center located on a 13. 3 acre site at ;« northwest intersection of Boones Ferry Road and Monroe Parkway. 1 . , `:o Board members present indicated conflicts of interest or ex parte i ;� tintacts . It was mentioned that Mr. Reeves had been contested as ha.•:-g possible bias , but that he was not present at this evening ' s �� C� " :^eat Ins. r) /rr Mr. Galante informed, .:, ... ....‘ 'the Board that the project must be accepted as a ,, _ _:,-antially different application before the hearing ...:. _nce. He drew attention to exhibit KK, and state thatdstaff' had iw0 �• = =..ed the applicaton and felt that it contained sufficient changes ' . ,a;x' ` : : = = considered . Ms. Petrie moved that the Board consider DR 1-B3 . c 5 � .�.,,.;.. .a -rtion was seconded by Mr. Takeuchi . Mr. Glaeser, an attorney F>,' d `r . . astinting the Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association and yyU' ' :duals in several other neighborhoods attempted a point of order Z.40. . !•;,' ._a ,_e,sing reconsideration of this application. After conferring "�"'• .wl t:,e Deputy City Attorney, Mark Pilliod, the Board rejected the pol:= of order and continued the discussion of the motion. The . , .•.___ _n was carried unanimously. ort . Mr . alante presented the staff re p Staff recommended approval .iy_ s.ix conditions, and recommended adding a seventh condition ° e, .__zng a registered accoustical engineer to be retained during the • "C. x� construction of the project to monitor installation of equipment . — ' 4 e. L • 1 }.` . . M }I. •,� Y - Y u�. A a• 1 , 1 r Y h a =EVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES .':arch 16, 1983 • Page 2 1;. �, ' He read letters received in support Esrector of the Greenridge Property Owners Association ( it Beth Ameling, :ndicated that several residents of Greenridge had complained( it was , ' r this letter did not speak for them) ; Patricia Brownrepresenting that:east two or three homeowners in Greenridge Court; a , d thatat expected letter from the Condolea Homeowners Board had not be an received. Attention was drawn to exhibits VV Citi r Input ) and WW (Letters in Support) . (Evidence of Citizen ,r , . Galante sumarized letters written in opposition (Exhibit =ne project from the following persons : ZZ) to M. G. Fowler, 79 Greenridge Court Dave and Helen Miller, 116 Greenridge Court JoAnn Balkovich, 3233 S. W. Knause Road d. A Jean and Marjorie Meyer, 12434 S. W. 27th Place Kenneth Webber, 12542 S. W. 27th Place Stevie Moore, 2704 S. W. Orchard Hill Lane Jerry H. Knolton, 2727 S. W. Orchard Hill Place • letter (Exhibit AAA) was also read which neither supported = »osed the project from Mr. . l :mbia Regional Office of the Department a of biologistwith nor nongame with the _`_aiding the wetlands Fish and Wildlife .:resented the minutes ofo the oConservancy of the oCommi perty. or. Galante . ' _, - Traffic Signalization Plan submitted by thesapplicaon ntb(E KKK) , and a letter from Mt . Park allowingaccess to the (Exhibit • -z=zss common property (Exhibit MMAi) . development I ' swing the discussion of the staff report, the Board =_ the main speakers for and against t:7e project would be°1 . r:nut.es to speak, and that others wishing to testifywould ..r.wed 5 minutes be each. 4 _`PDNENTS . t erry Crispe, President of Mark Develo ment Corn any, y ;F S :a era street, Tigard, spoke in behalf of the a -ained tie history and philosophy behind the7185 S. W. application.H He ' . = -tr oduced the various project . He r ect . It was indicated pthat nthey ewere willingd in the planning of the _ :sIble with the neighbors to make the best situation for waerevan ;{a • • = they had held meetings with as many persons for all, and P s as possible. He 4110 , r • • j . DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES March 16, 1983 Page 3 YI submitted an itemized response to the staff report (Exhibit HHH rendering of the site (Exhibit III ) , and photographs of portions 'of the wetland area (Exhibit JJ) . f "Mr. Bob Lamb, operator of the propased Thriftwa Store, 13890 S. W. =u11 Mount Road, Ti ard, spoke in behalf o the ap ca on pliti stating a gua; y y store was t planned. ,F lcat ' Mr. Floyd Arms, 10 Condolea Drive spoke in favor of the a.PP' Yan. e spoke on behalf of tYie Board of Directors of Kala flow Ya Condominiums . _:r . Joe Collins, 49 TanQlewood Drive spoke re ardin _e t this commercial center would bring. g g Ole benefit he Scott Cunningham, 6433 S. E. Lake Road, Milwaukee, Retail ervices Manager for United Grocers spoke regarding the benefit of a .riftwa y Store. Richard Lance, 6241 Reseda Court testified in favor of the ••0 ,4 =pp ication. here was a five minute recess following the last µ stimony. proponent ' s ..nairman Clarke resumed the hearing, -. POSITION . -Jess Glaeser; 13020 S. W. Knause Road, representing Forest .ii.7hlands Neighborhood Association and individuals in Greenridge a t :dance, spoke in opposition to this application. He first g nd = ressed his objections to the application. r objections to the application itself. He then addressed his - .-ce=:� as natural resources. He identified the main u * _ _ Within this category, he identified r areas : wetlands, stream corridors, open spaces, and distinctive :ral area . He discussed each of these concerns, identifyin fic points which they felt should be addressed. Mr. Glaeser _-_ected several questions to staff. .er Jackson, 12731 S. W. 19th Avenue, Lake Oswe o, spoke,. regardin _ _e wetlands . He testified that the wetlands had not g ��r• Bierly ' s report (Exhibit z) . He felt the wildlife properly th n th addressed .stlands area had not been identified . e - . 3laeser spoke again with regard to the wetlands and stream rrldor . He specifically stated that he felt there was a stream --=ridor on this property, µ`,i^ p y, and that the applicant did not . Following • , ese remarks, he requested that the rest of those speaking in , 4 4x LEVELOPb1ENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES March 16, 1983 1:74age 4 ' P„ apposition be allowed to testify,summarize. He had five and that he be allowed to presentation. Thisad req minutes, approximately, ' agreed to byleft for his ,,r C. E. the Board. Ward, 2704 S. • W. Orchard Hill Lane spoke regarding his ^:jections to the Noise Report Exhibit X support his objections Sections (Exhibit BBB, He submitted CCC, and DDD) material to ' }- Norton Xoun 77 Greenrid e Court , that a phone surve addressed the =penrid e Y had been conducted of the noting 9 Neighborhood Association members of the rr.tacted, 16 were favorable 24 and that of 44 ,,ere undecided. He stronglyvfaroject represented � were opposed to the C�roject ,"�eeui as He objected to Ms. Amelin ' and 4 - e regardingrdrepresenting the Greenridge e letter r � this subject (Exhibit EEE)omeownerc , He also read ,. ' Gerald Fletcher 12850 S. _�re of a W. Alto Park Road, spoke-e ghborhof thisisoapplcatjongisHe is Chairman o P againsttHg Highlands ( major objection waseto°rest Highlands (Exhibit report t X) , the Traffic a_ . Gwen Simson, 12580 S. ' y_�Gwin Bri n W. Alto Park Wa 13520 S, j,�, read a letter submitted by -attar from herself concernedaWith Rthe� 'traffic. Simson then presented _ wetlands, the poplars, and • ____ Nelson, 12456 S, :he stri W. Boones Ferr Road, he p between his house and the center. Hoke pointed was not in favor of the proposed center, regarding fencing, '�' Ward pointed out that , 2704 S. W. Orc • = fications to the origin<<1 p Hill headed stated that the .terns of the neighbors . e till not addressed the `fmparking area. She also statedexpthate�heohcern for safety r wnre nots la within apprc:�r=ate because of theirodeci trees planned as . '. _ � deciduous nature. ,rrs,.adt , 12537 S . "e. =+' pment woul ia• 27th Pl d lower the propertyevalueseofcsurroundncerns thd this t had concerns regarding traffic impact and the --••n taping: p planned homes . He , ` = '.' Nelson, 2727 S. W. �, ; � Orchard Hill Place, �� � - � •..s.,s,.ency between the felt there was �� . He did not planned development and the Comprehensive = e .He didsiotve believePlan. that the proposal met the requirements of ' "e Meyer, 12434 y S. W. 27th Place=�s"- would be generated bywas most concerned with ' '' :n 'a `e neighborhood. having a commercialthe noise �� project of this size IEVELOP,�1ENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES March 16, 1983 :age 5 MarjorieMeyer,' y . Me Pr12434 S. W. 27th Place voiced the opinion that the development would bring an increase in crime to the area and s.:omitted a news article (Exhibit FFF) . :an Bruckner, 74 Greenridge Court, spoke regarding the Noise Report Exhibit X) . He felt the study had been improperly conducted, and that the actual noise impact would be much greater than suggested. arcld Malagon, 16140 S. W. Reese, expressed concerns wi the proposed complex, the traffic noise, the wetlandsteandetheale _.-crease in noise levels . . . Slaeser then summarized the concerns voiced in opposition to this =_ p.ication. He addressed further questions to staff. -- • William J. Dalton, 12140 S. `. W. Orchard Hill Way, spoke neither ti ..r nor against the project . He feels the real issue was that the pponents this evening simply did not want a commercial development �' as a neighbor, and that the City of Lake Oswego in general would .►elcome the shopping center. Galante, City Planner, spoke answering questions raised by Mr. �aeser and addressed towards staff . He -:posed uses are consistent with the zoning. Tdhe eo streams that corrido or been eliminated by the placement of storm sewers byMultnomahr c. nty and that in his observation of the property, there s no stream corridor . The development standards were written toaimplement :e Comprehensive Plan with regard to protection of open spaces . The ` tanned buffers met requirements for landscape buffers, and poplars . re allowed as trees in this type of location. t7 proprty line would not be terming along the ' possible . He further stated that the artment of Environmental Quality will not determine noise ..nations until after the project is constructed . Crispe spoke in rebuttal . He discussed the landscape screening :=- rased, pointing out that they would be willing to compromise with h wishes of neighboring residents . He also felt that the issue of -`e wetlands had been properly addressed. The entrance driveway from rz-n es Ferry Road had been approved by both cities and both counties. A Ken Bierly, Plant Ecologist, 2111 Front Street, N. E. , Salem, : :e regarding the report on the wetlands (Exhibit Z) . He felt that ti = the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan had been met. He • n:t ed that the concerns expressed in Mr. Pesek ' s letter regarding the 3tlife in the wetlands had been carefully checked, and they found ,,r -`e impact on the wetlands to be minimal , • G y 1 CEVELOPPIENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES ':arch 16, 1983 • age 6 .s; Mr. Bob Lamb, proposed Thriftway operator spoke p pointing out that a ' new grocery store of this size had not been built in Lake Oswego/Lake :-rove in the last 17 years. He felt there was a definite need for the store, and that they would be a benefit to the community. They would do everything they could to keep noise level down. Y.: • • Mr . Russ Altermatt, 133 S. W. 2nd, Portland, Registered Accoustical Engineer spoke regarding the noise report (Exhibit X) . He pointed z.:t mistakes in the report which were typographical errors . :r. Gary Katsion, 521 S . W. llth, Portland, Traffic and Civil an..ineer, spoke regarding the Traffic Report (Exhibit I') . He defended the validity of the traffic study, and not•ac1 that the driveways _a been aligned to enter streets as provided in the Comprehensive yan. Chairman Clarke closed the public hearing at the conclusion of rt testimony for Board deliberation. Initial Board discussion covered the wetlands, the existence or nonexistence of the stream corridor , and the requirement of sidewalks. `:scussion by the Board members continued. Ms . Petrie noted that she felt the questions raised in the Audubon Society letter of June, 1982 Exh?,bit GGG) had been addressed and answered. The Wetlands were ;:scussed . Mr . Crispe was asked if there was a way to keep the parking lot from encroaching upon the wetlands . He indicated that rth,er alternatives had been considered, but that they were not prssible. Discussion of wetlands continued. .7-e stream corridor was discussed. A consensus appeared to be reached to accept the evidence that it did not exist . Traffic and ..:_se were discussed . Security had been a concern expressed, and Mr. Crispe was asked to illustrate measures proposed. He indicated that security had beer. reviewed by the Police Department , and that -`ey planned to provide a security patrol both for day and evening ` : .-.:rs . Landscaping was discussed, and in particular the objection to the use poplars . A continued discussion of noise was held. Following an apparent consensus of Board members, and conclusion of discussion of p.licable standards, Mr. Takeuchi moved for approval of OR 1-83 with �' zr..nditions 1 - 6 recommended by staff, and including the 7th _cndition recommended by staff. They are as follows : �. 1 . That the Site Plan be revised to illustrate laidscape planting areas in the parking lot as shown on the andscape Plan. , • . 1 ,. '. . _H.,�. _..i.�T. r Y!� ..,to KO, ,i s. s .. . ' .,1,'� kYY • I fit^,' . . .5 r r ELOPMENT REVIEW ZOARD MINUTES rch 16, 1983 ;--.age 7 F ;z 2. That the access from Boones Ferry Road be restricted to entrance only for customers, that the driveway access to the parking lot be one land, and that service vehicle exiting be allowed as right-turn-only. .ocr ` i 3 . That customer traffic be restricted from using the service driveay. , 4 4. That the service driveway be designated as a fire lane by deed restriction. . 5 . That the applicant provide documentation of Mt. Park ' s approval of the use of the common area for nccess as designated. 6 . That signage at the main access point on Monroe Parkway be • provided to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Coordinator. A7 . That a registered acoustical l g engineer be responsible for noise generating mechanical equipment specifications and installations during construction to insure compliance ., 1 with DEQ noise regulations . . e motion was seconded by Mr . Clarke. After discussion regarding conditions for approval , the vote was taken and the motion ,A. i '' _ried by a unanimous vote. _ _FOVAL OF MINUTES • _ was decided to consider the minutes at the next Development Review 1 3 : : meeting► LRAL PLANNING - None " - - BUSINESS - Findings, Conclusions and Order 21-82, Boyd Chapman findings were considered. Ms. Petrie moved _ approval of the findings , it was seconded by Mr . Hutchins, and _- ed with all Board members voting in favor. : _:::CIL ACTIONS - None - _ .'RNMENT ,"- _ meeting was adjourned by Chairman Clarke at 12:53 p.m. } Respectfully sub fitted, K sti :itclicock Secretary -v r• Y 1 +El 7.- .6- .r,..... ,♦ If Y�; 1,• • w 1 r• ..1 �''. • 1 . • r • • • rV I... ‘, • M yyyy ' r • • , • .I . . '•• . v r • • COUNCIL,, REPORT 1'1ay 9, 1983 TO: Peter Harvey City Manager • FROM: Robert Galante Planning Department , RE: Appeal of the Approval Granted to Mark Devel 1-83) o pment Co. (DR - • ANALYSIS A. Background °. An application fo r development of a shopping northwest corner of the intersection ofer at the MonOeenParkway and 'J' Boones Ferry Road was first submitted to the p Review Board by the a Development ° vews approvalof applicant on April 19, 1982. The that application was overturned by . City Council in a hearing conducted on September 28, the e , , °,.I was82• notCounsil believedent with that the scale of the development ° definition of the ComprehensivegPlanhood and that "substitution" of a wetland to was not adequate and that actualrpreservation eserve l'ofd £ ctions existing wetland was required. the p This new and different application was reviewed and approved by the Development Review Board on March 16, 1983 as reflected in the Findings dated April 5, 1983 (Exhibit 3 ) . The appellants have challenged a number of Findings in the official order of the Development Review Board. Ad summary of the grounds relied upon for appeal is described below (See Exhibit 2 for complete text ) : The � e appellants believe that there is insufficient evidence in the record to support a finding that the application: 1 . Warrants a waiver of the six month restriction on the hoard ' s hearing of the application after City• Council ' s denial o:6, DR 25-79. , g EXHIBIT ILP .. " DR.ICI Ie, , • ,1 r CYuncil Report/Mark Development Co. y ".ay 9, 1983 0 `; =age 2 . f 2 . Complies with LCDC Goal 2 - Land Use Planning. 3. Complies with LCDC Goal 5 - Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources or :.ti` ''. Comprehensive Plan Objectives regarding Wildlife Habitat, Distinctive Natural Areas, Ground Water, Wetlands and Protection of Open Space. . 4. Complies with LCDC Goal G - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality or Comprehensive Plan Objectives for Air Quality and Quiet Environment . 5 . Complies with LCDC Goal 8 - Recreritional Needs or Comprehensive Plan Objectives for Public Open Space. 6 . Complies with Comprehensive Plan Commercial Policies . 7 . Complies with Development Standard 3 - Stream Corridors. 8. Complies with Development Standard 9 - ' •.. Landscaping, Screening and Buffering . 9. Complies with the Zoning Ordinance requirements for the Neighborhood Commercial Zone. y A review of the evidence submitted during hearings before the Bos d shows that substantial evidence was submitted and that the Board"s conclusions were adequately based on ' , the evidence . The points raised by the appellant • regarding evidence, findings, procedure, r,in0 compliance with requirements are individually addressed as follows : 1. Resubmittal BLOC 49. 640(4) ] 1 . The Development Review Board found that conditions had changed sufficiently to justify a waiver of the six month resubmittal restriction of LOC 49. 640(4) . The Board reviewed Exhibit 6 which • illustrated that the size of 'Ale project had r changed, that the wetland was preserved, that a new Zoning Code had been adopted, that setbacks had been increased, that the parking area had been • reduced, that landscaping had been increased , that design and color changes had been made and that the traffic study had been expanded. This ' exhibit, which formed the basis for their finding, . Q • • 1 i Council Report/Mark Development Co. flay 9, 1983 Page 3 was presented and reviewed as illustrated on pp. 2-6 of the transcript of the hearing (Exhibit 4) . The Board also reviewed Exhibit 41 (History of the Project) . 2 . Goal 2 - Land Use Planning The record illustrates that a proper application ,was made before the Development Review Board, that proper notice of hearings were given , that a staff • report was prepared in a timely manner, that hearings were conducted properly, and that an official Order was adopted by the Uuard, as required. The record also illustrates that the project was reviewed for complianFe with the Development Ordinance and Standards, the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Coda, LCDC Goals and the Department of Environmental Quality noise • and indirect emissions regulations . In addition, affected County agencies participated in access design, roadway improvement requirements, and signalization. The Board believed that the . :. -.',.. project complied with all applicable regulations and therefore, concluded that Goal 2 was met. 3, Goal 5 - Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources and Comprehensive Plan Policies Regarding Wildlife Habitat , Distinctive ', Natural Areas , Ground Water, Wetlands and Protection Open Space. Evidence exists in the record, as listed below, to • support the findings of the Board with respect to " ` • Goal 5. The same evidence supports the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies . ` Exhibit 7 Slope Analysis Plan ' \ -\ Exhibit 8 Aerial Photo Exhibit 9 Topographic Survey Exhibit 10 Noise, Sun, Wind Exposure • Exhibit 11 Natural Features Exhibit 12 Existing Drainage • The above listed exhibits inventory natural • features and natural forces which affect the site . A number of reports, listed below, provide a more detailed inventory and make conclusions about the impact of development on the site. . • • r u. . •. :-::::::, Council Report/Mark Development Co. •� May 9, 19831110 . . : . . y .,, ., Page 4 • ;',1*. Exhibit 13 • , r• Wetlands Report to Exhibit 14 Noise Report Exhibit 15 Soils Report The Board relied upon those exhibits as well as • Exhibit 16 (Letter from Joe Pesek, Dept . of Fish and Wildlife) , Exhibit 17 (Photos of the Wetland .Area ) , Exhibit 18 (Connervancy Commission Minutes of February 16, 1983) and Exhibit 39 (Construction Procedures to Protect Wetlands) to reach their decision,. The Conservancy Commiataion had • recommended that the wetland was being preserved ��p to the maximum extent practical . Joe Pesek, a k_ nongame biologist with the Department of Fish and ' ' Wildlife had recommended that the integrity of the wetland would be preserved and that the applicants t : proposal will add to the wildlife habitat of the area . Ken Bierl • Y, a wetland consultant, who produced the Wetlands Report, had recommended that the proposed development will ,nhance and preserve wetland values . Testimony that the Board relied upon regarding the :„)-' .1 review of the evidence listed in this section can be found on pages 111-116, 121-124, 131 , 132 and 138-143 of the Transcript (Exhibit 4) . The Board also reviewed a letter (Exhibit 19) from Mike Houck of the Audubon Society which was originally submitted in opposition to the project during the 1982 hearing. Testimony in opposition Was ,,` presented on pages 70-82 of the Transcript . The Board believed that the concerns of the letter, which had been resubmitted by those in opposition ' to the project, had been positively addressed by the new application. ' �;�• The concerns of the letter addressed the existence of Bebb Willow (which was found not to exist as demonstrated on p. 20 of the Wetlands Report) , the :::: failure of the applicant to address Wildlife Habitat (which has not been adequately addressed according to the letter from the non-game . Biologist from the Dept . of Fish and Wildlife) , an inaccuracy in the size of the Wetland area (which the Board found unnecessary to determine as the boundary, and not the size, of the Wetland was the important and necessary issue) , and the lack of agency input from the Army Corps . of Engineers and the Oregon Dept . of 1is}t and Wildlife (both a5encies provided input as illustrated on p. 22 of ' the Wetland Report and by Exhibit 16, previously noted) . . N.,, • p , ':".': • Counctil Report/t•iark Development Co. ' May 9, 1983 Page 5 In addition to the evidence already listed, document (Exhibit 20) which described evidence the application and listed findings which in demonstrated compliance with the bl criteria and standards was submittedlasaevidenc Pages 5-7 are applicable to the e' the appellant in this section. raised by ection. 4. Goal G ,,• Air, Water and Land Resources Comprehensive Plan Objectives for Quality and ulet___ nvzronmen fir Quality and The following exhibits submitted by the applicant were reviewed by the Board : . Exhibit 14 Noise Report Exhibit 10 Exhibit 21 Noise, Sun, Wind Exposure Exhibit 22 Landlord Noise Policy Noise Policies Exhibit 23 DEQ Letter of Confirmation Additional material was presented from those in opposition as follows : Exhibit 24 Letter from Daly : ''. ' Exhibit 25 Engineering Co. Exhibit 25 DEQ Noise Regulations-pg. 31 Letter from DEQ (May 11, i• 1982) The opposition testified that there were inaccuracies and ommissions in the Noise reviewed byDalyReport as Engineering Co. (Exhibit 24) . � `` The applicant addressed those items on 125-128 of the Transcript . Theletter proms :4 •• Engineering concludes that : "Mostoftheo Daly solutions will, if I be acceptable" , T enforced, most likely • prove to • heReport concludes Noise es that : ��That proposed Towne Square •• applicable DEQ noise at tit . Park will meet ' regulations if the operational recommendations presented in this report are implemented" . The applicant had already submitted Noise Policies 22) to deal With enforcement questions . After reviewing this evidence, the Board concluded that DEQ Regulations and Comprehensive Plan Objectives Would be met provided that the .r . M y t, Council Report/Mark Development Co. May 9, 1983 Page 6 0 !„ e recommendatio ns of the Noise Study were carried out and that the procedures listed in the Landlord Noise Policy were implemented. The Board believed that a registered Acoustical Engineer charged with the responsibility of insuring compliance with DEO regulations should be required to specify and monitor the installation of noise mechanical equipment . They esta}blisheedathat requirement as a condition of approval believing that it was the best way to insure the recommendations of the Noisestudy. with The Board also relied upon testimony as illustrated in the 1�9-15u. Transcript t on pages 53-55, and ...:::-. 5• Goal 8 - Recreational heeds ive Plan and Com rehens Objectives for Public O en S aeC, The Board found that the development will not have an adverse affect on recreational needs, will not have an adverse affecto i thatit to special and unique areas, and tha� b tthe access development will not interfere with any recreational uses of the property, existing 410 : ::,, The Board concluded that the existing wetland does not have priority for acquisition as Public Access Space,en S P P , as it is not listed in thn Comprehensive Plan as space system or shown asrbet ingf tWithe hin17 p ned open proposed open space . No intercitye Park or • pathways are proposed tops bike/pedestrian This evidence was submitted stothrough ti uj otxtdeoni page 10 of Exhibit EE (Compliance with LCDC Goals ) . No rt .. , } conflicting evidence was submitted . 6. Com rehensiye Plan Commercial Policies The Site Plan (Exhibit 27) illustrates Proposed ultimate building areaof1 that qua , 535 square ,, feet does not exceed the Comprehensive Plan restriction of 163, 000 square feet for the site. The site plan also illustrates that pedestrian access has been ' provided in compliance with the original plats of Mountain Park. .. A pathway i s • � : ' proposed along t1onroe 'Parkway connecting to the existing Mountain Park pathway system. The applicant has signed a non-remonstrance agreement • to allow a pathway to be constructed along 1300ne8 • _ _. • , Council Report/Mark Development Co. ' Page 7 Ferry at some future date. The site plan and 1 grading plan (Exhibit 28) illustrate that the Boones Ferry path has been provided for in the :.: site design. ' � The applicants have agreed to pay for street improvements to Boones Ferry road and to provide traffic signalization, which is required because .of traffic generated from the site . A traffic .„. ; study ( Exhibit 29) provided evidence that signalization and roadway improvements would be necessary. A Signalization Plan (Exhibit 30) and signalization notes (Exhibit 31 ) have been provided . On-site drainage detention has been provided to protect Springbrook Creek, which lies off-site to cAi,r the south. The Utility Plan (Exhibit 32) !`! •• illustrates storm water management measures. Also see page 51 of the Transcript. r The Comprehensive Plan (pages 78, 79) requires that : "The site development plan approved as part of the PUD should be revised to permit commercial uses which would be appropriate for present needs for types of commercial uses. " The Planning :- ,; ,r,J . Commission and City Council in adopting the new Zoning Code (Ordinance 1851 ) revised the types of • " commercial uses specifically allowed for this site ' ' '. [See LOC 48. 315 ( 7) ] . Compliance with that , . site-specific section of the Code and with LOC ,y 48. 305 Which lists the uses allowed for the ' Neighborhood Commercial Zone have been specifically determined to implement the \ ' Neighborhood Commercial Policies of the Comprehensive Plan [See 48 . 300( 1) 3 . Pages 111-112 of the Transcript illustrate that the Board considered the applicable Code sections . Exhibit 33 (Compliance with Comprehensive Plan ) provides ', additional evidence of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. ' • No conflicting evidence was submitted regarding the items listed above . Those in opposition stated that there was no need for a new shopping • center and that the development should not be located there. However, the Board was not • required to review need and could not revise the zoning of the site. . • ' • Council Report/Mark Development Co. ::ay 9, 1983 Page 8 7. e Dev lopment Standard 3 - Stream Corridors j The Board reviewed the City Hydrology Map, the Topographic Survey (Exhibit 9) , existing Drainage Map (Exhibit 12) , the Wetlands Report (Exhibit 13 ) and relied upon testimony found in the Transcript on page 114. The Wetlands Report illustrates, on page 3, that the Lake Oswego Hydrology Map is no t longer accurate. It illustrates that the City of �•;"' ' Portland constructed a piped storm sewer system in ,! 1979 to replace the stream. While a ditch does exist to channel localized runoff along Boones Ferry Road, it was artificially constructed and does not meet the definition of t;Lieam or Stream Corridor . The opposition .._ testimony is illustrated on pages 78-80 of the Transcript . No conflicting evidence other than the opposing testimony was submitted . `r The Board believed that the Stream Corridor does not now exist (Transcript, p. 143 ) . Therefore, `\ the Stream Corridor Standard is not applicable. • `. ; 8. Development Standard 9 - Landscaping, Screeniqg 4110 ....,..: , , and Buffering . The Board reviewed the Landscape Plan (Exhibit • 34) , Site Plan (Exhibit 27) and Irrigation Plan (Exhibit 35) . The Plans illustrate that 43 percent of the site will be landscaped, that an Irrigation Plan was submitted as required, and that plant materials and fencing were provided as a separation between disimilar uses . Discussion of the types of plant materials used along the property lines can be found in the Transcript on pages 120 and 148. The Board believed that the prohibited plant material list, found in the Standard, described street trees and did not restrict the use of the listed materials for other • landscaping purposes . The opponents testified • that the poplars proposed for the site were listed • as prohibited trees (See Transcript, p. 98) . 9. Zoning Code - Neighborhood Commercial District • The Zoning Code regulates the types of uses, the •height, setbacks and FAR (Floor/Area Ratio) for •'• , "• the Neighborhood Commercial Zone . In addition, a site-specific section [LOC 48. 315 ( 7) 3 modifies the general requirements for Neighborhood Commercial Zones. , 4 • Council Report/nark Development Co. 0 May 9, 1983 Page 9 • The Site Plan (Exhibit 27) illustrates : r . , 116, 535 sq. ft. of building proposed - 163, 000 sq. ft . allowed 14 percent Lot Coverage - 50 60, 000 sq. ft . retail proposed - 60t0001sged ft . allowed • • The elevations (Exhibits 36 & 37 ) and ibit 38 (Compliance with Zoning Code) illu;Itratehthat the building is less than 45 feet in huiQht , The r, p shielding Equipment (Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning Equipment) from view which rises to a height of 47. 58 feet . However, LOC 48. 515 (2) allows an exception for roof structures shielding mechanical equipment . The actual roof height of the building is 38. 33 feet. The evidence the Board reviewed illustrated compliance with all Code requirements without variance. No conflicting evidence was submitted. • B. Attachments 1 . Tax Hap ( 2 pp. ) 2 . Vicinity Map 3 . Letter of Appeal (4p 4. Findings of April 5, P1983 ( 37 5 . Transcript of March 16, 1983 (157 ) ` 6. Minutes of March 16, 1983 PPe ) 7 . Previous Submittal Comparison (2 pp. ) 8. Slope Analysis Plan 9. Aerial Photo (Not reproducible, not in packet ) 10. Topographic Survey 11 . Noise, Sun, Wind Exposure 12. Natural Features 13. Existing Drainage 14. Wetlands Report (24 pp. ) 15 . Noise Report ( 31 pp. ) 16. Soils Report (4 17. Letterpp. Summary included in packt) from Joe Pesek, Dept. of Fish and Wildlife 18. Photos of the Wetland Area (Not reproducible, not in N packet) • 19. Conservancy Commission Minutes, February 16, 1983 20. 4 , Letter from Mike Houck of the Audubon Society (3 pp. ) 21 . Compliance with LCbC Goals' 22. Landlord Noise Policy (2 pp. ) 23. Noise Policies ( 2 pp. )24. DLQ Letter of Confirmation 25. Letter from Daly Engineering Co . '4 pp. ) • a • • , .. Council Report/Mark Development Co. } 'May 9, 1983 sage 10 • i 26. DEQ Noise Regulations - p. 31 '! 27 . Letter from DEQ (May 11, 1982 - 2 pp. ) 28. Site Plan 29. Grading Plan 30. Traffic Study ( 26 pp. ) 31 . Signalization Plan (Not reproducible, not in packet ) 32 . Signalization Notes ( 5 pp. ) 33 . Utility Plan 34. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan ( 3 pp. ) 35 . Landscape Plan 36 . Irrigation Plan 37 . Building Elevations 38. Building Elevations 39. Compliance with Zoning Ordinance ( 2 pp. ) r 40. Construction Procedures to Protect Wetlands ( 2 pp. )i• '' 41 . History of the Project (4 pp. ) NOTE: These are the exhibits which Staff feels bear upon ' the decision appealed. • • [numerous other exhibits exist in the DR 1-83 (Mark Development Co. ) File. They are not referenced in this Report, but are listed below and will be available for review if desired. 42. Adjacent Lots and Structures Plan 43 . Boundary Survey . 44. Building Plans 45 . Building Plans • .. 46. Sign Details ' 47 . Site Lighting Plan • 48. Site Lighting Brochure r 49. Tenant Sign Agreement 50. Photo of Sign Type 51 . Development Schedule 52. Materials Description 53 . Color Sample Board 54. Compliance with Sign Code 55. Utility and Easement Survey '. . 56 . Setbacks/Zoning 57 . Compliance with Development Ordinance ( 9 pp. ) 58. Mt . Park Homeowner ' s Assn. Letter . . 59. Miscellaneous Data • 60. Petition and Non-remonstrance Agreement •• 61 . Evidence of Citizen Input 62. Letters in Support 63 . Corrections and Additions 'to Application 64. Letters in Opposition 65 . Letter from Hr. Young1110 , :. ., • . . . . 66. Article from Oregonian, July 4, 1982 ' ` • Y 1 } Z:�uncil Report/tlark Development Co. ',=.y 9, 1983 V ;-age 11 67. Applicant ' s Reponse to Staff Report s, 68. Rendering of Development (Photo) 69 . Letter from Mt . Park Homeowner ' s Assn. of March 11, 1983 70. Staff Report of March 1 , 1983 C. Considerations The Development Review Board believed that there were few• major issues to be considered in their review. The Board ' found most of the evidence clear and without conflict . As described previously, the Board revse wod evidence regarding the treatment of the �1 , l considerablea . he Board believed that the small finger of tbo Wetland where the parking lot would be located was not significant . That area was higher in elevation than the rest of the • Wetland and did not play a significant role in the function or appearance of the Wetland as a whole . They believed the applicant had done an excellent job of preserving the Wetland, as required. Conflicting testimony regarding the existence of a Stream• Corridor was presented, however, the board found no documentary evidence that the stream actually existed.They accepted the evidence that it did not exist and, therefore, the Stream Corridor Standard was not applicable . Conflicting testimony and other conflicting evidence was submitted regarding compliance with DCQ noise regulations , however, the Board believed the applicant . . • adequately rebutted the opposition. The Board established a condition of approval to insure compliance with DEC) • regulations . Finally, the Board received testimony from citizens who believed there was no need for a new shopping center and • that the one proposed was too large for the site . The Board believed that the development of the Zoning Code • adopted on December 16, 1982 established commercial uses consistent with the needs defined in the Comprehensive Plan and that they Were not the proper body to deliberate on the adequacy of the Zoning Code or Comprehensive Plan. '':::.:, -:: They believed that a development that met all applicable criteria and standards should be approved. D. Conclusion The Board concluded that the project complies with all 4111) applicable criteria and standards to the extent that approval could be granted with conditions, as illustrated in the Findings. v r i• q . / ^.. i Council Report/Hark Development Co. • ':3y 9, 1983 .rage 12 yr -1 • POLICY ANALYSIS ' -. A. Policy Impact If the appeal were upheld, that would indicate that the evidence submitted was insufficient, but not necessarily that the conclusions were incorrect. The applicant has provided a very detailed application and hired a number of experts to present testimony and prepare plans and .re orts Upholding P P g the appeal, however, would indicate that even more information is, or could be, required of developers . B Relation to the Comprehensive Plan Any Council action will result in further clarification of the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the use of implementing documents such as the Zoning Code and the , •; Development Ordinance and Standards. :I . RECOMMENDATION A. Action Requested ` The staff recommends that the appeal be denied . .t , • ' B. Follow-Up Action • If the appeal were upheld, or if Council should remand the project back to the Board with direction for additional review, additional reports would be required . If the .' appeal is denied, no further staff work will be required as a result of the action unless an appeal to the State Land Use Board of Appeals was made by the opposition. The applicant could make a similar appeal if the appeal were ` upheld . New Findings would be prepared as necessary. „ • • Prepared by: r Robert Galante Development Review Planner , " 3P/RG/ • 3 mas >° �. j . L1 ,� a " 'I BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO - An Appeal of the Approval of a 116, 535 Square Foot )) � Shopping Center Located at Boones Ferry Road and DR 1-83 (Mark Development, Inc . ) Monroe Parkway ~ Nature of Appeal ) FINDINGS, COZJ ,USIONS AND ORDER , _ This appeal is brought by Marjorie K. Meyer, Meyer ,' Y •lean R. h, Mr . and Mrs . Joseph Lien, Mr . and Mrs . Knolton, M . r. and Mrs . C. E. Ward, Ken and Kim Weber , Dave and Helen Miller and the Forest Highlands; Neighborhood Association of the approval bythe e '1 Development Review Board of a 116, 535 square foot sho in ._ PP g center located on property north and west of the intersection of 1110- Monroe Parkway and Boones Ferry Road . The Board ' s decision is set forth in the order of the Board dated April 5, 1983 . The notice of appeal was filed and is dated April 20, 1983 . fi .r _ Hearings The Development1:Review Board held a hearing on March 12, • : G52• The City ==� Council considered the appeal on t}e record made before the Board at the Council meeting on May 24 , 1983 , . Criteria and Standards `'A = y - by The criteria and standards applicable to the issues raised l �, _ ^� the notice of appeal are as follows : _ Statewide Planning Goals 2, 5, 6 and 8 . Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Commercial Policies LOC 48 . 300 to 48. 315 LOC 49 . 625 g EXHIBIT : . ,, : ‘ PP , - = j - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER J +�-f r v IA 1 A 4. d . LOC 49 . 640(4) Lake Oswego Development Standard 3 - Stream Corridors Lake Oswego Development Standard 9 - Landscaping Buffering The following criteria and standards may be applicable to the • issues raised in the notice of appeal . See discussion in Section • 3 of the "Findings and Reasons " portion of this order , at page 11 . Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Policies concerning air • quality, wildlife habitats , distinctive natural areas , quiet environment , ground water , wetlands , protection open space and • public open space. Lake Oswego Development Standard 4 - Wetlands. Conclusion P ` y 1 . The City Council concludes that the appellants failed to . comply with provisions of LOC 49 . 625 (4) and, therefore, disMisses the appeal . 2 . Alternatively, and only if a body reviewing this decision determines that the City Council dismissal of the appeal in paragraph 1 is in error , the City Council concludes that the • - .^evelopment Review Board did not err reaching its decision that there is evidence in the record to support the Board ' s factual findings and that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board ' s conclusions on the matters raised in the notice of appeal , Pursuant to LOC 49. 625 ( 7 ) the Council in this order is only considering matters specifically raised in the appellants ' notice of appeal . ,, 2 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER - Findin s and Reasons • 1, 1 . Procedural Issues . A. Failure to Follow Procedure : requires an appellant to follow the provisions of LOC 49. 625 in pursuing an appeal of a hearing body decision. The subsection also permits the City Council to dismiss an appeal for failure to follow the required procedures . LOC 49 . 625 (4) (B) require s that 4 the notice of appeal contain a statement explaining how the - appellants meet the requirements for standing to bringthe appeal found in LOC 49. 625(1 ) . That section requires that the appellants __ must have participated in the hearing before the hearing body and 1 .. • = that the appellant is aggrieved by the decision. The notice of appeal does not state that the named appellants participated P in 3 the heaxin� • In fact, a review of the record discloses that 16 of y the named appellants did not participate . There is no statement � of how the appellants , which the record shows did participate ,P are aggrieved by the Board ' s decision . LL The notice of appeal states it is submitted pursuant to LOC 48 .E25. That section governs appeals from rom decisions made under � . the Zoning Code, LOC Chapter 48 . The decision appealed was Made under the provisions of the. Development Code, LOC ' - Chapter 49. r'owever , in all material respects LOC 48.825 (4) (b) is identical to _.. LOC 49 , 625 (4 ) (B) , The appellants Were represented by an attorneyr ; . �� throughout the entire proceedings before the Board and City Council . • p, _ 3 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER B. Deletion of Named Appellants : The following individuals were named as appellants in the notice of appeal , but • • did not participate in the hearing before the Development Review , Board . • • : - Richard Simeon Steve Tirchhe y - Mary Zabil Consley Geroge and Sharon Pantely Eve Hushek Steve and Lorie Oroutt Cris Buler Julie Marx ' - Susam and Timothy Bickler Cindy and Randy Carrier tw , Ken and Iris Miller -- They were deleted from the list of appellants . Their • - -- representative objected to the Council 's action on the ground that ; ;: °�.. they had attended the Development: Review Board hearing but did not speak or make a written submission . The record at page 62 of the transcript contains the _ - following statement by Mr . Glaeser, the appellants ' attorney, "I represent the Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association and a group of other individuals who are variously located in 4. $ s -- Greenridge and Sundance . " ,. .s* _ There is no way from the record to determine who Mr . Glaeser represents . LOC 49 . 625 (1 ) requires that an appellant be a • a,"‘.: • -� participant in the hearing before the Board . A person _ -- "participates " if that person speaks, submits written information, • ... ` cr is represented by some person who participates and has that r�' representation declared for the record. The named individuals did A � not participate and were properly deleted from the list of 4111 appellants . Ic '• . t-), 4- P e 4 - FINDINGS , CONCLC.'SIONS ANb OPDER �• A; w, •' ' ;.R1• ',=o •..j 4+ •' aka. �� n .�.. +, - _ •, _ ,' •... ' ' e \ • • C. Challenge to Record : Mr . Glaeser requested that - the hearing be postponed because the record supplied to the City Council was not complete . He argued that transcripts of the • 4 Development Review Board ' s discussions of the Board ' s draft order on March 26 and April 4, 1983 must be supplied because "new evidence" was considered by the Board . March 26, 1g83 was a • Saturday and the Development Review Board did not hold a hearing that date . A transcript of the Board ' s discussion on April 4, 1983 is not a necessary part of the record . Mr . Glaeser never specified what "new evidence" was discussed at the April 4 ::meeting. He came before the City Council at its May 17 , 1983 meeting and initially made the request for the set over , He was N Y +{ - told to discuss the problems he had with the record with the City Attorney. The City Attorney stated he was not contacted by Mr . 2,laeser . The Council has no way of evaluating the merits of the u • allegation • In any event the Council finds after its review of the record that the evidentiary findings of the Board ' s order are +�l�•1W�Y,rid - all supported by evidence in the record or by matters of which the ,'•`, o; Board may take official notice pursuant to LOC 49• . 640( 3 ) • D. Resubmitta1 : The first allegation of error in the pp -� ..Tice of appeal is that the Board was without jurisdiction to Wr a v' - - - consider the application because it was submitted less than six m4� • months after the City Council denial of DR 25-79, e previous • application for development on the same site , or that the Board ' s A ot findings on the issue are not supported by evidence in the record . • 5 - RINDI GS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER syp v .. . . . . , . 4110 t r., ', LOC 49 . 640(4) controls the question of resubmission. That ' - section states , "If a request is denied by a hearing body or the City Manager 1 t and no appeal taken, or if upon review or appeal the denial is affirmed, no new request for the same or substantially similar proposal shall be filed within six months after the date of final denial . An application may be denied without prejudice and a waiver of the six month restriction granted . °' The hearing body, at the request of the City Manager, may - consider new evidence that conditions have changed to an extent that further consideration of an application is warranted , and waive the six month restriction . " z •t The Council determines that the application filed in this matter is not subject to the requirements of that section. For a request to be subject to the six month waiting-y period there must first be a denial by a hearing body and then an affirmation of that denial on appeal . The prior application for development on 4111 , . . . . L., 17. the site, DR 25-79, was approved by the Development Review Board . That approval was reversed on appeal by the City Council . - W ,, � 4 ,� If a body reviewing this decision determines that the • application in this matter is subject to the section, then in the alternative, the Council determines that the Board correctly applied the provision of the section and there is evidence to support the Board ' s determination that conditions had changed to the extent that further consideration of an application for • development on the site was warranted . `3 The Board reviewed Exhibit 6 which illustrated that the site ' • PIv . 24 of the project had changed, that the treatment of the wetland was ;,i.� significantly different from the prior application, that a new 5 toning Code had been adopted, that setbacks had been increased , ,' Page 6 - FINrINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER u r v . i • ✓ that the parking area had been reduced, that landscapinghad been , . - increased , that design and color changes had been made and that 1. the traffic study had been expanded. This exhibit, which for med the basis for the Board ' s finding, { was presented and reviewed as - illustrated on pp. 2-6 of the transcript of the �• hearing. The - Board also reviewed Exhibit 41 (History of the Project) . 2 . Goal 2 - In allegation 02 of the notice of appeal appellants PP-pants allege there is insufficient evidence in the record to support a f ' _: h finding that the application complies with Goal 2. It is the Board ' s _ decision, not the application, that must comply with the requirements of Goal 2. Because the City ' s Comprehensive Plan is not acknowledged, the decision must comply with applicable , ;"4f statewide planning goals . Consideration of this application is a - quasi-judicial proceeding to consider an application for a " development permit .P In that context Goal 2 requires the City to : ;l..' apply its adopted procedures, hold public hearings , coordinate with affected governmental units make a decision which is - .I _. consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and have an adequate factual basis for the decision . '.. " The record illustrates that a proper application was made ,1 Before the Development Review Board and City Council , that Proper "" -dice of hearings were � . given, that staff reports were prepared ir, " a timely manner , that hearings were conducted properly, and that r an order stating the decision was adopted by the Board ,d, as required by LOC Chapter 49 , The record also illustrates that the `s' - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER • 7 b -1 - , {. , project was reviewed for compliance with the Development Code and 1• - Standards, the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Code, LCDC Goals and • - the Departm�•,t of Environmental Quality noise and indirect emissions regulations . In addition, affected County agencies participated in access design, roadway improvement requirements , - and determination of signalization requirements . - Appellants argue that Goal 2 in addition requires the City to a ' coordinate with Clackamas and Multnomah Counties tin the uses _G allowed and allowed site size for neighborhood commercial zones , y_ consider "alternative courses of action" and evaluate the market -` need for the uses proposed in the development . On the basis of - -2 11 legal advice from the City Attorney given during the Council `t "�' hearing on this matter, the Council determines that Goal 2 does not require such analysis . ` 3. Goal 57 Plan Objectives (Wildlife Habitat, Distinctive r... Natural Areas, Ground Water , Wetlands , Protective Open Space ) n _ In allegation number 3 of the notice of appeal appellants allege there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that- Y _ the application complies with Goal 5 and that there is no substantial evidence the application complies with named f' ' Comprehensive Plan objectives . • There is evidence in the record, as listed below, to support "" the findings of the Board with respect to Goal 5 . Exhibit 7 Slope Analysis Plan �~ Exhibit 8 Aerial Photo 8 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER •.- 1. 6..• . 5 Exhibit 9 Topographic Survey - Exhibit 10 Noise, Sun, Wind Exposure 7. - Exhibit 11 Natural Features ', Exhibit 12 Existing Drainage w - Exhibit 55 Utility and Easement Survey 4. The above listed ex' •„ its inventory natural features and natural forces which affect the site . The reports listed below provide a more detailed inventory and reach conclusions about the 7. o• impact of development on the site and the wetlands and stream -- corridor. ‘, ._ Exhibit 13 Wetlands Report Exhibit 14 Noise Report 410 Exhibit 15 Soils Report • • • The Board relied upon those exhibits as well as Exhibit 16 Letter from Joe Pesek, Dept . of Fish and Wildlife ) , Exhibit 17 ,Photos of the Wetland Area ) , Exhibit 18 (Conservancy Commission X_nutes of February 16, 1983) and Exhibit 39 (Construction w y` Procedures to Protect Wetlands ) to reach their decision. The Ccnnservancy Commission had recommended that the wetland Was being • ` 's preserved to the maximum extent practical . Joe Pesek, a non-gamer 1 `' biologist with the Department of Fish and Wildlife had recommended " that the integrity of the wetland would be preserved and that the , ' i applicant ' s proposal will add to the Wildlife habitat of the area . Ken Aierly, a wetland consultant, who y° produced the Wetlands . Report , had recommended that the proposed development will enhance 25 and preserve wetland values . • Pig` 9 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER } • • Testimony that the Board relied upon regarding the review of the evidence listed in this section can be found on pages 111-116, 121-124, 131 , 132 and 138-143 of the transcript (Exhibit 4) . The Board also reviewed a letter (Exhibit 19 ) from Mike Houck of the Audubon Society which was originally submitted in opposition to the prior project on this site during the 1982 hearing . Testimony in opposition was presented on pages 70-82 of the transcript . The Board found that the concerns of the letter , which had been resubmitted by those in opposition to the project, had beeny . == positively addressed by the new application. ' • � The concerns of the letter addressed the existence of Eebb Willow (which was found not to exist as demonstrated on p. 20 of Wetlands - - s Report) , the failure of the applicant to address = wildlife habitat (which has now been adequately addressed according to the letter from the non-game biologist from the Department of Fish =and Wildlife ) , an inaccuracy in the size of the Wetland area (which the Board found unnecessary to determine as the boundary, and not the size, of the wetland was the important and necessary issue ) , and the lack of agency input from the Army Corps . of Engineers and the Ore;,on Department of Fish and Wildlife (both agencies provided input as illustrated on p. 22 of the Wetland Report and by Exhibit 16, previously noted ) . y� `3 At the City Council hearing the appellants referred to an alleged inconsistency between the Bierly Report on the prior application and the evidence in the record on this appliction . 4111 ,.. . -`'g,- 10 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER The Bierly Report referred to is not in the record of this V. . proceeding and that allegation will not be further discussed . Discussion in the Board ' s order accomplishes the analysis required by LCDC 's Goal 5 rule, OAR 660-16-000 et . seq. '; The allegation concerning Comprehensive Plan "objectives " does not raise an issue that the Council must deal, with on its merits. Comprehensive Plan "objectives " are not applicable criteria . The Plan, at page 2, explains , .i . "The adopted Plan contains OBJECTIVES, which are short • statements of the purpose of the policies, GENERAL POLICIES, • • which are major methods of achieving objectives , SPECIFIC POLICIES, which are more detailed steps to carry out general � '• -- policies, and MAPS, which show the location and type of land uses and public fecilities. " r The Council has consistently interpreted this language to mean that in determining whether a project complies with Plan provisions it is the General Policies that are the applicable criteria . The Board ' s order at pages 1 and 2 identifies the ` applicable Plan policies . Allegation #3 of the notice of appeal does not allege any error concerning those policies nor that any • applicable policy dealing with Goal 5 type issues was not • addressed . • ", Read liberally, allegation *3 could be construed to raise the issue of whether there is substantial evidence to support a conclusion concerning compliance with Plan General Policies on Wildlife Habitat (Plan, p. 25 ) , Distinctive Natural Areas (Plan , p. 26) , Ground Water (Plan, p. 36 ) , Wetlands (Plan , p. 38 ) and Protection Open Space (Plan, p. 86) . r ,cz ll - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER 4 -, - If a body reviewing this decisi,.A1 determines that the Council erred in reaching the conclusion that the allegation does not r raise Comprehensive Plan policy issues , then in the alternative .4 the Council determines that the Board ' s order adequately deals - with the alleged error . - The Protection Open Space Policy requires that wetlands and - stream corridors be designated "protection open c,pace " and that the City regulate land uses in accordance with the. policies found - in the Natural Resources Policy Element. This was done . - The Wildlife Habitat Policy requires management of public lands to protect habitats and that development be encourged to hn reserve habitats . This is not public land. The preservation an =� enhancement of the wetlands will preserve habitats . = The Distinctive Natural Area Policy, as applied to an 1. . : ' -5 individual development application, requires the use of trees in -= landscaping commercial projects and to preserve the distinctive -� areas during the development process . The Landscape Plan shows - -� the use of trees and the evidence discussed above explains how the .c , wetland is preserved . ` -„ The Ground Water Policies , as applied to this application, ` :l require that the City identify high ground eater hazard areas . -� This area is not a high ground water hazard area . ° The Wetland Policies do not require any specific action on tl , ', +• :4 this application. They require uire designation of wetland areas and lD la ;r,. `age 12 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER e t 9wyww tl t n' t'' ' fk , a. establishment of development standards . Both requirements have legislative_ been accomplished by the City through a le '• g process . The appellants, during oral argument before the Council , also • alleged that the provisions of 4. 020(2) (b) and 4. 035 (2) of the Wetlands Standard were not complied with . ,� ., Those issues were not raised in the notice of appeal i and the Council , pursuant to LOC 49 . 625 ( 7 ) will not consider them . If a body reviewing this decision determines that the Council erred in refusing to consider the Wetland Standard issues -- mentioned immediately above, then in the alternative the Coun cil -= determines that the Board ' s order at pp. 5-9 adequately addresses the alleged error . 4. Goal 6; Plan Obiectives (Air Quality, Quiet Environment ) Goal 6 requires the City to consider waste and process - -- discharges from the proposed development in the development review . ,� • ' The following exhibits submitted by the applicant were reviewed by the Board : • - ` Exhibit Exhibit 14 Noise Report 10 Noise, Sun , Wind Exposure Exhibit 21 Landlord Noise Policy ' Exhibit 22 Noise Policies 1 " Exhibit 23 DEQ Letter of Confirmation of indirect source permit Additional material was R.� presented from those in opposition as r ,� 0 Follows . . ry , 1\ 3 - FINDINGS, CONCI USIONS AN D ORDER h 1 r -f 4Y'1 v , ',, Exhibit 24 Letter from Daly Engineering Co. _ Exhibit 25 DEQ Noise Regulations-pg . 31 Exhibit 26 Letter from DEQ (May 11 , 1982) The opposition testified that there were inaccuracies and • omissions in the Noise Report as reviewed by Daly Engineering Co . • ,. j (Exhibit 24) . The applicant addressed those items on pages 125-128 of the transcript . The letter from Daly Engineering concludes that : "Most of the solutions will , if enforced, most likely prove to be acceptable" . The Noise Report concludes that : "That proposed Towne Square at Mt. Park will meet applicable DEQ . �_ noise regulations if the operational recommendations presented in this report are implemented" . . • The applicant had already submittd Noise Policies (Exhibits 21 and 22 ) to deal with enforcement questions . , • _ _ After reviewing this evidence, the Board concluded that DEQ • _ . . ; +, Regulations and Comprehensive Plan Policies would be met provided that the recommendations of the Noise Study were carried out and .... that the procedures listed in the Landlord Noise Policy were • implemented . The Board believed that a registered Acoustical • ` � Engineer charged With the responsibility of insuring compliance - .. with DEQ regulations should be required to specify and monitor the installation of noise generaO ng mechanical equipment. They established that requirement as a condition of approval believing that it was the best way to insure compliance with the recommendations of the Noise Study. 4111 ' ,.,, 14 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER • ft M1The Board also relied upon testimony as illustrated in the transcript on pages 53-55, and 149-150. The Board 's order adequately addresses the Goal 6 issues raised by appellants . J l.• Allegation 4 also alleges there is not subst7nt,ial evidence concerning compliance with Plan objectives concerning air quality and quiet environment . The discussion and analysis) in Section 3 s are not above, concerning the fact that Plan objective A�,4 applicable �`•+ " criteria is incorporated here ' by reference . `- ,..*7,, If a body reviewing this decision determines that the Council wiqtmip rt;v,:,w _ 'Y�y'c!$ l erred in reaching the conclusion that the allecationt'f" ;; does not raise Comprehensive Plan policy issues , then in the alternative ° "�, 1+ the Council determines that the Board ' s order adequately deals wth •C,, • r _ _ ��� 1' ,y e!"• he alleged error. +E k, CV t . The Quiet Environment Policyand Air �� Quality requires that n - noise control and air quality be considered in land use planning .9 =�cise control Was considered in the evaluation of thisproject .' , "' Air:- quality was considered and the ' project has received a DEO _n irect source permit . • ' +� 5 . Goal 8, Plan Ob-iective for Public Oten S e "'; Goal 8 requires planning for recreational needs of the ; ', t • citizens and visitors of the state . `� +�;, The Board found that the ::evelopne ;ii,gF`��n _� nt will not have an ad�,�er e � o'h�� . r. .- affect on recreational needs, that it will not have an adverse Ty 1. _ 74 1 u•`r,1 15 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER r ,r _. .:',. . ,.. .' p� 1_ _ affect on public access to special and unique areas, and that the development will not interfere with any existing recreational uses z of the property. The Board concluded that the existing wetland does not have priority for acquisition as Public Access Open Space, as it is not listed in the Comprehensive Plan as part of the planned open space system or shown as being within a park or t proposed open space . No ,'W _ inter-city t N y,• bike/pedestrian pathways are proposed to pass through N �• the site . This evidence was submitted to the Board on page 10 of ty Exhibit EE (Compliance with LCDC Goals ) . No conflicting evidence Ey :, . . was submitted . ; _ 6 . Comprehensive Plan Commercial Policies The Site Plan (Exhibit 27 ) illustrates that the proposed s ry n�,ti; — ',Xs:(40,\,. _ ultimate building area of 116, 535 square feet does not exceed the N ,, .f r. ,,>tr° Comprehensive Plan restriction of 163, 000 square feet for the '4 'I •:''lF •_ site . The site plan also illustrates that pedestrian access has r` '" r.t • ,: f�A ' :" seen provided in compliance with the original plats of Mountain ,r.}I •• ,,, ; , - .w _ar?; . A pathway is proposed along Monroe Parkway S:,.;'� . _ y connecting to Y+; .1a, �_- the existing Mountain Park pathway system . The applicant has 4'4 %,, ! :_ signed a .ion-remonstrance agreement to allow a pathway to be , at �a ( 4 S — Yr tilt i rW�{�A 7.. g.;.�1,), hit' - .s, constructed along Boones Ferry at some future date. The site plan V� Ewa�£ 1�'Nry \ \ � ,k � `'!��'t and grading plan (Exhibit 28) illustrate that the Boones Ferry • `vV, , =3 7ath has been provided for in the site design . j4,', wMA V .�• \I The applicants have agreed to pay for street improvements to , ' 25 Boones FerryRoad and to provide traffic signalization, which is • 'r «+ Fag.. 16 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER •.I-. 1 " N �• _ .�, , :1•. �.• 'it i'- � • required because of traffic generated from the site . A Traffic Study (Exhibit 29 ) provided evidence that signalization and roadway improvements would be necessary. A Signalization Plan (Exhibit 30) and signalization notes (Exhibi'',: 31 ) have been provided . On-site drainage detention has been i-: -,video to protect Springbrook Creek, which lies off-site to the south . The Utility Plan (Exhibit 32 ) illustrates storm water management measures . Also see page 51 of the transcript. ' : The Comprehensive Plan (paces 78, 79 ) requires that : "The • site approved developmentplan • P as part of the PUD should be revised to permit commercial uses which would be appropriate for present needs for types �� of commercial uses . The City Council in adopting the new Zoning Code (Ordinance 1851 ) revised the types of f r commercial uses specifically allowed for this site [See LOC 48. 315( 7 ) 3 . Compliance with that site-specific section of the • Code and with LOC 48 . 305 which lists the uses allowed for the • • Neighborhood Commercial Zone have been specifically determined to =:7plement the Neighborhood Commercial Policies of the Comprehensive eve Plan [See LOC 48 . 300(1 ) 3. Pages 111-112 of the j9�';r ;' -• transcript illustrate that the Board considered the applicable 4y A Code sections . Exhibit 33 (Compliance with Comprehensive Plan) 4 •' - provides additional evidence of compliance with the Comprehensive F,y Plan. s - No conflicting evidence was submitted regarding the items ` •� listed above . Those in opposition stated that there was no need 17 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER / } ' . ` . \Y { for a new shopping center and that the devel opment should not be 10 .,\:': :' located there. The need for, a commercial designation on the site V was determined during the comprehensive planning process and that decision was implemented by the adoption of the new Zoning Code .Need, in the form of a market analysis of the desirability for the timing of construction of this specific P project is not an •s - applicable criteria . _ The zoning of the site allows the proposed uses . 7 . Development Standard 3 - Stream Corridor T^ __ The Board reviewed the City Hydrology Map, the Topographic. Survey (Exhibit 9) , existing Drainage Map (Exhibit 12) , the { .. Wetlands Report (Exhibit 13 ) and relied upon testimony found in the transcript on pa e 114. 9 The Wetlands Report illustrates, on4110 : \ page 3, that the Lake Oswego Hydrology Map is no longer accurate . , 4 � It illustrates that the City of Portland constructed a piped storm -- -4 sewer system in 1979 which replaced the natural stream on the � site. While a ditch does exist to channel localized runoff on the ;3 site parallel to Boones Ferry Road , it was artificially e , .= constructed and , therefore , does not meet the definition of Stream • ! - or Stream Corridor in this Standard . r .I The opposition testimony is illustrated on pages 78-80 of the �. transcript . No conflicting evidence other than the opposing testimony was submitted . The Board determined that a Stream • • • I4 Corridor does not now exist (Transcript, p. 143 ) _ Therefore, the 23 Stream Corridor Standard is not applicable . • :5 page 18 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER k Y p fi , • • 8. Development Standard 9 - Landsca in , Screeningand Buffering N The Board reviewed the Landscape Plan (Exhibit 34 ) , Site Plan (Exhibit 27) and Irrigation Plan (Exhibit 35) . The Pl ans illustrate that 43 percent of the site will be landscaped, that an f as required Irrigation Plan was submitted • street, trees are provided, parking lot plantings allow s g urveillaneo of the lot from ( c plant m several points on the street and that materials and fencing - were provided as a separation between disimilar us es and would :2 mitigate noise and other impacts and screen to the extent _: possible . Discussion of the types of plant materials used along the property lines can be found in the transcript on pages r 120 and 148. The Board found that the prohibited plant material list, ' _ found in the Standard, described street trees and did ' - not restrict the use of the listed materials for other landscaping - purposes : The opponents testified that the poplars proposed for the site _ +'ere listed as prohibited trees (See Transcript, p. 98 ) . ' ' 9 . oninc Code - Nei hborhood Commercial District . , The Zoning Code regulates the types of uses , the height • ` _ setbacks and FAR (Floor/Area Ratio) for the Neighborhood I =< Commercial ZOne . � • In addition, a site-specific section CLOC 48. 315 ( 7) ] modifies the genera' Neighborhood requirements for � :' 9 rhood Commercial Zones , .1 The Site Plan (Exhibit 27 ) illustrates : y� = 19 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER . r 0 ,1r e a . 116, 535 sq. ft . of building proposed - 163, 000 sq. ft , allowed b. 14 percent lot coverage - 50 percent allowed •4' ' ` c. 60, 000 sq. ft . retail proposed - 60, 000 sq. ft . allowed ' i . , - d . setbacks I '.the elevations (Exhibits 36 & 37 ) and Exhibit 38 (Compliance ` with Zoning Code ) illustrate that the building $s less than 45 . , i.r, feet in height . The proposed office building has a roof structure , shielding HVAC Equipment (Heating , Ventilating and Air -- Conditioning Equipment ) from view which rises to a height of 47 . 56 4 feet . However, LOC 48 . 515 ( 2) allows an exception for roof I: structures shielding mechanical equipment . The actual roof height 13 of the building is 38. 33 feet . The evidence the Board reviewed illustrated compliance with all Code requirements without variance . No conflicting evidence . was submitted . ' a r a . It is ordered by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that : -` 1 . The decision of the Development Review Board is affirmed < "1 - subject to compliance with the seven conditions of approval found '" s in the Board ' order dated April 5, 1983 . i3 I certify that this order was presented to and approved by `Y the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego. a5 ," ...1 4SP/0/ " . C. Herald Campbell , Ma} r Pace 20 - FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER . IM 1 1.. y Council vote at May 24, 1983 meeting : AYES : Roberge, Woller, Young, Campbell ,P , Avery, Holman, Schlenker NOES : v _ ABSTAIN: V '. • ABSENT: t _ ated this 8th day of June, 1983 . 410:- ; v, r M •J . • • r, - FINDINGS# CONCLUSIONS AND ORbER • • ,� of ,.�. ` , .. � ... �. '' �i' .e.�L . �. ., «, -. .. .. _� it,✓r.� ' r! 1 Y 1 , • ��'J y' y _ • ' 4 + 1 1 `,• v • • • Y y' M1 iYr n r , • '# .. y 1. ; May 17, 1983 A regular meeting of the Lake Oswego City Council was convened at 7:30 Council Chambers . Present were Mayor Campbell, Councilors Holman, Schlenker, Woller, Avery and Young, City Manager Peter Harvey, City Attorney Jim Coleman and staff mem- bers. Councilor Roberge was excused. _:. MINUTES x EXHIBIT i -,..Y.-1,5221131 . . A. Regular Council meeting of May 3, 1983. • 1 DP. 1-4tle. Moved by Councilor Avery; seconded by Coucilor Wolfer that the minutes be approved as written. The motion passed with Holman, Schlenker, Wolfer, Mayor Campbell, Avery and Young voting "yes". • B. Joint School Board/City Council meeting of April 25, 1983. • There was a brief discussion about Mr. Gillihan's statement regarding rental fees ii for unused school rooms. Councilor Schlenker said that the figure mentioned was 8300 per room, and there was no reference to full service. She felt the record should contain this information to reflect the market at this time. There was consensus that Council acknowledge receipt of the minutes, noting that the above discussion took place. JRAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Harold Malagon, Chairman of the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association, read a let- ter addressed to Council Ly the Board of Directors of that Association. In a recent meeting, the Board reached no consensus on a proper course of action on the matter of a new city hall. Reference was made to studies that have been done over the years; the closure of schools; the construction of the new library - ii; all of which, it was alleged, caused a waste of money, hard feelings dividing the '" community, and frustration with City officials. The Board felt that hiring an architectural consulting firm for a new city hall is a waste of money when there • is local talent that could be volunteered as was done with the Comprehensive ` Plan. Finally, the Board asked if consideration has been giveone of • the closed school facilities on an interim basis for city hallnuntiltosin the School i•'i • Board makes its final decision regarding surplus school facilities, ''<. Jess Glaeser, attorney, 1200 SW Main, Portland, spoke as re group of citizens and Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association ewho tappealed •" the approval of a shopping center at Boones Ferry Road and Monroe Parkway. Mr. Glaeser wished to discuss the requested postponement of the appeal hearing as well as the costs of the transcript for the previous appeal. Mayor Campbell asked the City Attorney if this was ro er.p p bfr. Coleman said this can be done at the hearing on May 24th, Mr. Glaeser said that he has notified Mr. Crispe that he intends to make the postponement request, He also indicated to Council ' that the record on this item is not complete. Mr, Coleman explained that all necessary things have been done in preparation for the appeal hearing, and it would be better to proceed with the scheduled meeting. Also, Mr, Glaeser talked to Mr.� � Crispe rather than the attorney who •� has represented him throughout the process, Mr. Coleman told Mr. Glaeser that any problem with the record could be directed to himself or the City Manager, r Mr. Glaeser said that his reference to transcript costs refers to the earlier appeal before Council which was upheld. The individuals he represented incur $446.72 in transcript costs. He said the Code appears to have no provision fo ',. i :_ prevailing party costs and disbursements. He added that the normal practice in court proceedings is that a prevailing party is entitled to reimbursement for costs incurred as the result of an appeal or writ of review, etc. Mr. Glaeser " requested that the City reimburse the parties to the appeal the $446.72 in transcript costs. He noted that the City benefitted since, without the appeal, it wo.l d have had a development that did not comply with the Comprehensive Plan, the Development Standards and the zoning ordinance. • -- ANNUAL MEETING WITH PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION Howard Gamble, Chairman of the Commission, presented the annual report and offered to answer questions. Asked what the Commission would stress , he said every attempt is being made to utilize presently owned City property to eventually develop more athletic fields. •Councilor Schlenker referred to the fee structure for use of athletic fields by '''„ ' adults and expressed the opinion that the charges are too high. She asked if the Commission had considered tournament weekends and the surcharge per person of those coming into the City. Chairman Gamble said cities in the surrounding areas were con- tacted, and Lake Oswego's fees are comparable. However, he was uncertain whether tournaments were discussed. He pointed out that the fees for use of athletic fields are much cheaper than fees for other sports. ,' , Myron Johnson, Director of Recreation Services, explained the factor of a proposed joint use agreement which will designate all School District and City residents, as well as local businesses, as "residents". This agreement, which will come to Council for, approval, will set the following priorities : (1) top priority to � • '� leagues in which a majority of the participants are residents and which play all their games in Lake Oswego; (2) next priority to teams with a majority of players ' lake Oswego residents and which play part of their games in L.O. ; and (3) lowest rriority to teams primarily not from Lake Oswego but want to use L.O. fields on an as-available basis. The fees previously discussed will apply to these adult teams, • iscussion followed during which Councilor Schlenker asked that the Commission re- zcasider the proposed fees as they apply to tournaments. • %tved by Councilor Avery; seconded by Councilor Woller that the report be accepted as presented and the Parks & Recreation Commission commended for their work. The m lion passed with Woller, Mayor Campbell, Avery and Young voting "yes" and Holman amd Schlenker voting "no". lee Schimpf, President of the Lake Oswego Softball Association, said his group pro- z1tes men's fast pitch softball. Adult softball, however, draws mostly young adults , according to Mr. Schimpf, and that group is least able to afford the fees. He .tinted out that a team has many other costs aside from use of the fields. Although ' :.:e had no quarrel with the user fee, he stressed that the problem is with inviting Est of town teams in and then asking them to pay the surcharge, -.ZRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 11111 ..» David 0. Johnson regarding walking and jogging along Lakeview Boulevard, • egular Council Meeting • *:aye 17 , 1983 - page 2 • f r ' � 7 { � r - ' 7185 SW SANDBURG ST, 1/4 } � �� `` DEVELOPMENT PORTLAND,OREGON 97223 f LJU ®caa�aN (503)620.8087 ' •1dr' May 13 , 1983 �� His Honor the Mayor Members of the City Council Lake Oswego, Oregon • Dear Sir: Compliance �. • Mark Development Company has been attempting to develop the 13 . 3 acre Boones Ferry/Monroe Parkway site for almost two years . It has received unanimous DRB approval of the City Council facing its condappeal.twice anThes now in fronts • designed, redesigned, studied and restudied, submitted'and re- been submitted at delays costing several hundred thousand dollars . The results show that the current application clearly complies with Y your newest Zoning Ordinance passed in December 1982, complies .•' �; with every aspect of Lake Oswego' s Development Standards, complies with Lake Oswego ' s Comprehensive Plan and complies with all the goals and guidelines of LCDC. We have resolved the two major con- cerns of the Council from the previous appeal on the Wetlands and the "Neighborhood Commercial" size and use issues . everything the City Council has directed, everythingtvthatvtheone • r Staff has asked for and incorporated every reasonable suggestion from the neighbors . We have asked for no variances --- none are required . This specific prcperty has been designated for this specific use since the 1969 PUD was established . Changes Seventeen significant changes have been made to the project since the first appeal was upheld in September of 1982. Following are some of the key items. - Size of the structures has been reduced to 116 , 535 sf or 30% below the allowable 163 , 000 sf in the Ordinance. - The . 6 acre wetlands area has been preserved, enhanced and expanded to 2 , 5 acres. - On-site storm water detention has been �� expanded to provide for 6 times the cubic feet required by the City for its 50 year flood calculation, ' . • • N Page 2 - Landscape buffering and density has been increased to 43% of the site. Three times the Cityrequirement. quirement. j - Buildings have been moved away from property lines thereby substantially increasing setbacks established by the Ordinance. - Color, signage, height, parking and ingress have been • changed. Neighborhood Involvement We have openly solicited input from surrounding neighbors with mass mailings to schedule meetings, newspaper articles, ' ;./ phone calls and personal letters . We have met anytime, any- ., where with those who chose to respond. From that effort we have ' received written approval from the Mountain Park Architectural Committee, the Mountain Park Homeowners Board of Directors, the ~' Board of Directors of Kala-How-Ya Condominiums, a Director and Representative of the Greenridge Property Owners Association, numerous individuals and other unregistered neighborhood groups; , ' while the Condolea Board of Directors voted to take a neutral y' position. i Opposition p n b. The Appellants may not be intending to obstruct the development, but of the 17 household units (26 people) the appeal lists, • only eight testified or wrote objections, only five live within the 300 foot radius required forpublic notification, only three responded to our requests to sit and talk The remainder of ' ' the some 9000 residents of Mt. Park have not objected. Conclusion To our knowledge we have met and have wanted to meet every standard, every issue, every Council intent, and every reasonable wish of the neighbors . We have had the project reviewed and endorsed by your Conservancy Board, by the Oregon State Department `- '` of Fish and Wildlife, DEQ, your Police Department, Multnomah + \ County, Clackamas County, Staff and the DRB. The project is sound, well developed and adds to the economic base of the area. • We respectfully request denial of the appeal . • Sincerely ours, nV ,57. . " `herald A . Cr sp e-- P . . President . cc : Pete arvey 9 . r Lr '�.. t' ... / r. '' � ,IJ•, r J rr r J� Y .py(•1� - '•r . Y 1 EXHIBIT t t....1.1., �F 7# ` EC2. 1-0( I2+ ' A special meeting of the Lake Oswego City Council was convened at 7 :30 p.m. in the Lake Grove United Presbyterian Church. Present were Mayor Campbell, Councilors Holman, Schlenker, Waller, Avery, Young and Roberge, Assistant to the City Manager ' , ,:• Bob Kincaid, City Attorney Jim Coleman and staff members. PUBLIC HEARINGS ^". Public hearingthe on appeal of various individuals and the Forest Highlands :neighborhood Association from Development Review Board approval of DR 1-83 (proposed snapping center to be located at the northwest intersection of Boones Ferr Road applicant) . Monroe Parkway - Mark Development Company, a y . 4 Mayor Campbell noted that the appeal process is governed by City Code section 49.625 rather than section 48.825 which was referenced in the notice of appeal. He ex- •• - plained that only persons who participated in the hearing before the Development S ' Review Board are entitled to participate in this hearing. The Code also provides • :hat Council consideration of the DRB decision shall follow the procedure set forth • in LOC 49. 610 and shall be confined to the record of the DRB hearing. The Mayor r • announced that the notice of appeal contains the names of a number of individuals • h o did not participate in the DRB hearing and are therefore not entitled to appeal aJ the decision and appear before Council at this hearing. Those individuals are '., Richard Simeon, Mary Zabil Consley, Eve Hushek, Chris E. Buler, Susan and Timothy Dickler, Steve Tirche, George A. and Sharon M. Pantely, Steve and Lorie Orcutt, Julia Marx, and Ken and Iris Miller. These names will be removed from the list of " appellants in the final Order of Council. Mayor Campbell now asked if each member of Council has reviewed the record and is familiar with the data furnished to them last week. All answered affirmatively, f r,; Vie'.' The Mayor then asked if any Council member has a conflict of interest, any bias, or has had anyex parte contact. Councilor Young stated that he had some conversations prior to the application of the development under consideration. These were with :erry Crispe of Mark Development and Mary Stasack who was in some way representing . :he concerns of the neighborhood during the legislative process of the new zoning ordinance development. He said this in no way influences him in making a decision _. this hearing. . . y t • The Mayor explained the time limits which will be observed during the hearing, r I The City Attorney reminded Council that Mr. Glaeser, attorney representing the appel- lants, came before them at the last meeting and declared that there was a problem , . :n the scope of the record which was supplied, He indicated at that time that he would contact Mr. Coleman, but he did not do so, Mr. ~' • e would ask for a postponement of the hearing, � Glaeser had also indicated Mr, Coleman suggested that Council i• • ask Mr, Glaeser to comment on these issues at this time, t i1�r :ess Glaeser, attorney with offices at 1200 SW Main in Portland, and a resident of . j. • � 13020 Knaus Road, said he represents a group of g p people and also the Forest Highlands :neighborhood Association, He rioted that he appeared before Council last week with the intent to request a continuance of this hears..g because it was his opinion that the record was not complete. the Development of comp His concern was for proceedings that were held before " .' ' • • p Board subsequent to the public hearing April 4 , according to his recollection, Fir, Glaeser alleged that March 26 and some evidence was A,:onsidered by the DRB at the April 4th meeting, and the pros edings at both meet- r i, I . i " 0 , ings should.be part of the record . The March 26th deliberations by the DRB over the form of order and the meeting findings e t ahat related Co submitted by the applicant. 0 .:had been Mr. Glaeser questioned the right .� • ' g of Council to strike names from the notice of I appeal, Hehsaidathetpersons in question were present and were aggrieved, g appeal, even thou h tetjf and Mr. Coleman asked Mr. Glaeser g they cannot testify, a ser if he intended to withdraw his objection to the •n• 4 record. Mr. Glaeser said he would like City Council to consider the continuance. motion for Moved by Councilor Avery; seconded by Councilor Waller to fi4 ,,' ,' ' , this evening. , ' •. ;. g� The motion assed unat,imously proceed with the hearing P with : a11 member; voting, Bob Galante, Development Review Planner, referred to his staff ° wetter which recommended that the appeal be and report on this , that recommendation. He then answerede listed questionsfrom Counci,l the grounds for r J The public hearin was o ened. • ?ass Glaeser, attorney for the appellants • �l) Objection to the application being heard bywhen there followingd the two issues:en ' b •� „ , pliance with the 6-month waitinghad not been cam- :onservancy Commission when they had ionlyanthed �proposal) aofl othef ha development by the '',not aware of substantial concerns about the wetlands, applicant and were •a i, r Mr. Glaeser then commented on the allegations in the notice of appeal concerning .• i and 5 where it is alleged there are either no findings or insufficientc Co ''': ,;•' • support findings which were adopted. evidence to 3erald Fletcher, Chairman of the Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association, pA , • =< to Park Road, said his concern is fc, the impact of traffic that t opmen will generate. He alleged that the developer's traffic plan shows the development anphour � He noted, however, that the count was done on the shortest day tows 50 cars an hour. b a _ad weather. It was his estimate that the of the 00ar and perr ca}'+ with the majority coming from Roones Ferry andtahnausenerale Pletcher cars there is not enough evidence that the development is needed.ir, iletcher added that « yrm Arestad,12537 SW 27th Place, told Council he has talked to over Nw :lying around the proposed development. p . , '' P They are concerned that it will have dapple=egative impact on property values and neighborhood livability. :L SCn e project n• Other concernshe were p of the ro 'ect and inadequate screening and buffering, He said the resi- cents also object to the truck traffic which will encircle the entire development a d exit onto Boones Ferry rather than Monroe Parkway which they would � prefer. =:t e Mover, 12434 SW 27th Place, . The City Attorney pointed out that the Meyers /�, were represented by attorney Glaeser who was allowed sufficient time to sneak for all the appellants. He asked Council if they *dished to hear individually appellants as well, It was decided to hear those who wished to speak, from the one Mayer ° +'•• + ne , 12434 SW 27th Place, said he would like to see the entire area enclose. a security fence which could be locked, He expressed concern about the truck • afficy the truck loading adjacent to homes , height of buildings and the , t`e complex in general, He requested that more changes be made to the plans, size of . Special Council Meeting « »may 24, 1983 - page 2 ! 4 ne` C. E. Ward , 2704 Orchard Hill Lane, expressed concern about the size of the project " p j and the noise it will generate. He noted that there are strict DEQ regulations 1 '%. regarding noise for an area of this kind. Mr. Ward alleged that the noise study done for the developer is inconclusive because it does not specify the kind andor. size of equipment to be used for the buildings. The individual who prepared the report stated that the project would meet DEQ requirements if seven recommendations aru implemented. One of these indicates that the equipment on the- ut down from 1 :00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. Mr. Ward's further invectigationesatisfiede a'� ymus nim that such a shutdown is not possible. He summarized his presentation by sa in the development is just too big. Y g 'arorie Meyer, 12'=• ' 7 434 SW 27th Place, told Council that her main concern is crime, _ e said that although fencing has been mentioned, there is nothing in writing, . ,i Ene alleged that the development has been cut down 8-9% instead of the 30-50% as • ' '•, tooli.cized. Other concerns were the truck noise and the wetlands . =etty Ward , 2704 Orchard Hill Lane, said this is the wrong development in the wrong -:lace at the wrong time. She said there is no evidence of need, and there will be "� problems with noise and crime. Mrs. Ward added that she would hate to see the `, .storic poplars taken out, and no provision has been made for a fence at the north 1• oundary. .7wen Simpson, 12850 Alto Park Road, said the development �.lopment will be larger than � •' `,eighborhood Commercial should allow. Her concerns were added traffic, especially .:n Knaus; the cutting of the poplars and the preservation of the wetlands. �a��: _exry Knowlton, 2727 Orchard Hill Place, ` to the tf'�,.: _l.an which states clearly that the big developmentninlLakecOswegorshouldoberoneaniVe �M Beast-west basis and not a north-south basis. Also, he did not think there has been adequate resolution of the wetlands issue and the removal of the poplar trees. :`'!r. Knowlton asked Council to uphold the appeal and ask the d'a_veloper to plan a J _eighborhood-size project. ,.. :aye Miller, 116 Greenridge Court, told Council that the statement that the Green- _:ge property owners Association approved the development is wrong. Hk; said that telephone survey indicates that the vast majority of those owners strongly oppose :`.e development on the basis of the scope and size. " • ' `• •, rorie Briggs , 13520 Knaus Road, said there is no need in the neighborhood for a q _-;elopment of this magnitude and that it will be detrimental to the wetlands , r ` traffic and the community as a whole. en Bruckner, 74 Greenridge Court, said she supports and upholds every statement and `ncern voiced by the Orchard Hill/Sundance area. She said traffic, noise and fumes v:11 be problets, and her view will be the parkinglot. _.eral Commercial development masquerading Neighborhood eCommercial said the pclothing,roject is a `°- Coleman told Council he calculated that the opponents of the project were allowed minutes of speaking time. He said equal time should be allowed the proponents If they ask for it. �e:ald Crispe, President - P > of Mark Development Company, 7185 SW Sandburg Street , ..Hand, now addressed Council as the applicant. 5 ppcant. k • reiterated, and elaborated on, the information contained in his letter to Council dated May 13, 1983, He described • • :e:ial Council Meeting Ma 24, 1983 - page 3 • ,. , in detail the development as originally proposed and all the cl?anges which have ' wteen made in an attempt to satisfy the neighboring residents and the City staff Mr. Crispe then answered questions from Council. Art Coughlin, President of the Board of Directors of Thriftway Stores , Inc. , spoke b •,. as representative of that firm. He told Council a survey has been made that indi- cates a need for a grocery store in that area, however it cannot be made public ° at this time. It wculd draw from a 1 to 111 mile radius. He noted that the stores run by Bob Lamb have all been in the top 15% groupfor quality of store. roe Collins, 49 Tanglewood Drive, told Council he is in favor of the store and feels there is a real need for one in this location. 1` Lcb Lamb, 13890 SW Bull Mountain Road, Tigard, told Council he will be the operator _t the Thriftway store. He said there has not been a grocery store built in the :lake Oswego/Lake Grove area in the last seventeen years. He nttid the store will �.,t be large in comparison to other Thriftways. Mr, Lamb commoaded the developer _zr the large amount of landscaping planned into the project. Floyd Arms, 21 Condolea, spoke as a member of the Board of Directors of Kala-How-Ya :.:andominiums, He told Council the Board urges them to overrule the appeal and let :-e developer get on with the project. abuttal ,'ess Glaeser, attorney for the appellants, stressed that the wetlands is important e4en though it is a small one in an urban area and therefore different from the norm. ::plying the criteria in the Development Ordinance, Mr. Glaeser said he has been.=able to find out why the development is "dependent on the wetlands". He said the 0 retlands is considerably larger than indicated by the developer. In this regard, `e referred to the original Bierly report which indicates that the wetlands extends :.nsiderably further to the west than shown by the developer. The new Bierly re- -rrt, revised as of January, 1983, contains no map. Y � He added that the wetlands is , 9 acres in size rather than .6, according to Dr. Peter Jackson who testified eore the DRB. Mr. Glaeser alleged that there is a stream corridor from the north ,.,;:e through the property and into the wetlands, and this is shown on the hydrology. ; ram.. Also, he told Council Goal 2 requires consideration of the need issue. He ,j _sl:: that a secret survey indicating need is not sufficient. :ern. Crispe, the applicant , P , h said that all of the wetlands maps he has seen are the me. These have been reviewed and approved the Oregon Fish & Wildlife CommissionHeyaddedhe Cthat streamity, the ncorridorsservancy Conmtheion :te do not exist. :'-e public hearing was closed, ...:::cil now observed a 10-minute recess, cr Campbell reconvened the meeting, He referred to Mr. Glaeser s first objection :.ch claimed that ORB was not justified in considering the applicant's second pro- :sal less than six months after Councils denial of DR 25-79. He said this is.-eered on page 44 of the Development Ordinance in LOC 49.640(4) . . , a waiver of the six month restriction which reads, in part, (may be) granted, The hearing body + , • • i , .may consider new evidence , , (if) conditions have changed to an extent %' , d' 7.-_at further consideration of an application is warranted, and waive the six month ettriction," .7 '. :: ial Council Meeting L y, 1985 - page 4 ' re- to I•R ,1, t • V The City Attorney told Council that it is arguable that the section just read does • hot apply. He read the first sentence, as follows : "If a request is denied by a hearing body or the City Manager and no appeal taken, or if upon review or appeal the denial is affirmed, no new request for the same or substantially similar pro- pasa1 shall be filed within six months after the date of final denial." Mr. • 4m1 Coleman pointed out that what is needed for that section to apply is (1) a denial by the hearing body and (2) an affirmance of that denial. What was referenced the appellants was the first application on the Mark Development proposal in which the hearing body approved the application. On appeal, that approval was reversed. Thus , arguably the section does not apply. However, if it does apply, to applicable wording in LOC 49.640(4) , as read by the Mayor, allows the Board consider evidence of changed conditions to the extent that further considera- tic:: of an application is warranted. He said the record is clear that the Board was presented with evidence of changed circumstances, and that ;Ui really the issue tefrre the Council -- if they are satisfied (1) that the section applies and "4 t .oR =, that if the section does apply, there was sufficient consideration that con- ? citions had changed. The record shows that the two real issues that were relied upon by the Development Review Board were that the new zoning ordinance was adopted between the Council's action on the last application and the new appli- cation, and that the wetlands was treated significantly differently in the second application than in the previous one. Mr. Coleman pointed out that the staff report dated May 9., 1983 contains the staffs analysis of all the issues raised in the notice of appeal. If Council finds that analysis acceptable, they can adopt it in one motion after consider- ins each issue. If further amplification is needed on any of the points, they should be addressed first. If no questions are recorded in these minutes on the various issues listed in , the appeal letter, Council consensus is implied.) f Compliance with LCDC Goal 2 - Land Use Planning. ` ,, Mr, Coleman referred to points raised at this meeting that were not raised speci- fically in the notice of appeal with regard to what Goal 2 requires in this par- titular situation. It was the City Attorney's opinion that essentially Goal 2 • requires that Council apply its adopted procedures; provide the public with a fair hearing following those procedures ; have an adequate factual basis for its 'ecision, which must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and put that decision in a written format, and coordinate with affected jurisdictions. • Mt. Glaeser had also stated that the City has an obligation to essentially resolve �' the conflict which apparently exists between the Neighborhood Commercial plan designations of Clackamas County,, Multnomah County and the City of Lake Oswego. Mr. Coleman did not think Council has that obligation. His reasons were (1) the property is entirely within the City of Lake Oswego and (2) the coordination * • requirement between jurisdictions deals with areas where there are overlapping alarming area jurisdictions, fegarding the allegation that Council is required to consider alternative courses of action, Mr. Coleman said that language appears in Goal 2 where it addresses the comprehensive planning process and it specifically ' refers to land use plans, not,implementing ordinances and measures. Because of i•' ' •, J Special Council fleeting , May 24, 1983 - page 5 , , vnere the language a ears in Goal PP 2, it was Mr. Coleman's opinion that Council does riot have that obligation. He felt that the alternate course of action provisions apply when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. Glaeser said that Goal 2 requires performance of a need analysis. Mr. Coleman felt that the need analysis is a planning function, not a function which is ::complished in a quasi-judicial proceeding such as this. The City has not built ' ^ -,to its Comprehensive Plan or the zoning ordinance criteria which make need a :iteria upon which Council decides a particular application. Goal 2 does not have c::ilt into it a separate need requirement. :.cuncil now proceeded through its review of : ' Compliance with LCDC Goal 5 - Open Spaces , Scenic and Historic Areas, and .� Y ' _rural Resources or Comprehensive Plan Objectives regarding Wildlife Habitat , Dis- __,active Natural Areas, Ground Water, Wetlands and Protection of Open Space. - Compliance with LCDC Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality or Com- ...ehensive Plan Objectives for Air Quality and Quiet Environment, f ; Compliance with LCDC Goal 8 - Recreational Needs or Comprehensive Plan Objec- _ aes for Public Open Space. Coleman now commented on Nos. 3 , 4 and 5 of the appeal. He said those allega- ltms are framed in such a way that they raise state-wide planning goal issues, and -.en allege that there is no substantial evidence that the application complies 4_th "objectives" of the Comprehensive Plan. The way the Plan is structured, the t:ectives of the Plan are not the operative requirements -- the policies are. Mr, t '� 2:leman said the Code requires the notice of appeal to be fairly specific, and in regard t =-ese three allegations there was a lot of argument on Plan policies and a variety f other things. The notice of appeal, however, is aimed at 1Lan which are not requirements. Theyare instead provisions of the ° �.�sr.t s. policy or philosophical state- Compliance with Comprehensive Plan Commercial Policies, . Compliance with Development Standard 3 - Stream Corridors. ' i Compliance with Development Standard 9 - Landscaping, Screening and Buffering., Compliance with the Zoning Ordinance requirements for the Neighborhood Corn- it' nercial Zone, ::_mcilor Avery asked the City Attorney if a motion was in order. ` r. Coleman said that Council has walked through the notice of appeal, There have tean comments on Goal 2, stream corridor issue and designation of the area as tg7borhood Commercial, He assumed from Council's silence that they are satisfied wltM the points in the staff report as far as dealing with the issues that have been ra;used in the notice of appeal. If so, a motion to affirm the Board based upon the .tents of the memo of May 9th, with the modifications that have been orally dis ssed here, would be in order and would accomplish the purpose of affirming the _wrd. He added that there are some procedural things that should be resolved be- Ill . :. : -re the motion is made, however, l• Stecial Council Meeting Ma*!: lry , 1983 - page 6 ?r. Coleman explained that the Code requires that the notice of appeal meet certain standards. One is that the notice of appeal contain a statement of the standing of the appellants to bring the appeal. That entails (1) that they appeared and '2) that they were aggrieved by the decision. The notice of appeal in this in- �.:. • stance does not do either. Mr. Glaeser's opposition to the deletion of names from the appeal of those indi- widuals who did not appear at the hearing is based on the fact that they sat in toe audience, and this should count as an appearance. Mr. Coleman said that for a person to appear, there must be either a statement in the record that they are grins represented by some person, or they must orally make a statement or put a a, : .ece of paper in the record with their name on it. Since the individuals did not a llow either course, Mr. Coleman felt it was appropriate to delete their names from • .e list of appellants. Ll o, the Code requires that the standards for the notice of appeal be met. If not , ; :-.:.at could be a basis for the dismissal of the appeal. Mr. Co,1.ccpian suggested that _f Council's decision is going to be to affirm the decision of the Board, they state one motion two separate bases for that decision - (1) the notice of appeal does -c.t meet the standards in the Code and the appeal was dismissed; in the alternative, on the merits, the Board's decision is affirmed based on the contents of the ,ay 9th memo as orally modified. '::ved by Councilor Avery; seconded by Councilor Young that, on the basis of the staff report of May 9, 1983, the record, and the testimony heard by Council at this meeting, the appeal be denied and the decision of the Development Review Board upheld; ' _::ether, that the appeal be dismissed because the notice of appeal did not meet the requirements of the Code. The motion passed unanimously with all members voting. :`.;e meeting was adjourned at 10;25 p.m. pzt‘ - • • . «.w. -. • RCVED BY COUNCIL: J /44--L&________, „, •a , IP • . . , b , _:anal Council Meeting ` %a!! 24 , 1983 - page 7 A ` • I -1 0 • • • ! V • • • • vl • • !I' 1 e i • • • •• • • • • 4. • • • • • • • • 1 o •Y , • 1, �i 0 d 4 4 yy. • r S f . y 1 BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 3 Request for Final Approval -\ q to ) DR 1-83 (Mark Development, Inc. ) Allow the Construction of a ) 4 116 , 535 Sq. Ft . Shopping ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER Center After Remand from Land ) Use Board of Appeals ) f Nature of Application The applicant is requesting final approval : . q 9 to allow the v construction of a 116 , 535 square foot shopping canter located on g 13 . 3 acres at the northwest corner of Monroe Parkway and Boones =3 Ferry Road (Tax Lots 200 and 101 of Tax Map 2 lE 5AA, Clackamas :: County and Tax Lot 10 of Tax Maps 4226 and 4227 , Multnomah County) . ., ' The matter before the Board is on remand from the City Council for :3 the purpose of determination of the boundary of the essential :- wetland on the site and the application of Wetland Development - , =5 Standard §4 . 020 ( 2 ) (a) . c ' 15 Hearing s The hearing on this request was held on January 4 , 1984 . _. . : 4 __ Criteria Wetland Standard 54 . 020 ( 2 ) ( a ) . r1 ., _ EXHIBIT • == Wetland Standard §4 . 035 ( 1 ) , ( 2 ) . WIC , + - Conclusion DR...Hg1 (2.4L, =_ The Development Review Board concludes that this project =5 complies with Wetland Standard §4 . 020 ( 2 ) (a ) . :-. Findings and Reasons == . he City ' s approval of this project was appealed to the Land :f Use Board of Appeals . The decision of LUBA concluded that the I :age 1 FINDINGS , CONCLUSION AND ORDER •. • ;y ' . • n , ' rrGti 4i 1 .��! ark y i N' , • `1 1 decision complied with the law in alp. res • pects except that the City 2 incorrectly applied Wetland Standard 54 . 020 (2 ) ( a ) . The reason was 3 that this Board in its previous decision failed to identify the 4 distinction between wetlandet, and essential wetlands on the 5 applicant' s site . Confusion was created over whether there was in • 6 fact development in the essential wetland. The Council remanded the , 7 application to this Board to identify the boundary of the essential 8 wetland and then to apply Wetland Standard 54 . 020 2 ( ) ( a) if it was {, 9 determined there was any development in the essential wetland. " w 10 Development Standard 4 refers to the City of Lake Oswego R 11 Hydrology Map n defining the term , ;i "essential wetlands" , The L 12 hydrology map shows the approximate location of essential we tlands ik 13 Wetland Standard 54 . 01:: (2 ) , The development of the hydrology mall, 'w ,'( _ 5 14 as it relates to this site, did not include an analysis of the 15 elements contained in Wetland Standard 54 . 035 . Essential wetland 16 boundaries must be specifically determined after site analysis n _ - - 17 applic io and at ion of the criteria set forth in 54 . 035 ( 1 ) . The staff 18 report , dated December 21 , 1983, provides a site analysis based on _ 19 evidence in the record and applies the criteria . This analysis took 75 20 place at the pre-application conference for this request , but was • 21 not adequately documented in the record be1uie this Board during r 1'2 1 previous hearings . No conflicting evidence concerning the technical 23 analysis was presented in this hearing and the essential wetland 24 boundary and analysis found in the staff report is adopted , 25 Mr . Glaeser , representing opponents to the �6 the City ' sproject , argued t ' • y, hydrology map alone provides the boundary location , TM' •` page 2 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER i Board rejects that interpretation of the Wetland Standard . The City' s hydrology map does not provide sufficient specificity to show i • ./T :i ,. 3 the boundaries of the essential wetlands on the site. Further , 4 Wetland Standard 94 . 015 ( 2 ) specifically states that the location ,, shown on that map is only an approximation . That map was drawn by M - citizen volunteers who spent a great deal of time and effort locating marshes and wetlands in the City . The only criteria which 4' � the record discloses led to designation of this wetland as essential , as distinguished from mere wetland , was the degree to I:: :D which the citizen volunteers thought the area was special due to �` visibility from Boones Ferry Road and Monroe Parkway and that they .. 1- believed this portion of the site should be preserved . TheII t .: ,3 classification and map boundaries were not the result of application? _ _ of the criteria listed in Wetland Standard §4 . 035 as is the boundary ('; 5 If :5 described in the December 21 , 1983 staff report . The applicant ' s earliest map of the wetlands, contained in the _ - April , 1982 study by 13ierly and Associates, Inc . and submitted with +� opponent ' s materials ( Exhibit BB ) , shows the boundaries of wetlands on the subject parcel . The body of the report was not submitted , _{ only the table of contents, summary, introduction and a map. The -• table of contents refers to wetland analysis according to criteria - in Standard §4 . 035 , but the body of the report was not submitted and • Lc „ �' _ is not in the record . It is unclear whether the wetland boundaries 1; contained on that early map were established by application of •c Development Standard 4 . The report as submitted does not • distinguish wetlands from essential wetlands and, therefore, 1.s of ,,` • Page 3 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER . { i '.; , . :. 1,, , . ..,. . . , ,, .1 .. 4110 -.:.:.. .,,,,,..,.. : \,:..., , ..• ., ... °• 1 no help to the Board in making its determination of the boundary of ; = the essential wetland . .3 Other evidence presented b y the opponents , Exhibit CC, that is 4 highly critical of the 1982 Bierly report would seem to explain in ti 5 part why the project as submitted in 1982 was disapproved, t but that is not the issue now before the Board. Furthermore , the testimony ; u of Peter Jackson and letters of opposition from Houck ( Exhibit H ) •, . f' and Rogers ( Exhibit I ) , concerning the wetlands, which were u presented during the 1982 application and again referred to in A :D Glaeser ' s letter are not relevant to this 1983 application. Those letters address the 1982 Bierly report , previously discussed , and do =y not deal with the issue before the Board in this matter which is . •,';, n ' r� tl , ` 13 identification of the boundary of the essential wetland . The - development application which Was resubmitted in 1983 and approved » y5 by the Board offered a substantially different treatment of the LL , • • „' -17 essential wetlands than did the prior application for which the 1982 Bierly report was prepared. 4 .` .- ` : :1 Another map submitted by Mr . Glaeser with his letter of January ' . 4 , 1984 , entitled "Outline of Essential Wetland from Hydrology Map" (Exhibit Z ) was drawn by attorney Glaeser . He did not represent - ` -� himself as possessing the dUalificaticns of a soils scientist , did \ `/, -- not base the drawing on analysis of the Wetland Standard criteria r. 1,3 and apparently drew the sketch by reference only to the hydrology map. The hand drawn map is of no value to the Board in determining 2= the boundary of the essential wetland because it is not based on t -d relevant criteria, :4.`' • ??.ge 4 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER ,' , , , Y1 7 v 1 Mr . Glaeser stated that the Soils Report (Exhibit F) indicates `1 2 that saturated soils exist in the northerly portion of the site 3 because water was discovered seeping into holes at 4 as 1/2 foot . He argued that this characteristic, depths as little �c, saturated soils, •y 5 coupled with the hydrology map reference to this wetla u { :-..:.'''' ..' nd as a''6 "essential " meant the entire area (about 1/3 of the 13 acre sites must be within the boundary of essential wetland; . In fact, the , 8 soils report does not identifysaturated soils . Furthermore , hir .. 9 Glaeser did not establish the existence of vegetation or aquatic 10 life which requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil 11 conditions . The evidence presented does not establish17 the area 12 identified in his map even as a wetland as defined by Standard §4 . 015 (l ) . Mr. Glaeser did discuss or a Wetland ''• , 13 not discu "R*, apply the4111 . . 14 criteria of Wetland Standard §4 . 035 ( 1 ) to the area which he proposed . 15 to be i..ncluded within the boundaries of the essential z '' - 15 Glaeser considered wetland. Mr . such analysis irrelevant . The staff reported and 17 the Board finds there was insufficient evidence - - presented by Mr . :s _ Glaeser to Classify that area shown on his map as beingwithin the 10 boundary of an essential wetland . 47 is Mr , Glaeser sub mitted a copy of a letter from the developer to ,: :1 John Godsey, the Public Works Director , dated dune 22, ' ^ marked 1982 and Exhibit AA. drainage work The letter to di e ., refers performed on ', � , „ :3 the northerly portion of the site . This area did not support 7 :4 aquatic life or a prevalence of vegetation which requires saturated r ..\ •. °, , or seasonally saturated soil Conditions . A complete reading g of the letter shows the developer stayed well outside the area a where the Wage 5 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER U. Y • « y w . • r ,1y e c r r` 41 , rr 1 boundary of the wetland �;as thought to be . The additional area Glaeser mapped was not essential wetland or even wetland according 3 Lo the definitions and analysis of the Wetland Standard . The 4 boundaries of the essential wetland proposed by Mr . Glaeser have no 5 basis in fact when the wetland criteria are applied to the facts tJ 1 a existing . The "natural features " map, submitted with the application, 8 Exhibit EE ( referred to as Exhibit NN in attorney Glaeser ' s letter • g of January 4 , 1984 ) shows an area identified as "Wetland area" . The ,' 10 applicant states the map was drawn by an architect and without 1 M " ` 11 application of the analysis contained in Standard 4 . The identified 12 area shows boundaries larger than the boundaries of the Essential 4111 .,„ -1,-.1. 13 Wetland Map, Exhibit K, submitted by staff . 14 The "Essential Wetland Map" marked Exhibit K and prepared by ` 13 staff is accepted as the accurate representation of the boundaries = T <d of the essential wetland on the site because it is based upon the c: -• • = ; y analysis required by Standard 4 and discussed in the December 21 , ;j 1983 staff report .a The Landscape/Site Plan with Essential Wetland Boundary, , l3 Exhibit L, and the Irrigation Plan with Essential Wetland Boundary , r = ; _1 Exhibit M, show two sections of irrigation line running throug h „ portions of the identified essential wetlands and a landscape buffer _ 13 and detention facilities running along the edges of the essential I4 wetland . „ 25 The Board must find that this development complies with Wet' .. _o Standard 54 . 020 ( 2 ) (a ) in order to approve the project : LUBA has agt, 6 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER 4 +t7 s\" i9,..,�`\ t�A 41•1'I I s r�+ t •a 4 r , r 'si 1. . 1 b T \ 1 •\r,. 'a ';y 1 .. Y z n .. . Yn • ' i construed that subsection to mean that to allow ' non-wetland 2 dependent intrusions into an essential wetland 3 associated with a wetland dependent the intrusion must be t . P ndent use . The � I •A Board concludes that ,'. 4 the irrigation lines are dependent upon being I '` v 5 Proximity to the essential wetlands. in and in close The purpose of those lines is :', 6 to aid in the preservation of emergent vegetation within the ; Y t# e\ 7 essential wetland and help establish and maintain n the landscape g buffer and other vegetation outside the essential wetland . These m'_ g lines are therefore associated with a wetland dependent use ( the :0 wetland vegetation and landscape buffer) . The ;1 dictated byTheir location is . the need to serve that function . 12 The detention facilities are located in the southeast corner of ', ' ,• L 13 the site and in close proximity to the essential ' d o wetlands because 4= that portion of the site is the lowest elevation { • on the site is and 15 °here water will collect _ _ after the facilities _ are improved. It ,5 serves as a buffer to the essential wetland and provides additional vet area • The detention facilities also offer R- diversity, which is additional habitat ``` an important characteristic of essential�1Y -:.: 2 ;g wetlands . I'urthe _ r, the facilities will inhibit the flow of dirty _? water_ to the wetland, set the essential wetland a - .I remainderapart from the Y ' of the project and provide a visually pleasing transition - -: from the wetlands to the shopping center Y F3 streets, neither development and City her of which :lie in close proximity to the essential. �'� •° 1; r�pPlyi wetland for the purpose of 1�,• :.f facilities a ng §4 . 020 ( 2 ) (a ) . The detention re therefore associated with wetland dependentuses ,0 - ,page , FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORb811 x r o: f a r is 1 Other uses in close proximity to the essential wetland are the 2 landscaping and buffering. They are associated with ith the essential 3 wetland because they help maintain the flow of clean an water to the r 4 essential wetland, set the essential wetland a ~ part from the 5 remainder of the project and provide a visually leas ' • 114 6 from the essential wetlands to the shopping cep pleasing transition center development and 7 City streets . 8 IT IS ORDERED by the Development Review Board that approval be • g granted for DR 1-83 . r.' 10 Dated this /7 day of January, 1984 11 "" . r- yF�, a E 12 -� C;�a►;man, D lopmen Revi and 13 ATTEST: -26§E—rd Secretary, Development Review Board 15 AYES: - 15 NOES : I 27 ABSTAIN: ' ` 28 ABSENT; i lg Doc. No . 402C • t ' 's _ - f77. ICJ y1�4 .' = I1 = . Q\ _ ..•., :;.---, . . .:,-: . . E :3 14 26 8 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER rag0ti' 'f. • • y. • 1 1' . ,i . 8FPRIMED a CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES a J`.MUARl' 4, 1984 The Development Review Board meeting of January 4, 1984 was called to p f ' Chairman Clarke, Richard Hutchins, Katherine Ericsson, and Shirley Petrie. Richard Eslick and Lynn Takeuchi were excused, and Anthony Wright was absent. Staff present were Planning Director Sandra Young, City Planners ' order by Chairman Frank Clarke at 7:35 p.m. Board members present were J Kristi Hitchcock,Bob Galante and Gary Miniszewski, City Attorney Jim Coleman, Deputy City Attorney Mark Pilliod, and Secretary p ,a APPROVAL. OF MINUTES • �. An,:royal of minutes was delayed until later in the m'•�.' i;,t'.. PETITIU\S AND COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Galante said he had a letter received from Robert and Janice Bruckner which would be presented during the public hearing for DP_ 1-83, Mark Development. • s; PUBLIC HEARINGS DR 20-83 - A request by Trendsetter Properties, Inc. to change the name of a private street in the newly approved Taylor's Crest Planned Development. The street is presently identified as Shepard Purse Court, and the proposed name is Taylor's Crest Lane. No one spoke for nor against the application, and Chairman Clarke closed the public hearing. The Board had reviewed the Staff Report and felt no need for further clarification. Ms. Petrie moved for approval of DR 20-83. Ms. Ericsson seconded the motion, and it was approved unanimously. Ra`, barber, O lil un ;_!,., .,:il. ..AR 12-83 - A request by k c : Development for�a n, a 2400 square foot Plaid Pantry St:ore a'r,; :, ..'ould reruire a varian.,,,e to allow parking within the required 10' yard, a variance to allow the •tr'irture to exist within they required 25' yard, a 15' variance ''' to hei..'ar restriction for commercial structures closer ti,an 60' to a residential zone, and a variance to the required amount of parking space. The sate is located at 1115 McVey Avenue. Mr, Galante reported the applicants were requesting this hearing be tabled to the January 16, 1984 Board meeting, Mr, Hutchins moved to table DR 15-83 :: , ': and VAR 12-83 to the January 16, 1984 meeting, The motion was seconded by Ms, Petrie and passed unanimously, DR 16-83 - A request by HDVTN Architects,, acting ,as agents for Far West Federal Bank, for approval of signage for a bank which will be developed from an existing real estate office. Approval for the remodel was granted .4 by the Board on December 5, 1983, The structure iq located at 111 State n Street. wrars,rm P EXHIBIT L49) . , { City of Lake 0sw, „o Development Review Board January 4, 1984 Page Bob Galante gave the staff report. He said that the applicant had now • reduced the height of the ground sign so that it was not higher than the highest point of the roof of the building (about 14 feet) , Although the proposed sign code would allow a ground sign no higher than 12 feet, staff finds this height to be acceptable under current code and stated that it conforms with the existing building design standard. The applicant is r aware that the sign may have to conform to the new sign code if adopted and conformance is required. The applicants are also requesting two wall :: :: :::'' signs, one to be visible from Leonard Street, and one visible from the parking lot. Staff recommended it is not necessary to have the sign visible from the parking lot. The Board has the aut;'. - :ty to allow a wall `' sign that exceeds the two foot vertical dimension provided they do not ' { exceed the maximum area. t..'c Russ Hanson, 1-W TN Architects, representing Far west Federal Bank, spoke ''',. in behalf of the application. He said the signage will ,come from two ' branch locations which have been closed down in other parts of the state. They would like to reuse the signs because of their coat. They are on a 1 timer, and will turn off around 9-10 p.m. Mr. Hanson said that the enr.-,:ance j of the building was not suitable for a wall sign, and that the sign on the parking lot side of the building will be useful in the future when that side develops. He said the "money hut" across the street would be closed down. No one spoke in opposition, and Chairman Clarke closed the public portion of the hearing for Board deliberation, Board discussion centered on allowing the second wall sign facing the parking lot. Frllowing consensus, q Mr. Hutchins moved for approval of DR 16-83 based on the recently submitted drawings (Exhibit I) which show the signage not exceeding the highest point of the building, and using the existing signs as dimensioned in the drawings. Ms. Ericsson seconded the motion, and it was approved unanimously. Ms. Petrie asked that the findings reflect the possibility that should the proposed sign code be passed, the signs could have to conform to the new code probably within five years) . :::'R 18-83 - A r.ilquest by Keith D. Pierce acting as agent for Malakeh S .H. , : 7 Talaghani to aprrove a 3,875 square foot two story office building with a narking lot for eleven cars in the East End General Commercial zone, 1'hv site is at 406 "A" Avenue at the SW Corner of 4th treet ant4 "A" Avenue, .w , Gary Miniszewsri presented the staff report. Some of the main concerns in the staff report were security problems caused by the building design, -; " parking lot design, and the reconstruction of Fourth Street, Also, Mr, Miniszewski indicated that the staff report be amended to indicate that � '. a 10-foot wide sidewalk be required along "A" Avenue. That amendment recommendation affected the last paragraph of page 4 and condition 13 on page 6. Staff recommended approval of the proposal with 10 conditions, mainly addressing the above concerns, Kei '1 Pierce, 7.68 SW Fir Loop, Tigard, spoke in behalf of the application, He submitted a color board of proposed matzrials and colors of roofinf: and City of Lake Osw +'r Development Review Board January 4, 1984 Page 3 siding to be used on the building He said that construction of the project was)planned and a l for plan (Exhibit I) 4 days after issuance of the buildingfor coog mpletion 120 Permit. Francis Nelson, 348 Fourth Street, spoke She raised concerns k, in o l Pposition to the a k ,' ith the cost of construction of the sidewalkalongon. / ,� Fourth Street. Staff said that half-street improvements would only be made along Fourth along the frontage of the subject was concerned that additional street lights would shinepinther windows. She said there was already a street light ,r twat of the applicant, and also one at F between her property and that ftheoverflow plic ;_ Fourth and "A" Avenue. She asked if .tang the street would be a possibilite, p said that the number of Cr. Hutchins ''- required. r parking spaces allowed by the .rule would be t.r q t ..:as also noted that o�;er_lot, parking could not be kept off public streets. No one else spoke, and Chairman Clarke closed the public portion hearing for Board del iberation. Mr. Pilliod asked if sigrtage had obeen f te discussed. Mr. Piercy showed Board members the location of two signs, one on the rear entrance and another at the "A" small Both signs are to be 24" .� 28". Following further disco`,+rilon,eMr. Hutchins, 1: moved for approval of DR 18-83 with the following conditions: { 1. That the north facing windows be designed to discourager' 4, entry and vandalism, g forced r 2. That photo-cell controlled lighting of 1-1/2 ` ' illumination be provided at the rear and front entryways. minimum s. 3. That the tree planted in the planting bed east of `*t the rear entry be of a variety that will provide a minimum 6' high trunk to allow surveillance of the entry, Thatniwtis be provided in both building !..all!, /•;;tendin t!,-,, .. :inz area to enhance security, g into • parking area be redesigned to provide five::•r -tills, five compact and one standard ,,nui c! eta handl� p"+�_t9 all. Tt a 11 shall he signed and tr x. cnt be located ,trllaront to thrJ tt. That adequate backout (turn-around) area be provided for the tw most westerly ;`ri parking spaces, o r a.. That r.tlunnar, flowering trees, compatible with the existing cherry: trees, be provided along "A" Avenue venue and Fourth Street, S. That a yes^istered engineer certify 0 ..0 ,' provide sufficient sot the design of dry wells and p elevations in grading 40 plans n to _ - drainage between the building and the sidewalkatth illustratef ("A tk" Avenue side of the building, . ' 9. That a sails test be done by a registered professional soils r .'� enaine+rr r , an engineering geologist prior to application for ;►abra '+' % t f - ,1 m df ' t Sr rt , li `yl j� 4 r ?+}"' '.. ,rir ., i. ',/. . City of Lake 0swe ., Development Review Doard January 4, 1984 Page 4 building permits to insure that buildings foundations will be adequate. 10. That Fourth Street be reconstructed along the subject property to ' ,..� provide curb, •; gutter, a sidewalk to be 10' from "A" Avenue to the driveway of the parking lot and then tapered to 5' wide with a 5' planting strip to the residential property line, and a 20' paved roadway at the west side of the right-of-way centerline. Street lights shall also be provided along Fourth Street where the . improvements occur. N 11. That a ten foot sidewalk be provided along "A" Avenue, from the sidewalk to the projected basement grad(' either Tbe ]elshe e than 2:1 or a retaining wall or other method apInoved by the Building Department be provided to stabilize a niope greater by 2:1. A handrail shall be constructed for pedestrian safety along the sidewalk if the slope is greater than 2:1, ` " 12. That a specific exterior lighting plan designed to meet the standards be provided subject to approval of the City Engineer. 13. That a building schedule be submitted of completion six months from approval of the findings of this hearing. a. The motion was seconded by Ms. Ericsson, and passed unanimously, Chairman Clarke declared a 10 minute recess. The meeting resumed at 9:00 p.m. • DR 1-83 The City Council has remanded the application to the Board for h , the purpose of taking evidence on the question of the boundary of the essential wetland and reconsideration of the project's compliance with 44, 4.020(2) (a) of the Wetland Standard. Approval cf the shopping center, Towne Square at Mt . Park, had been appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals `" .` where the approval was upheld, except for compliance with 4.020(2) (a) of the Wetland Standard. The shopping center site is located at the NW x +K intersection of Monroe Parkway and Booties Ferry Road. ;lr, Galante , .1;,A+, , , gave the staff report, first reading the letter from Robert and Janice Bruckner (Exhibit HH) asking that the City apply strictest ►`; interpretation of its guidelines related to the wetlands on the site and �1 y ., enclosing an article from The Oregonian entitled, "Who Will Weep for Our Wetlands". Mr. and Mrs. Bruckner were not able to attend the hearing, 4( ! Mr. Galante also presented copies of the opposition's exhibits to • the Board. These exhibits were labeled by staff as follows: rr N R Letter from Jess Glaeser, Jan. 4, 1984, 8 pp. w,fi!;� � �,, S LO?RI Introduction, 17 pp. t. T Letter from Kathryn Gray, Jan, 9, 1984, 2 pp. t' Supporting Documents and ;!Saps (LOPRI) , 12 pp, ,•i V Stream Corridors and Wetland Map, 2 pp. .: W Hydrology Map, 2 pp. X Water Resources (LOPRI) , 2 1 '' Y Distinctive Areas (LOPRI) , 12 pp. • . • 2 Outline of Essential Wetland from Hydrology Map City of Lake OE ,o Development Review Board January 4, 1984 Page AA wetter from Developer to Public Works Director, 2 pp, BB Portion of April, 1982 Wetland Report, 6 pp. CC Portion of Transcript, June 7, 1982, 3 pp. DD Bierly Map of Wetlands " EE Natural Features Map ► ,, `e FF Overlay, Tracing from Exhibit L G6 Motion for Reconsideration before LUBA, 4 pp. }) ,` HH Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Bruckner, with attachment 2 ; pp. . .c The Board also reviewed Enhibit II, a memorandum from J.tm Coleman, the City Attorney, regarding the reason for the remand from LL'BA Mr. Galante said the major , point addressee in the staff report is the . difference between "wetland" and "essential wetland", make a .:::_t .. ' �� The City Standards . , incti�n between the two, and that difference was not made clear h,.. in the original hearing, which is why this portion is being reheard. Staff recommended to the Board that there are five functions (LOC 4.03 ''' 5 of , .. •�• the procedure section) which gives a basis for analyzing what is an essential wetland and what is simply a wetland. Those five things include: Natural groundwater recharge, storage, turbidity reduction, filtration of nutrients, and natural biological functions. Mr. Galante said the . report addresses these five functions, and defines the essential wetland boundary from that larger area of wetland, storm water line, and portion of the detentione p ore is an irrigation line, nd which wetlands. Staff contends these are "wetland deendent" a intrude into the e „ project complies with 4.020(2) (a) of the Wetland Standard. that the •, Jim Coleman, City Attorney stressed to the Board, and anyone testifying at the hearing, that the only evidence relevant on the issue nce which relates to the boundary of the essential wetland. The projectehas , . been approved, and approved by LUBA on every issue except the wetland issue, Mr, t;alar,=a told the Board to strike Exhibit P from' " • exhibit no longer in the file, the record as that 0,,, ?rononen-s teyen JLInik. Attorney reoresentin�; 'lark Develo r Street, r. =;.d, ment om .any 101 SW Main ' stoke, He said the purpose this evening was not to review the entire project, but only the wetland issue,done in an essential wetland, it must be wetland dependent.If anything is the Mr. � that at previous hearing staff had been anked if the boundary Jofitheaid wetland was defined by the applicant, Staff said that the boundary of the essential wetland had been determined at the pre -application conference with the applicant, Mr. Janik drew a rough outline of the wetland boundary � ; and the essential wetland boundary on the chalkboard for illustrative purposes. He said that the defined essential wetland did not contain any of the parkin; lot area. Staff has concluded that none of the parking area `��{> 'a, . or accesstaay intrudes into the essential wetland, • , .. .t. , . , , : „,..,. . ,4 w . „ , 1,, City of Lake Osweg, Development Review Board January 4, 1984 Page 6 �;' Mr. Janik continued his testimony. He said there is an irrigation sprinkler installed to water the essential wetland area during dry periods. He said that since the sprinkler was to serve the wetland, the wetland is dependent upon them, and therfore wetland dependent. endent. Mr, Janik with respect to wetlands, that the project would inot d hadverlvat LUBA agreed affect the wetland. He said that the staff report is thorough and accurate, :.'; and the they agree with it. He urged that the Board not allow the opponents to reconsider the history of this project, and requested that the staff recommendation be adopted, He stated that LUBA had agreed that the project improves the wetland area. Mr. Janik objected to the laio submission of evidence by the opposition. He offered tc answer any questions, and stated that other representatives of Mark Development were present to answer questions. , Opposition Jess Glaeser, Attorney representing the Forest Highlands Neighborhood 4'..� Association and several other residents, 1200 Sw�� y ` Main, Portland, spoke 4,A4., in opposition. He agreed that the submission of evidence was late, but , , that except for his letter and that of Kathryn Gray (not a client of his) , r",F}`�+n .*. everything else has been part of the record since the 1982 or 1983 . , :' y.. ,}, application. There is nothing new in it. �':. Glaeser said that the Development Standards do contain criteria (4,035) which aid and assist in defining an essential wetland, but that the standards also define another ` method of defining an essential wetlands (4.015(2) , He stated that those •'� wetlands which appear on the City of Lake Oswego hydrology map and identified as essential on that map are essential as mapped, and the functional definition of essential wetland need not be applied. Mr, Glaeser went through almost all of his exhibits one by one, He said the essential wetlands identified on the hydrology map drawn in 1976, noted in the letter ,'' from Ms. Gray, who was chairperson of the LOPRI task force, was an attempt to identify and verify the natural resources of Lake Oswego, Mr. Glaeser , said the soils reports submitted by the applicant show saturated soils°;' which identify wetlands. It is his position that the hydrology map identifies the essential wetlands, that wetland comprises 1/3 of the .+a a Plicar,t 's pr;,ert ', and that development is occurringin the wetlands. L' :he Je�vel.c,•'r�er.t is in, and in close proximity' to, they essential wetlands as defined by the hydrology map. He stated that the storm drain or irrigation pipe are not wetland dependent. • Rebuttal Mr. Janik said there is nothing in the record or evidence to prove the accuracy of Mr. Glaeser's sketches of the boundaries of the wetlands. He stated that Mr. Glaeser's assertions regarding the boundary of the '... ..4..., ' essential wetland could not be correct; otherwise, the procedures required to determine the boundary of the essential wetland would be „' meaningless, He stated that LHBA did not question the procedure of determining the boundary, Mr. Janik reiterated his earlier statements regarding the dependency of the storm drain and irrigation lines on the wetlands, and their interdependent with the wetlands, ' r'• City of take Osw Development Review Board ' January -., 1984 • '; y M Page Chairman Clarke closed the public portion of the hearing. Ms. Petrie asked for the size of the detention pond. Mr. Galante said he did not know the exact size, but that it was the boundary that was important. The size could be determined after the boundary was established. In response : . to Mr. Hutchins, Mr. Galante said the open sapce area was in excess of two acres and includes the storm water detention pond, the wetland area ' 0. and landscaping. He explained the storm water detention system and the irrigation pipe in the wetlands functions fro Ms. Petrie. The storm water drain is dependent upon being in that location and the irrigation line provides additional water to maintain the appearance of the wetlands for longer periods of time than naturally occur. • Ms. Petrie noted that one of the Development Standards specifically c�ifically said that ess tial wetlands boundaries shall be determined at t-he time of the pre-application conference, and asked if those boundaries had been determined at the pre-application conference. Mr. Galante answered affirmatively. He said that in the last DRB hearing evidc'n,'e had not been adequately provided to differentiate wetlands and essential wetlands, and that was why LUBA had remanded the application of 4.020(2) (a) to the s k City for, determination of the wetlands issue. Ms. Petrie then asked if the Lake Oswego hydrology maps were marked "E" for essential, should the code be followed to determine the boundaries as a procedure, Mr. Galante read the definition of "essential wetlands" 4.015(2) after the phrase "shown on the hydrology map. . .". . ."The hydrology map shows the approximate location and approximate extent of all known wetlands within the City." Mr. Hutchins commented that the Standard specifically defines wetlands and essential wetlands. It refers to the site analysis, application criteria, and the functions necessary to determine if an essential wetland exists, He pointed out that at the last DRB hearing, the applicants had a plan by which the wetland would be enhanced, protected, and buffered, and that the Conservanry .Commission in February, 1983 said that the "wetland would be protected t. the maximum extent practical", .p. •"on re..ue== ' the Board Mr. Galante resrended to testimony ,end evidence ^r,..se;tom •• opponents. These Anclu°.ed Ms. Gray's letter r.egardin4 the ICFR: r, cs.? and Mr. Glaeser's remarks regarding the soils report ;rh;,-„ so, •• =ltnrated soil or water at i '2 foot below ground level, ,Mairmar Jar-. asked Mr. Galante if any new evidence had been submitted ti. ;phi h ;.c_l.. :7:e his opinion on the boundary of the essential wetland, Mr. Galante said no. �1y ' Chairman Clarke declared a five minute recess. The meeting resumed at. r ' ; 10;24 p.m. Mr. Coleman said that the record of the prior hearing should be incorporated in this hearing record) and the Board agreed. A copy of that record was presented to Mr, Hutchins, :-. : Mr. Galante addressed the letter (Exhibit AA) regarding a drainage ditch placed to drain a marshy area, The area in which the ditch was located is a substantial distance away from the wetland and of higher elevation, Mr, Galante ,uoted a portion from the letter which said they were well outside ay. oundary that could be drawn as the boundary of the wetlands. Y 1. • • City of Lake O . :go , Development Review Board January 4, 1984 • , ,a,• Page 8 Mr. Galante read the lead-in sentence from 4.020(2) , "Any development is I.' allowed in essential wetlands only after the permit granting authority . . �` concludes the following criteria are met; . . ." He noted that the wording S does not say in proximity to, but that development is allowed in. "'' hd . Chairman Clarke stated he had heard nothing which proved the application rt.'{ did not comply with the essential wetland boundary. Mr. Hutchins said that 4.020(2) (a) , taken in context with the rest of that section and t• 4.035, etc. has been shown to support the boundary of the essential wetland, as illustrated: He also felt the essential wetland has been protected and that the only portions of the development which touch it are there to protect the wetland. Mr. Pilliod asked if he wean satisfied then, that the Staff Report, including the exhibit containing the sketch (Exhibits K-1 and K-2) defines the wetlands satisfactorl1+.r in terms of it; +`. boundaries. Mr. Pilliod also asked if the Board had determined if there was any portion of the development that is inside the c�ur�ential wetland; and � ' if there is, is it dependent upon being at this location , Mr. Hutchins said that he agreed with the staff report, and accepted its recommendation. Mr. Hutchins moved that the Board find on DR 1-83, the wetland issue, that the essential wetland has been determined as shown in the Staff Report, specifically shown on Exhibit K, and that the intrustion into that essential wetland (drainage line and sprinkler) are dependent upon that location. Ms. Petrie said that "in compliance with the Lake Oswego r iI Wetland Standard" should be added to the motion. Mr, Hutchins agreed, and the motion, which was seconded byMs. Ericsson, , passed unanimously, APPROVAL OF MINUTES ,:N Ms, Petrie moved for approval of the minutes of the meeting of December 5, 1 1983. Ms. Ericsson seconded the motion, and it passed with Ms. Petrie, • Mr. Hutchins, and Ms. Ericsson voting in favor, Chairman Clarke abstained. � . Another vote will be necessary to verify the first 3-0 vote. `i ;THER BUSINESS - Findings, Conclusions, and Order The following findings were apnroved for signature: DR 13-83 - First Interstate tank DR 11-81 'DR 17-83 - Galen Court ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chairman Clarke adjourned the meeting at 10:5; p.m. .. • Respectfully Submitted, „„ , —. -/ ,,,,., iso 2 t' I •vim, .✓ ' 1«,/ 1 / 1 I•.% ' r,, A Kristi Hitchcock Secretary . , y/. `, r, 4, a i.. I .. , ., ,,,„ COUNCIL REPCRT =al" A FEBRUARY 7 , 1984 4110k.:: Peter C. Harvey, City Manager =RZM: Robert Galante, Development Review Planner S BJECT: Appeal of the Approval Granted to Mark Development Co. (DR 1-83 ) ' i a''t� ANALYSIS A. Background After approval by the Development Review BG,,,t-,l, and then ray City Council on an appeal , tne , P , development, of a 116, 535 sq . ft . snopping center at the northwest intersection of Monroe Parkway and Downes Ferry road was appealed to the State Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) • LUI3A concluded that the decision complied witn the law in all respects • except that the City incorrectly applied Wetland Standard §4 .020 (2 ) (a ) . The reason was that the Development Review Board in its previous decision failed to identify the distinction between wetlands and essential wetlands on the applicant ' s site . Confusion was created over whether { there was in fact development in the essential wetland. City Council remanded the application to the Development Review Board to identify the boundary of the essential wetland and then to apply Wetland Standard §4 . 020 (2 ) (a ) if it was determined there was any development in the { essential wetland. The Development Review Board held a public hearing to con- sider the remand on January 4, 1984 and approved the project as reflected in the Findings dated January 17, " ' 1984 (Exhibit 4 ) . The appellants have cnallenged the decision of the Board . A summary of the grounds relied upon for appeal iu described below (See Exhibit 3 for complete text ) : 1 . The Development Review Board lacked jurisdiction to hold the hearincY uecause -of a motion for reconsidera- tion that the applicant had filed before LUBA, 2 • Tne Development Review Board misconstrued and ` misapplied 4 .015 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) , 4 .020 (2 ) (a) and 4 .035 of the Wetland Standard , 4 4 9 1 •, . , ncil Report :_ -83 •` , • =_e 2 3 . There is no substantial and/or credible evidence in the record to support the Development Review Board ' s findings that : 4„, a. That the development of the hydrology map, as it • :::: ti.w �� relates to this site, did not include an analysis ' '. '� of elements contained in the Wetland Standard, Section 4 .035 . e.. :. b . No conflicting evidence concerning the technical * � ` analysis was presented in the hearing before the Devlopment Review Board . c . The only criteria which the record ' i closes led to designation of this wetland as c;.Nsential , as distinguished from mere wetland, way the degree to ,, ' •' wnich the citizen volunteers thought the area was ,, ,R ;a special due to visibility from Boones Ferry Road ..'.` y: a and Monroe Parkway. d . The appellant ' s classification and map boundaries 'r .4 were not the result of the application of the "« • . criteria listed in Wetland Standard, Section 4.035 . „ s,t+`.! e. The testimony of Peter Jackson and the letters of ,`:r �` ':;;: : Houck and Rogers are not relevant to this 1983 u'''Q, • application. `' ;; F. I +, f . The area identified in the letter irom the ti . �,; ,� developer to Jonn Godsey, dated June 22, 1982 did '? not support aquatic life or a prevelance of vege- 0. v..,, tation which requires saturated or seasonally • ,` ,,.' ,, saturated soil conditions . .'. 43 • •° .,.,' 4. The finding of the Board that the map sabmi tted by the appellants, entitled "Outline Of Essential Wetland from Hydrology Map" is of no value to the Board in determining the boundary of essential wetlands because „�� °1 it is not based upon relevant criteria is not support- ed by substantial and/or credible evidence in the �:• record and is simply wrong . � `" 5 . Tne finding of the Development Review Board that the ,'' ': • areas identified and mapped by appellants was not : essential wetland or even wetland according to the 'y '; �' ; definitions and analysis of the Wetland Standard is simply wrong . The wetlands on the site have been �` `'� '« designated as a Distinctive Natural Area and there- . fore, fully comply with the functions set forth in �'Li �: Wetland Standard, Section 4 .035 (1 ) (f) . a . y•, w ;, . w, ok ,, . ., - • — ',:.:,...,.., . 2:.ancil Report ' • =R 1-83 Page 3 � .. 6 • The Board ' s finding that the Bierly Report, as sub-d,' mitted, is of no help to the Board in making a deter- mination of the boundary of the essential wetland dis not supported by substantial evidence in the record , and, is patently absurd . 7 . There is no substantial and/or credible evidence to support the conclusion that the de • ention facilities, s ' the irrigation line, and the landscaping and buffering are wetland dependent or associated with a wetland dependent use . 8 . There is no substantial and/or credible (evidence support the conclusion that the shopping to ing lot is not in close proximitytop the center park- • wetland . essential 9 . There is no evidence in the record to support the Board ' s findingthat the Staff Report dated December 21 , 1983 complies with the functional analysis t forth in Wetland Standard, se ' Section 4 .035 . 5pecific- ally, there is no evidence in the record to rebut the f,1 factti that the site has been designated as a Natural Area as provided for in subsection (1 ) (f) of that Wetland Standard. In addition, there is not substantial or credible evidence in the record to support the Board ' s finding that Exhibit "K" (Exhibit 16 ) , the essential wetland map, •. the staff is an accurate representationofrthe' by boundaries of the essential wetland . • A review of the evidence submitted during the hearing before the Board shows that substantial evidence was submitted and that the Board ' s conclusions were adequately based on the evidence . The points raised , by the appellant regarding evidence, findings, proce- dure, and compliance with requirements are individu- • ally addressed as follows : 1'. Jurisdiction of the Development Review Ho d Hearing Board to This secion will be addressed ^rally at the time of the Council hearing. 2 . Conpliance with 4.015 (1 ) and (2 ) , 4 .020 (2 ) (a ) and 4.035 of the Wetland Standard As stated in LOC Section 4. 015 (2 ) r • • 1r , . . I ' :ouncil Report ` ZR 1--83 - ge 4 "Essential wetlands are those designated as such on the hydrology map and those determined to be such after site analysis and application of the criteria set forth in Section 4.035 (1 ) . The hydrology map shows the approximate are desi extent of all known wetlands within the ecacity It and also indicates which of these wetlands - • � ,. nated as ' essential ' . " 9 The procedures section at 4.035 (:1 ) of the • Standard establishes criteria to determine��e whichd wetlands, not alreadya essential . At 4 .035 (2 ) ethenproceduresessentsnl* , are n requires that the boundary of all essential wetlands, whether previously designated on the hydriogy not, be determined at the time of the pre-application conference on the basis of a detailed site inventory and anslysis . • Based on a reading of 4 .015 (2 ) and 4.035 rejected the appellant ' s interpretation ofttheB Wetland ; •.� Standard . The City ' s hydrologyovidend sufficient specificity map does not Provide to show the boundaries of the essential wetlands on the site . and Standard Section 4 . 015 (2 ) specifically estates lthat the location shown on that map is only an approximation . The Board also reviewed the project for compliance with 4.020 (2 ) (a ) . LUBA had construed that subsection to mean that to allow non-wetland dependent intrusions into an essential wetland the intrusion must be associated with a wetland dependent use . The Board applied this interpretation to their review as illustrated in their Findings of January (Exhibit 4 ) • A discussion of 4, 19 4 .020 (2 ) (a ) can be found in Sectionsl� x 7an1n of d 8 of this report . 3 . Substantial and Credible Findings of the Board Evidence to Support Specific _ f ) : a • No evidence was submitted by the appellant pp llant regard- ing the application of 4.035 to the development of the hydrology map. the staff testified that the criteria of the standad was not applied at the time of development of the hydrology map (see Exhibit 5, page 33 ) . The Board simply p y could not conclude that 4 .035 was applied to the development of the map if no evidence was submitted to illustrate that . it should be noted, too, treat the Development Ordinance and Standards were adopted by the City in October of 1981, well after the development of the hydrolo Jy t4ap. • . • 1 • . • " " 1 . _ ,..mcil Report _ 1-83 - =e 5 b. s A review of the record shows that no conflicting evidence was submitted concerning the technical analysis of the staff report of December 21, 1983 . If no evidence was submitted, the Board could not conclude that evidence was submitted. c . The appellants submitted a letter from Kathryn Gray (Exhibit 24 ) ) which provided substantial and credible evidence to support the Board ' s con- U elusion that the only criteria which the record discloses led to designation of this Wetland as essential , as distinguished from here wetland, was the degree to which tree citizen volunteers thought the area was special due to visibility from Boones Ferry Road and Monroe Parkway. No conflicting evidence was submitted . d . A review of the record does not indicate the existence of evidence to demonstrate that the appellant ' s classificaton and map boundaries were the result of application of 4.035 of the Wetland Standard . The Board could not conclude 4 .035 was applied. In fact, the appellant testified that application of 4 .035 was irrelevant (See Exhibit 5, page 19 ) . The Board made the only possible • conclusion based on the evidence . e . The Board concluded that the testimony of Peter Jackson and letters of opposition from Houck (Exhibit 13 ) and Rogers (Exhibit 14) , concerning the wetlands, which were presented during the 1982• application were not relevant to the 1983 applica-tion . Those letters addressed the 1982 Bierly report, and did not deal with the issue which was before the Board which was identification of the boundary of the essential wetland . The develop- ment application which was submitted in 1983 and approved by the Board offered a substantially different treatment of the essential Wetlands than did the prior application for which the 1982 Bierly report was prepared. The Board specific- ally rejected the relevance of these letters and testimony to the 1983 application as they addressed and made conclusions regarding the 1982 • Bierly report . The staff submitted the letters as exhibits to illustrate other points, as well (see • Exhibit 7, page 4) . • II . • _ . . . . . . , ., , . . , . . 1 .., . j77 , ncil Report _.. 1-83 4 r a_A 6 f . The appellant presented a letter to John Godsey, '. dated June 22, 1982 (Exhibit 31 ) which illustrated that an area outside the area mapped by the Essential Wetland Map (Exhibit 16 ) was wet . This letter was used by the appellant to illustrate that the essential wetland was much larger than / mapped; however, the staff testified ( See Exhibit 5, page 36 ) that the area did not have any features (a prevalance of vegetation which requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions ) that would classify the area as wet- land or essetnial wetland . The appellant did not submit any conflicting evidence and did not apply } the analysis required by 4 .035 to the area described in the letter . 4 . Value of Map Entitled "Outline of Essential Wetland From Hydrology Map" Exhibit 30 As previously described, the Board found it necessary to apply the procedural portions of the Wetland Standard (4.035 ) to the review of the boundary of the essential wetland. Also, previously described is the fact that 4.035 was not applied to the development of y the hydrology map and that the appellant considered ' ' the process ynnecessary and irrelevant . These facts • ' have already been documented in sections 2 and 3 a. , d of this report . The Board accurately concluded that a -' ., map not based on relevant criteria could not help establish the boundary of the Essential Wetland. The appellant testified that the map entitled "Outline of ' Essential Wetland From Hydrology Map" (Exhibit 30 ) was a tracing from the Hydrology Map and was a close approximation of what the essential wetland looks like 4 wnen you attempt to blow it up to the same scale (See Exhibit 5, p. 16 ) . 5 . Essential Wetland Boundary Based on Distinctive Natural Area Designation As described previously, the Board determined that the boundary of the essential Wetland must be determined after application of 4.035 of the Wetland Standard . The appellant did not provide any evidence that this was done regarding the Hydrology Map or the Distinctive Natural Area t'lap. The Distinctive Natural Area designation does not provide any assistance ;n mapping the essential wetland and 4 .035 must be applied,, Finally, the Board did not consider the ... .. projects compliance With Distinctive Natural Area • policies , because that matter had already been decided4111 . by Li1B1� in the City ' s favor and Was not before the " ' • Board for review. • • , z_ncil Report 2:. -83 to 7 6 . Bierly Report, As Submitted '''.i The applicant ' s earliest map of the wetlands, con- tained in the April, 1982 study by Bierly and Associates, Inc . and submitted with appellant ' s materials (Exhibit 32 ) , shows the boundaries of wet- lands on the subject par-,:el . The body of the report was not submitted, only the table of contents, sum- i. `' mary, introduction and a map. The table of contents � ' ` refers to wetland analysis according to criteria in Standard 4 .035, but the body of the report was not submitted and is not in the record . It in unclear whether the wetland boundaries contained OH that early map were established by application of Development Standard 4. The report as submitted does not distinguish wetlands from essential wetlands and, therefore , was of no help to the Board in making its determination of the boundary of the essential wet- land . The evidence to support he Board ' s decision is the partial report (Exhibit 32) itself . ?---- 7 . Wetland Dependent or Associated With Wetland Dependent ,"'.w >.. Uses 't'fir;'' r r! The development must comply with Wetland Standard §4 .020(2 ) (a) . LUBA has construed that subsection to mean that to allow non-Wetland dependent intrusions ; . into an essential wetland the intrusion must be associated with a wetland dependent use . The Landscape/Site Plan with Essential Wetland Boundary, Exhibit 17 , and the Irrigation Plan with • Essential Wetland Boundary, Exhibit 18, show two r sections of irrigation line running through portions of the identified essential wetlands and a landscape buffer and detention facilities running along the edges of the essential wetland . The Board concluded that the irrigation lines are dependent upon being in and in close proximity to the essential wetlands . The purpose of those lines is to aid in the preservation of emergent vegetation within , the essential wetland and help establish and maintain the landscape buffer and other vegetation outside the 1` ' , essential wetland. These lines are therefore • associated with a wetland dependent use ( the wetland vegetation and landscape buffer ) . Their location is dictated by the need to serve that function. 1 Co-:moil Report 2F _-B3 The detention facilities are located in the southeast corner of the site and in close proximity to the essential wetlands because that portion of the site is the lowest elevation on the site and is where water will collect after the facilities are improved. It serves as a buffer to the essential wetland and pro- vides additional wet area . The detention facilities '' r' also offer additional habitat diversity, which is an ! . • important characteristic of essential wetlands . r ,. Further , the facilities will inhibit the flow of dirty '• ,t<, water to the wetland , set the essential wetland apart from the remainder of the project and provide a visually pleasing transition from the wetlands to the w; shopping center development and City streets . The _• ''ii detention facilities are therefore associated witn wetland dependent uses . Exhibits 15 (Let'.er from Joe Pesek) and Exhibit 17 (Landscape Plan with Essential Wetland Boundary) provide evidence to support these conclusions . While the appellants testified that the irrigation line and storm water detention facilities where not ,• wetland dependent, no evidence was submitted in support of their conclusion. B. Development In Close Proximity To The Essential Wetland t• The appellant testified that 4. 020 (2 ) (a) also requires that development "in close proximity to the essential wetland" oe primarily wetland dependent . , J • The Board determined that other uses in close proximity to the essential wetland are the landscaping I and buffering . They are associated with the essential wetland because tney help maintain the flow of clean f water to the essential wetland, set the essential wetland apart from the remainder of the project and provide a visually pleasing transition from the essential wetland to the shopping center development and City streets . Exhibit 17 , the Landscape Plan with the Essential ' Wetland Boundary, illustrates that the essential wetland is set apart from other development , such as the parking lot, City streets, and structures, by an . intervening use, the landscaped buffer . The Board, therefore, did not agree with the appellant that these • items were in close proximity to the essential wetland . . 0 ' . ' ,, ,a 1'' -v.,:ancil Report __ 1-83 r ae 9 ' 9 . Functional Analysis and Mapping of the pp 9 Essential Wetland •� r The development of the hydrology r..,-ip, as it relates to this site, did not include an analysis of the elements contained in Wetland Standard §4.035 . Essential wetland boundaries must be specifically determined after site analysis and application of the criteria set forth in §4.035 (1 ) . The staff report, dated December 21, 1983 , provides a site analysis based on evidence in the record and applies the criteria . That document speaks for itself . This analyoJ,g took place ' v 'r at the pre-application conference for this request , but was not adequately documented in the record before the Board during previous hearings . No Conflicting evidence concerning the technical analysis was presented in the hearing held before the Development Review Board held on January 4, 1984 and which is the h subject of this appeal . The staff report cited evidence in the record as follows : { Exhibit 8 Existing Drainage Map •o , Exhibit 9 Topographic Survey Exhibit 10 Wetland Report '' Exhibit 11 Soils Report Exhibit 12 • Utility and Easement Survey Exhibit 13 Letter from Mike Houck Exhibit 14 Letter from Ralph Rogers i Exhibit 19 • Wetland Photos Exhibit 20 Aerial Photos Most of the above listed exhibits inventory natural features and natural forces which affect the site . In . ; addition the reports, listed above, provide a more detailed inventory and make conclusions about the impact of development on the site . The Board relied upon those exhibits as well as .. • Exhibit 15 (Letter from Joe Pesek, Dept . of Fish and ° Wildlife ) and Exhibit 21 (Conservancy Commission Minutes of February 16 , 1983 ) to reach their con- elusion that the analysis of the staff report was t' accurate and sufficient to determine the essential Wetland boundary. , Yr r I {. 1 • c.:ncil Report __ 1-83 _ge 10 ' The Conservancy Commission had recommended that the wetland was being preserved to the maximum extent ` practical . Joe Pesek , a nongame biologist with the Department of Fish and Wildlife had recommended that the integrity of the wetland would be preserved and that the applicants proposal wil,l add to the wildlife `4 habitat of the area. Ken Bierly, a wetland consul- -• , tant, who produced the Wetland Report, had recommended that the proposed development will enhance and Ire- serve wetland values . The record indicates that substantial evidence was submitted to support the analysis of the staff report of December 21, 1983 and that the Board ' s decision was adequately based on that evidence . The Opposition believed that such an analysis was irrelevant (See Exhibit 22, p. 8 ) and did not provide any evidence contrary t - the analysis . There is no evidence in the record to "rebut" the fact . that the site has been designated "Distinctive Natural Area" because it was not necessary to rebut that fact . Neither the appellant nor the applicant dis- agreed with the Distinctive Natural Area designation ` of a portion of the site . The evidence the Board reviewed illustrated that , ' ., 4.020 ( 2 ) (a ) was complied with and no evidence was submitted which illustrated that the wetland would be damaged. In fact, the evidence the Board reviewed stated the wetland would be preserved and enhanced . • B. Attachments 1 . Tax Map (2 pp. ) 2 . Vicinity Map 3 . Letter of Appeal 4 . Findings of January 4, 19834 (S pp. ) 5 . Transcript of January 4, 1964 • • 6 . Minutes of January 4, 1984 (8 pp. ) F 7 . Staff Report of December 21, 1963 (7 pp. ) ' �y, '��' 8 . Existing Drainage Map • • 9 . Topographic Survey }e 10 . Vetland Report (24 pp. ) 11 . Soils Report (43 pp. ) 12 . Utility and Easement Survey • 13 . Letter from Mike Houck (3 pp. ) ` 14 . Letter from Ralph Rogers (4 pp. ) 15 . Letter from Joe Pesek ' 16 . Essential Wetland Map (On Topographic survey) - The , full sized, color plan is not reproducible, but will be available at the hearing . , cil Report 1-83 11 17 • Landscape/Site Plan with Essential Wetland Boundary 18. Irrigation Plan with Essential Wetland Boundary 19 . Wetland Photos (Not Reproducible) • , 20 . Aerial Photos (plot Reproducible ) 21 . Conservancy Commission Minutes (2 pp. ) '' 22 . Letter from Jess Glaeser, January 4, 1984 (8 pp. ) ' 23 . LOPRI Introduction ( 17 pp. ) x:. 24. Letter from Kathryn Gray, January 9, 1984 (2 pp. ) 25 . Supporting Documents and Maps (LOPRI ) (12 pp. ) 26 . Stream Corridors and Wetland Map (2 pp. ) 27 . Hydrology Map (2 pp. ) 28 . Water Resources (LOPRI ) (2 pp. ) 29 . Distinctive Areas (LOPRI ) (12 pp. ) 30 . Outline of Essential Wetland from p Hydrology Ma 31 . Letter from Developer to Public Works Director (2 pp. ) • 32 . Portion of April, 1982 Wetland Report (6 pp. ) 33 . Portion of Transcript, June 7, 1983 ( 3 pp, ) 34 . Bierly Map of Wetlands 35 . Natural Features Map 36. Overlay, Tracing from Exhibit L (Not Reproducible ) 37 . Motion for Reconsideration before LUBA (4 pp. ) 38. Letter from Mr . & Mrs . Bruckner with attachment (2 pp. ) ) 39. Memorandum from City Attorney 40 . Record of LUBA Case No. 83-074 (514 pp. ) - Will be a available for review at the hearing. • • C. Considerations 1,• The Development Review Board believed that there were two • major issues to be considered in their. review. The Board found most of the evidence clear and without conflict . As described previously, the Board reviewed considerable evidence regarding the treatment of the Wetland , The Board believed that the project complied with 4 ,020 ( 2 ) (a ) of the ttetland standard and that the boundary of the wet- land had been established as required by 4 .035 , • The appellants stated that the boundary of the essential wetland was much larger and submitted maps to illustrate its size . The Board concluded that the evidence submitted by the appellants was of no value in determining the *7 boundary of the essential wetland because none of it was based on the relevant criteria (pound in 4 .035 ) , - The other issue considered by the Board was whether development was located in, or in close proximity to the essential wetland . The Board found that all development in, or in close proximity to, the essential wetland was ID primarily wetland dependent , The Board did not consider the parxing lot, buildings, or streets to be in close proximity to the essential wetland because of the • 4' „ ,:-cil Report _-83 ' ' ,, ,: P- 12 • • existence of this intervening landscaping and buffering 1110 v- .They believed the project met all applicable criteria and should be approved . • .. D. Conclusion The Board concluded that the project complies with all applicable criteria and standLrds to the extent that approval could be granted. I= . POLICY ANALYSIS • A. Policy Impact If the appeal were upheld, that would indicaLo that the evidence submitted was insufficient, but not; Necessarily tnat the conclusions were incorrect . The applicant has provided a very detailed application and hired a number of experts to prepare plans and reports . Upholding the appeal, however, would indicate that even more information is, or could be, required of developers . B. Relation to the Comprehensive Plan Any Council action will result in further classification of the intent of, and the use of, the Wetland Standard . =2 • RECOMMENDATION A. Action Requested The staff recommends that the appeal be denied . B. Follow-up Action If the appeal were upheld, or if Council should remand the ' project back to the Board with direction for additional • review, additional reports would be required . If the ° ' appeal is denied, no further staff work will be required � - as a result of the action unless an appeal to the State Land Use Board of Appeals was made by the opposition. The applicant could make a similar appeal if the appeal were upheld . New Findings would be prepared as necessary. p, " Pre red by: Robert Galante Development Review Planner . e ` .. 1 :: . :;o . 2061P • • '. t. ,: . ti i BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL ., • OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 3 An Appeal of Final Approval DR 1-83-97 to Allow Construction of a ) • 116, 535 Sq. Ft . Shopping Center ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER After Remand from the Land Use ) �� Board of Appeals ) -• Nature of Appeal "' ° This ap peal is brought by the Forest Highlands Neighborhood E Association, Mr . and Mrs . Gene Meyer , Mr . and Mrs . Joseph Lien, o Mr . and Mrs . Jerry Knolton, Mr . and Mrs. C. E. Ward , Mr . and ' ' -- Mrs. Ken Webber , Mr . and Mrs . David Miller, and Tom Arstead of • . . ' the ap proval by the Development Review Board of a 116 , 535 sq. -- ft . shopping center located on property north and west of the .S intersection of Monroe? Parkway and Boones Ferry Road . This z ' -- matter was before the Development Review Board for the purpose =5 of determination of the boundary of the essential wetland on the w site and the application of Wetland Development Standard • h •. ', Y _ 94 . 020 ( 2 ) ( a ) . t - + _ .. Hearing , The Development Review Board held a hearing on January 4 , 4 1984 . The City Council considered the appeal on the record made • before the Board at the Council meeting on February 14, 1984 . _ -- Criteria 7.1 �3 Wetland Standard §4 . 020 (2 ) (a) . -" Wetland Standard 94 . 035 (1 ) , ( 2 ) 25 25 g EXHIBIT Page 1 - FINDINGS , CONCLUSION AND ORbLzt w - ^ eo , llIC J a Conclusion 2 The City Council concludes that this with complies with 3 Wetland Standard §4 . 020 ( 2 ) (a) . 4 Findings and Reasons The CityCoun cil relies �• . for r support of its decision on the 5 order of the Development Review Board dated January 17 , 1984 , as C 7 supplemented by the Council Report dated February 7 , 1984 and by • 3 the following : • '' p The sole issue raised bythe appellants during oral :0 argument concerned the interpretation given by the Development + .'> :1 Review Board to the Wetland Standard. 12 This matter is again before the City due to a remand from 4110 ', :3 the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) . LUBA directed the City to review the development approval for consistency with Wetland :,s Standard §4 . 020 ( 2 ) (a ) . That subsection of the standard states � _ :3 that development is allowed in essential wetlands only after it • � ._ : > ' is determined that the development is primarily dependent on ' :S being located in or in close proximity to the essential - = - :. Wetland . LUBA construed that subsection to mean that a . - :1 non-wetland dependent intrusion is allowed into the essential wetland only when it is associated With a wetland dependent r use . Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association v. Lake E :3 Oswego, LUBA (1983 ) . ( LUBA No. 83-074 ) Slip Opinion : . ' " at p. 23 . =3 In order to comply with LUBA' s direction on remand the City =5 Council directed the Development Review Board to determine the . age 2 - FINDINGS , CONCLUSION AND ORDER • 4 . - . _'' r9 1 t 4 1 boundary of the essential wetland on the site, determine whether , . 4,A r,. 2 any development occurred within that boundary, then determine 3 whether the development within the boundary is associated with a ', ' 4 wetland dependent use , y• o 5 The boundary of an essential wetland is determined on the d basis of a detailed site inventory and analysis and the " ,,.',' 7 recommendation of the City Manager . Wetland Standard 5 §4 . 035 ( 2) . The Development Review Board found this analysis g occurred at the pre-application conference on the request, but 13 that the analysis was not• adequately documented in the record 11 before the Board. DRB Order , p. 2 . The criteria used in this b 4 •` 12 functional analysis are those found in §4 . 035 (1 ) . There is no 13 evidence in the record that disputes the fact that the site z • analysis occurred and is documented in the December 21 , 1983 _• - 15 staff report . No conflicting evidence was submitted to the . . 15 Board concerning the facts contained in the site analysis , The • r: result of the analysis is the boundary described in attachments ' , 2 17 and 18 of the February 7 , 1984 Council Report , - _ _ 19 Appellants claim that subsection (f ) of §4 . 035 (1 ) was ' ' • • , ; • 2e ignored during the site analysis. That claim is wrong . The ��•,x`•; - :1 analysis recognizes that the wetland is identified as a • =2 Distinctive Natural Area. 12-21-83 Staff. Report , p . 1 . In w =3 determining the extent of natural biological functions, =4 §4 , 035 ( 1 ) ( e ) , the analysis determined those areas which contain 25 vegetation or aquatic life requiring saturated or seasonally 5 saturated soil conditions for their eXistence. See Dec , 21 , Page 3 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER N t . ` Y.a " i�► , rs r .. ti 1 • w 1 1983 Staff Report, pp. 5, 6 . Those d. , are the factors that define 2 an area as a wetland . Wetland Standard 54 . 015 ( 1 ) . The 3 Development Review Board order addresses the differing 4 boundaries suggested by the appellants . No substant ' a1 or 5 �. credible evidence was introduced to the ,, , Board that put into 6 question the accuracy of the boundary determined by the December 21 , 1983 staff report . In fact , appellants consistent position 8 has been that no site analysis is necessary to determine 9 essential wetland boundaries. The Council agrees with the, 10 Board ' s resolution of those issues . 11 Appellants ' argument seems to be that because the site is f: 12 designated a Distinctive Natural Area in the Comprehensive Plan 13 that some criteria, other than those found in §4 . 035 (1 ) of the 14 Wetland Standard, must be used in determining the esse ntial L . , 15 wetland boundary. 16 J - The construction and application of 54 . 035 V ( l ) (f ) must be : 17 made in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan Pol icies which 18 the Wetland Development Standard implements . `r • ~ 19 _ ` A natural feature is designated a Distinctive Natural Area W in the Plan because of the existence of natural features that � e uN LI were determined to possess value. In orde 1 .• _ r to apply 54 . 035 (1 ) (f) in the analysis when a Wet area is designated a 3 Distinctive Natural Area, the Board must look at why the area _4 was so map designated. The g on page 28 of the Plan designates the w, .. l5 area in question as a Distinctive Natural Area because it is -] a "swamp and marsh" . The Plan Wetland Policies define what page 4 FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER • 4 r.. i * taT features of a "swamp and marsh" are of value for planning purposes . Comp. Plan. ,. , p. 38 . The Plan Wetland Policies are 3 designed to protect and preserve the natural functions of wetlands that are essential for. � protection of water quality and �' retention of storm water runoff . Wetland General Policy 1 Plan, p. 38 . The site analysis does this by the application of . criteria (a ) - (e ) of §4 . 035 ( 1 ) . The analysis required by that S subsection is a functional analysis . The Distinctive Natural Area designation means nothing in the abstract . Only after the -- wetland site is analyzed for the existence of the essential •a, {j natural functions identified in the Plan policies and the 1= mapped, does the designation standard, with that area then being , i take on a workable meaning . it is the area that performs these r {�� essential natural functions that is the Distinctive Natural Area s b -- and therefore part of the "essential wetland" . The Council also considers Comprehensive Plan Protection Open Space Policies relating to Distinctive Natural Areas to be .- relevant . Those policies allow development in a protection open -` space (wetland ) that is compatible with the essential natural rr - - resources and processes . Comp. Plan. Protection Open Space General Policy 1, Plan Volume I, p. 87 . • - - - The Development Review board order also contains a finding V • - -- based on evidence presented during the hearing that one reason • this wetland was designated as an essential wetland when the hydrology map Was created was that the •area possesses scenic _. : 5 FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER h • 4 f,- • - . - • r . - • ' - it qualities due to its visibility from Monroe Parkway and Boones w. Ferry Road . DRB Order , p. 3 .11 The site analysis looked at the site for the presence of 4 the natural features and functions identified in S4 . 035 ( 1 ) . It identifies the physical boundary of the portions of the site that perform the functions of an essential wetland . The Development Review Board in its April 5 , 1983 order on this 4) i project concluded that the proposed development will adequately y - preserve and protect the wetland and will in fact increase :. vegetation and compatible habitat for wildlife . The area that µ is preserved and protected is larger in size and includes land - that is outside of the essential wetland boundary mapped in the := Board ' s decision. LUBA in its review of the April 5, 1983 order . . determined that the City ' s conclusion that the development will } -- enhance the wetland was supported by substantial evidence. The Development Review Board ' s decision takes into account both the natural resource functions of the wetlands, plus the - - distinctive scenic value identified by the citizen volunteers . :Y This interpretation of the standard is consistent with the `: language of the standard and with the direction given by the -- controllingPlan +policies . Any other construction of the -- Wetland Standard makes it more restrictive than the Plan ,.� policies it implements . That Was not the intent of the Council , . - , in adopting the Wetland Standard . The Boards interpretation of =5 the standard makes it consistent with the Plan policies. 4110 '' W • 6 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER ' •4' • 1 The rest of the allegations of error raised in the Notice / T 2 of Appeal were not discussed during oral argument . They are all 3 very general in nature and have been adequately dealt with in 4 the February 7, 1984 Council Report with the exception of the 5 jurisdictional allegation. 6 Appellants ' claim that the City lost jurisdiction to consider the merits of this case on remand from LUBA when the S intervenors filed a Motion for Reconsideration with LUBA. There 9 is no merit in the allegation. After entry of the final opinion 10 and order in LUBA 83-074 on November 29 , 1983 LUBA relinquished • 11 jurisdiction. OAR 661-10-070 ( 1 ) (D) . No order from LUBA or 12 other competent authority was directed to the City to change 13 that situation. The City has at all times had authority to act • • • _ � 14 in this matter . r �5 IT IS ORDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE < - -n OSWEGO that the decision of the Development Review Board is r . -, affirmed . I certify that this Order was presented to and approved by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego. ` _ '-- Dated this 21st day o ar , '.984 .I ' _ �, yr v6K\ C. Herald Campbell M yor r.. =3 Vote at the Council meeting on _. February 14 , 1984 . ;age 7 - FINDINGS , CONCLUSION AND ORDER . a 1 ' • • AYES: Campbell , Roberge, Avery, Young , Holman, Schlenker, ► Waller l r NOES : ABSTAIN: • ABSENT: • • Doc . No. 430C r 0 • • i 1 • W M41. di • F. • t ZZ • 1. •• �. • • • • ..1 • 1 ' t-- 8 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER h' ` 1) February 14, 1984 A special meeting of the Lake Oswego City Council was convened at 7:32e Council Chambers. Present were Mayor Campbell, Councilors Woller, Roberge, Holman, Avery, Schlenker and Young, City Manager Peter Harvey, City Attorney Jim Coleman . and staff members. III. PUBLIC HEARING A. An appeal from the Development Review Board approval of DR 1-83 (Mark Development, Inc. ) . Mayor Campbell announced that a Motion for Continuance had been received over the signature of Mr. Jess Glaeser, the attorney representing the ' appellants of the Development Review Board decision. A memorandum in opposition to the Motion for Continuance Was also received. Various reasons were given in the Motion for Continuance, including the ,\ statement that the transcript of the DRB hearing was not available until February 7. Mr. Robert Galante of the City Planning Department provided an affidavit indicating that the transcript had been Available to the public on February 1. Mr. Coleman testified that the first request for the materials was received on February 8. Mr. Ward, one of the appellants, came to City Hall on that day and was given the materials ,:` ` requested. .i Mr. Coleman stated that the sections of the City Code cited by the ..' ,. Motion for Continuance do not, in fact, require as a matter of law that '' . a the Council set over this matter because of the facts in the case. i Moved by Councilor Avery; seconded by Councilor Schlenker that the Motion for Continuance of this matter be denied. The motion passed unanimously with Avery, Schlenker, Young, Mayor Campbell, Woller, Roberge, and Holman all voting "yes. " ?' .; Bob Galante, Development Review Planner, gave the staff report as follows: After a number of hearings regarding the shopping center at Monroe Parkway and Boones Ferry Road and an appeal to LUBA, LUBA remanded a small portion of the application back to the City for reconsideration. That portion is addressed by 4.020(2) (a) of the Development Wetlands Standards. City Council then remanded the matter to DRB. The Board found: 1) clear evidence regarding treatment of the wetlands; 2) that the project complied with 4.020(2) (a) , 3) that the • wetlands standard had been adequately applied: 4) that the procedures • section of the wetlands standard had been addressed as required in determining the boundary of the wetlands, and allowed the Board to determine whether or not there was anything in or in Close y the wetlands. Mr. Galante stated that the appellants argued rbefore DRB that the boundary of the essential wetlands Was much larger, being that boundary found on the Lake Oswego hydrology map. The appellants that the language in the wetlands standard requires that any wetlandsehd found on the site be termed an essential wetlands in its entirety, To EXHIBIT t�- c'PP • • Di 1 1 e+c.,l . . substantiate this view they submitted evidence,, depending most heavily on the hydrology map, blown up to a scale over which the development ' '� •. could be overlaid, concluding that some of the development was in th essential wetlands boundary as noted on the h drolo '. indicated that the hydroloeengy Y gY map. Mr. Galante °'' '~ "•; by the when there is some particular feature, either usedessentiality We to signal wetlands, stream ,. corridor, etc. on a site which requires further analysis, whereas the Wetlands Standard illustrates how that further analysis should be ' conducted. That analysis is found in the staff report of December 1983, along with a number of exhibits and other reports of value in2l� a determining whether or not the boundary was accurately established. The DRB felt it was necessary to apply 4.035, .�, Wetlands Standard. Mr. Galante called attentiionotodtheuiseueiof whaton of he c meant by 'in or in close proximity to." The DRH concluded that if one element of an essential wetlands or one element of the sire was separated by another element of the site, i.e. ;tf there was a buffer between development and essential wetlands, that, It was not 'in close proximity to. " They concluded that adjacency hard more relevance to "close proximity to. " The essential wetlands, as mapped, has a buffer (landscaping) between it and any development. Mayor Campbell asked that Council members declare any potential of interest, any bias in this case, or any ex-parte contacts with oeither the appellant or the ret;pondent. There were none. He ascertained of . the Deputy City Recorder that no written challenges had been received regarding any Council member's eligibility to sit on this matter. •Mayor Campbell asked for testimony in support ' Glaeser, attorney for the appellants, of the appeal. Jess defined the issue as one of ` interpretation of the City's own Development Code. Development Code, Section 4.015, describing essential ewetlands, and referred to quoted from it. He contended that staff's interpretation of what he had ' quoted was that a functional analysis is needed to determine the actual boundaries of the essential wetlands. He disputes this interpretation, ^ stating that there would then be no need to reference "essential wetlands" on the hydrology Y gy map. He spoke of "rules of statutory ,. `' construction" which apply when interpreting local ordinances, codes, and other governmental regulations, which state that every section, every phrase and every word of an ordinance must have meaning. He argued that , the reason this language is in the Development Code is because the drafters intended two ways in which to identify an essential wetlands: 1) by applying the functions set out in the Code in L e Procedures section; 2) by reference to the hydrology map. He stated that if a wetlands is designated as essential on the hydrology y gY map, then it is essential by definition. Mr. Glaeser commented that this interpretation is bolstered by the Procedure section 4.035says which may,, 'a wetlands qualifies for designation as an essential Wetlands When it performs any of the following functions. " He read the six functions listed in that '' section. He claimed that staff has not given credence to the sixth function, "distinctive natural area.' He contended that the staff did not, in fact, id..rttify boundaries at the pre-application conference in January. He questioned staffs expertise, relying upon a drainage map the Bierly wetlands report of January 1983, the soil reporty a easement survey, and Joe Pesek's letter, in identifying the essential wetlands. Special City Council Meeting February 14, 1984 Page 2 n . <' . a , Stephen Janik, 101 S. W. Main Street, Portland, attorney for Mark Development, outlined the history of this project, stating that the y1. Bierly report was not part of this case but rather a part of the first application in 1982 which was rejected. Between the first and second applications, City Council designated this property for development as a shopping center. At the time of the 1983 application, objections raised before the DRB and City Council by the appellants were considered and rejected. Extensive consideration was given to the wetlands at this time. Mr. Janik argued that the wetlands in question is manmade, ' created by the construction of Boones Ferry Road and added to by runoff later contained by a City of Portland storm sewer line. He pointed out that LUBA supported the City of Lake Oswego in this decision except for one issue--that under section 4.020 (2) (a) of the Development Code the uses surrounding a wetlands shall be wetlands-dependent. He reminded that LUBA had found that this language is not required under Goal 5 and could be amended. Mr. Janik pointed out the dicerepancy between the issue focused upon by LUBA and the issue outliner) by the appellants. Mr. Janik continued his testimony stating that the hydrology map of the City was developed by citizen field research, that it identifies that a wetlands exists, but that the boundaries are not discernible. He interprets the Code as defining that precise boundaries are determined at the time of the pre-application conference when applicants are expected to bring in experts to focus on the technical aspects of defining an essential wetlands. He maintained that the smaller essential wetlands area in this case was determined at the time of the pre-application conference by technical experts on the basis of certain functions performed in terms of water storage, water runoff, wildlife habitat, etc. Mr. Janik explained that the developer is installing two irrigation lines in the wetlands, which will add water and discharge storm water, as well as a sprinkler head. The Development Review Board has found that these installations are wetlands-dependent and are there to serve the Wetlands, and that 4.020(2) (a) has been complied with. He alluded to the lack of evidence contended that evidencerSetheddevelo de by the veloper to and presentedby A • points enhancement of the wetlands. � • Mr. Glaeser presented his rebuttal in terms of application of the Code to this particular parcel of land and LUBA s unreoutted ruling that there is development in the wetlands, which the citizens have said is deserving of protection. Mr. Glaeser raised a point order rebuttal on the basis that Mr. Glaeser was odenied ro Janik time for opportunity for � '_ rebuttal before the Development Review Board, Mr. Coleman stated that the Code provides for five minutes rebuttal for all persons, The Chair ruled that Mr. Janik is entitled to rebuttal; adding that that ruling is subject to challenge by any member of Council. Councilor Avery asked Mr. Coleman to make reference to the Code provision that allows for this rebuttal. Mr. Coleman cited 49.640(1) (B) . , t;, . Mr, Janik responded to the allegation that there was a parking lot and shopping center in the wetlands, He claimed that there is no evidence in the record that shows this, The only evidence in the record shows i Special City Council Meeting . February 14, 1984 - Page 3 k , that the essential wetlands is the smaller area defined by the staff.The only construction activity in this area is the extension of two ' water lines and a sprinkler head. The shopping center itself and the parking areas are outside the wetlands. Y4,. .` Mr. Coleman commented that nothing new had been raised that was not included in the materials submitted to Council for this appeal. He stated that Mr. Glaeser, on January 4 before the DRB, did not request that this matter be set over until it could be heard again by LUBA, and thus DRB was not aware that this request had been made of Council. ,.. Moved by Councilor Avery; seconded by Councilor Young that the appeal of the c,ecision from the Development Review Board be denied relying on the Findings, Ccnclusion and Order of the Development Review Board as supplement_ . )y the staff report to Council dated February 7. Councilor Schlenker a._. ;ed for clarification of the boundaries; of the essential wetlands ar;u Mr. Galante responded. The motion Avery, Schlenker, Young, Mayor Campbell, Woller -ed unanimously with voting "yes. " Roberge and Holman all IV. REPORTS A. Report of City Hall Advisory Committee John Clough, Chair of the City Hall Advisory committee, introduced the report commenting on the structure, activity, and thoroughness of the committee, d citizen participation in the process. He cited the very fine contribution of Paul Hughes, Chair of the Space Needs and Utilization Analysis Subcommittee, who recently died. Mr. Clough acknowledged the fine job done by Architect Dennis Brun and his staff.He thanked Karen Scott for excellent staff support of the committee. 4 The Committee considered various factors, including commercial components such as a Tri-Met transfer station. The study resulted in a recommended reduction in square footage and cost reduction from the original proposals. The final result is an integrated will result in savings in the overall project. Mr. Clough whichosal ghcommented that although the initial charge limited the committee to consideration of Block 138, the result is a benchmark evaluation which can be a useful F tool for the Council in its considerations. 1. Space Needs Subcommittee Report Phil Juttelstad commented on factors involved in this analysis: 1) to examine the course of the part of the next 20-50 2) requirements of the Cityowth of the City in the years; staff and functions at its present scope; 3) how best to evaluate present and future maintenance costs and service to the community. Based on the space development concept p presented by Brun, Moreland, Christopher showing . j . the relative locations and cross-matrices of existing staff and City (.. . Hall functions, the committee developed a use diagram for the . physical City Hall building. After examination of existing offices in the area, the subcommittee chose an open landscape concept in its Special City Council Meeting M1ebruary 14, 1984 Page 4 I 1 . entirety, though initially more expensive, because of the flexibility • it allows in physical space and future constructio n processes. The Tri-met transfer station was considered and it was concluded that \ Block 138 could not support the concept of a 50,000 square lft. building whichs function. The woulde " with a City population of 50,000 in the year 2000, and ultimately " concluded that a building of this type would best serve if it were phased and if the initial phase of construction were to encompass approximately 36,000 square feet. This size building Would adequately serve present staff for the next five years. 2. Finance Subcommittee7 . Don Burdick reported in place of Jon Torgeson, Chair of this 0. subcommittee, stating that the committee was unanimous in it:, recommendations, He commented on the dynamics of the committee as a whole, adding that the Finance Committee, in particular, reviewed the seven financing alternatives on pages 38-39 of the report, concluding that General Obligation bonds were the they are straightforward and least costly. Thed impact alternupon ethecause City's bonding capacity was felt to be most a million level, preserving existing superior bondorating andprite atthe enabling sale of the bonds within the State of Oregon. City of Lake Oswego, '` bonds are well regarded throughout the State of Oregon, resulting in • a lower yield to the holder and a savings to our taxpayers. The impact of a $5 million bond issue upon the citizenry would be an additional cost of approximately $50 per year for a $100,000 house or 50¢ per $1,000. Mr. Burdick told Council that more than half of our general obligation bonds are due within the next ten years; thus the amount of the new City Hall would be absorbed into the existing taxes at the $50 figure, but within ten years taxes would be reduced by the pay-off of other City general'obligation bonds. He offered to make A. available to anyone interested a list of these bonds. The other subcommittees and the architect responded to the finance subcommittee's recommendations (page 52 of the report) With a 36,006 square foot design which CHAC feels is able to accomplish today's needs today and yet allows flexibility for future development. This recommendation honors Oregon Pioneer Savings' request to remain on .„ its present site, Thus, overall land acquisition costs are reduced in ,.he final recommen.4ation. The Finance subcommittee recommendation further eliminates the commercial space, retains the main fire station on its present site, and accomplishes this for $5 million. i 3. Design Subcommittee • • Rob Barrentine of Barrentine, Bates and Lee emphasized the importance of the interplay between the subcommittees, contributing to the coordination of the effort and easy transmittal of information. He referred to goals listed on page 17 of the report which he felt crucial to the understanding of this report. Mr. Barrentine talkedabout the departmental matrix, page. l8. The original three options regarding use of Block 138 were supplemented by the architect. These can be found on pages 25-29 and 31-32, Mr. Barrentine discussed the subcommittee's thinking on each of these options, stating that the Special City Council Meeting February 14, 1984 - Page 5 • • 1 , r r main thrust of development from this three goals on page 17. The final design, Phase d1, ons agebac to the responds very specifically to the information evolved throughout th ,process by the Space Needs and Finance subcommittees, and provides a quality low maintenance building which fits the budget requirements. Parking is optimum in this design for this site. parking deck for which the ramps are accommodated bya the se 2topography. provides a Image is enhanced by the landscaping buffers along state Street "A" Avenue. There is an adequate budget to addressand conservation concerns. energy Dennis Brun Brun, Moreland, Christopher, described the work as an outstanding solution to a very difficult problem e difficult site. Space projections are difficult to assess mtoday on a Very because of changing technology, changing laws storing materials. Possibly, y > And different ways of not require any more space than is,now gbeing a population of Phase 5se000 may stand on its own now and in the future. IfPW1he II becomes I well ' necessary, there is a very easy, logical way of accommodating that growth. If commercial components come to the forefront, this plan will accommodate them. Virtually, all of the utilities in place now are saved; all major excavation is avoided; the fire station can be retained until it can be rebuilt; there are opportunities for future dialogue with Oregon Pioneer Savings for joint projects. The proposal before Council is about 24,000 square feet and $9 million less that what was discussed several years ago, and is 11,000 square feet less than if traditional office were proposed. square footage has been saved and approximately 20% of the rota commended the committee for extremely Well-donework/in0 e this stud It is Mr. Brun's opinion that Block 138 is an excellent location for a City Hall and the plan as developed can be an excellent addition to i the community. Mayor Campbell invited public comment, but there was none, Council then directed questions to various members of the City Hall Advisory Committee. In answer to Mayor Campbell's question about service levels anticipated in the future, Mr. Brun aid estimate was based on a population of 50,000, thecommittee's � � employee schedule • - which was checked With other communitiesfor level gofnservice, assuming that a stable full service level. Councilor Avery acknowledged Committee had submitted ,to the Council an excellent report, ind asked about relocation costs for the merchants on the block. t , reported that the committee is on the high side with regard ttor$/square foot, allowing some money for relocation costs. However re.roca+,ion is not a budgeted item. Items discussed by Council included: ingress and egress to the site, traffic flow, land acquisition costs, land Values ($1� interest anticipated to be earned duringa , �-1eOr cone ruct projected 3-year construction period, possible relocation of the main fire station, operating costs of a new building as compared with the present facility, accommodation and + location of leasing space, and leasing costs . The committee felt that it would not be Possible to lease space in Lake Oswego at the tate of `. $22/square ft. , and thus eliminated leasing space from the recommendation, • Special City Council Meeting February 14, 1984 Page 6 . • ' W . Effects of Phase II upon our bond rating was questioned. With constant debt and a growing base, our capacity grows as well. The cost of moving • the fire station is not included. An explanation was the $75/square foot estimate in relation to today's marn ing • ket (medium high) . Assumptions were that it would be be a steel structure, using a thermal pre-cast shell, reasonable quality materials appropriate for a public structure, slightly higher in cost to reduce the general overall maintenance. Length of construction time was questioned. Discussion of the concept of City Hall as or followed. The desirability of locating theaCityrt fHall an ainhthedEastoEndnt Design District to encourage other development WAS discussed as was the e ' '•, possibility of members of CHAC serving on a subsegUent committee to evaluate other sites. CHAC's consensus was that this report may serve as a benchmark in talking with developers and with which any other project might be compared, Councilor Schlenker thanked the Committee for inclusion of previous City Hall studies dating back to 1967. Mr. Harvey explained at Councilor Avery's request how other communities have made use of federal revenue sharing money in financing public buildings. Community Development Block Grants may not be used for constructing a City Hall. Councilor Avery voiced his support investigating the pport for possibility of locating City Hall in an unused school, should one become available in a good location. The results of the CCI survey were alluded to as being of interest in determining where residents might want to see City Hall located. Moved by Councilor Roberge; seconded by Councilor Young that Council • acknowledge and accept the final report of the City Hall Advisory Committee and direct the City Manager to develop a plan of action, Councilor Avery commented that he is in favor of the report as presented but did want to see what staff would develop before Voting in favor. The motion passed With Schlenker, Young, Mayor Campbell, Woller Roberge, Holman voting 'yes' and Avery voting 'no." Mayor Campbell asked the City Manager for plans for proceeding from this report. Mr. Harvey reported on the progress of the East End Desigh District and outlined a plan for developing a Request for Proposals on the City Hall project which would integrate the two processes and could , , be used in further developing criteria for the East End Design District. Using slides of flow charts and an overhead projector, he , demonstrated to Council the modifications which he- is proposing to the process proposed by the Planning Commission. He outlined the of the RFP he would attempt to develop which would be integratedriintoers t '' the East End Design District process. He suggested owners in Block 138 as well as the School District beh contacted at the ofor ty proposals. Hopefully, by the time Council is ready to evaluate all proposals received, the Planning Commission and Council will have completed their work on the East End Design District so that A modifications to codes may be taken into consideration. For " = clarification, Councilor Schlenker summarized Mr. Harvey's suggestions as follows: 1) Council agreement is needed that the size, financial limitations, and other data recommended in the CHAC report will be the • ";; = basis of the RFP; 2) Proposals will be received from any party for City Hall, either with or without an anchor development; 3) Proposals will be considered at any location in Lake Oswego: 4) Proposals can be either special City Council Meeting ' February 14, 1984 - Page 7 ' . kn i I:„ .-.: -; public or private; 5) Proposals must be received in time for a July 30, (. 1984 decision by Council. Council agreed that the sense of the prAvi motion accepting the report of the City Hall Advisory Committee meant `' ' ' ';' 1. ., '' that it had accepted and agreed to all the parameters and data within the study. Discussion centered around the issue of whether proposals would in fact be received for any site within the City limits or whether proposals would be limited to sites within the East End Design District. it was suggested that Planning Commission's recommendation that City Hall be part of an anchor development in the East End would be part of Council's consideration in evaluating RFP's. Councilor Young commented that incentives offered to developers to include a commercial component should be part of the way the RFP is structured. Council agreed that the RFP would be developed by the City Manager with the help of a citizen advisory group and then brought back to Council for approval. ..: Mayor Campbell asked Marren Oliver, Chairman of the Planning Commission, u to step forward from the audience and comment on the Planning Commission's recommendation. Mr. Oliver stated that if more development were not received along with City Hall, then it could be located anywhere. The key issue is how to encourage development as part of the proposal for City Hall. He also told Council that the Design District, without the development, is an exercise in debate. Mr. Oliver explained the suggestions outlined in his February 1, 1984 letter to Council in f ` • which he calls , or the appointment of an ad hoc special committee to work on developing a Request for Proposals for presentation to Council by April 21. If approved, a public hearing 'could be scheduled for May , 1, with final proposals received by developers by mid—June. Mr. �,;' Oliver's suggestion was that the RFP would be best developed by citizen who are familiar with the development community, but who are not themselves developers. Mayor Campbell added that an RFP for a municipal purpose is a specific and peculiar document which must state what it is 4-, the City is seeking and what the parameters are. He added that an ad hoc committee of the nature Mr. Oliver proposes would best be responsible to the City Manager. Moved by Councilor Young; seconded by Councilor Waller that Council adopt the revised process as outlined by the City Manager, with development of the RFP scheduled for completion and presentation to Council end the public by April 21. The motion passed unanimously with Avery, Schlenker, Young, Mayor Campbell, Woller, Roberge and Holman all voting "yes. " Moved by Councilor Avery; seconded by Councilor Woller that the city Manager be authorized to develop a Request for Proposals and to appoint a committee to aid in this development. The motion passed unanimously 4 with Avery, Schlenker, Young, Mayor Campbell, Woller, Roberge and Holman all Voting "yes. " Councilor Young indicated his thought that the RFP has to clearly indicate how the stimulation of redevelopment is to be evaluated by council in making its final determination, particularly in light of the fact that the School District will be invited to submit proposals. Special City Council Meeting February 14, 1984 - Page 8 � ' .r , �r y arm � y .. .. d.• , Yt. • J . Vi. ALJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 p.m. • sU, Y W k.' D poly City Recorder APPROVED Y CO0 IL• '•••Q 4../ 64' {11L/(//K4 'Ir l Mayor 0009M • iN • • 1 1 x) 11111 1 , r • Special City Council Meeting • February 14, 1984 - Page 9 • tih 1 1 1 . • �tr • • • • •• JF • 0 ,. • • 1 M •,4 b. •1 • • • • • • • • • T • .. y .. . . .. . .. . . . . . . . 4 . • 1 .. , . .,• . . • . . ... i., I . .. , . . .. . . • s ;> ry' y STAFF REPORT t,. ar ' CITY OF LAK.. .,N'i .1 OSWEGO LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION ----- APPLICANT: FILE NO. : OTAK, Inc . DR 1-83 (Mod . ' 1-88 ) • •p' PROPERTY OWNER: STAFF: Birtcher Properties Robert Galante LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATE OF REPORT: Tax Lots 101 and 200 of July 15 , 1988 Tax Map 2 lE 5AA, (Clack. Cty. ) ; DATE OF HEARING: Block 10 of Mult. Cty. Tax Maps 4226 & 4227 July 27 , 1988 LOCATION: NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: ' •J Northwest Intersection of Mt. Park Boones Ferry Rd. and • y • Monroe Parkway COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DESIGNATION: • Neighborhood Commercial NG' • (NC) a . APPLICANT' S REOUEST i. ' The applicant is requesting approval to modify an ` # • •: existing shopping center by revising the building ' signage, building colors, access and landscaping . The n,Th applicant also plans to implement a wetland enhancement plan for the site located at the northwest • intersection of Boones Ferry Road and Monroe parkway, • The changes affect condition #2 ( regarding access ) of the original approval (DR 1-83 , Exhibit 17) . . ' t E. n OR 1-83 (Mo�3 , 1-88 •,�', ' " ''ll•�17 ' • Page 1 of 8 8 I ' , y. II . APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: '.: Commercial Areas , VII-B, Monroe/Boones Ferry Site, page 118 Natural Resources Policy Element, pages 27-58 Wildlife Habitat Policies, page 31 Distinctive Natural Area Policies , pages 32-35 Wetlands, pages 50-52 Open Space Land Use Policy Element, pages 126-138 B. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Code: LOC 48 . 300-48 . 315 Commercial Districts LOC 48 . 530 Vision Clearance • "'• C. City o' Taake Oswego Sion Code: LOC Chapter 47 Signs J °' D. City of Lake Oswego Development Ordinance: , LOC 49 . 090 (A,D) Applicability of Development Standards LOC 49 . 300-49 . 315 Major Development Procedures u ''~ LOC 49 . 615 Criteria for Approval LOC 49 . 620 Conditional Approvals E. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: ' 2 . 020 Building Design 4 . 020 Wetlands 5 . 020 Street Lights 9 . 020 Landscaping, Screening and 11 . 020 Buffering Drainage Standard for Major Development 18 ,. 020 Access Standard 19 . 020 Site Circulation - Private Streets 'Driveways { 20 , 020 Site Circulation Bikeways and Walkways '. :• .'.. ' III FINDINGS ' ' A. Background: > , xr; , Y 1 , The 'Towne Square at Mt. Park Shopping Center was approved by the City in 1983 after * " s, ; challenges heard by the State Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) , The City ' s decision, ^1 I Y nr ;Ir DR 1-83 (Mod , 1-88 ) ' Page 2 of 8 3 iI regarding the center , is illustrated in the ,r ;:.;.. Findings for DR 1-83 (Exhibit 17) which lists seven conditions of approval . Condition #2 reads as follows: 2 . That the access from Boones Ferry Road be restricted to entrance only for customers , that the driveway access to the parking lot be one lane and that service vehicles existing on Boones Ferry Road be allowed a right turn only. 2 . The center was approved to be constructed with a total of 116 , 535 sq, ft. of floor area to be used for office, service and retail commercial activities . 3 . Parking is provided which exceeds Code requirements . An existing wetland is preserved at the southeast corner of the site. The facility is currently accessed from Monroe Parkway and also has a one-way outlet on , � ' Boones Ferry Road . 1:. 4 . The site currently has all necessary public 1;1 facilities and services required by the City. The proposed improvements will not require . expansion of services to the site. l., ',. ; 5 . The applicant will provide public easements over the existing storm drainage system as requested by City staff . This will occur during the construction document phase following a review of as-built drawings on file with the City. These easements were not obtained by the City after the initial construction. 6 ., The property included in this request is 13 . 30 acres in size and is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Boones Ferry Road and Monroe Parkway in Lake Oswego, It zoned neighborhood commercial and is part of ` Phase IV of the overall Mountain Park Planned Unit Development. 7 . Adjacent land uses include condominiums to the west, condominiums and a commercial area to the south, single family residences to the north, undeveloped land to the northeast, and ,. single family homes across Boones Ferry to the east. The property is partially in Clackamas ' , County and mostly in Multnomah County, A OR 1-83 (Mod, l-68) t • Page 3 of 8 .. ... . T .,1. .. ..r•.� " r ' th :a . 8 . Additional site conditions are described in the applicant ' s narrative (Exhibit 3 ) , the wetland reports (Exhibits 14 and 15 ) and the Transportation Impact Analysis (Exhibit 16) . The existing buildings and site improvements are illustrated on the site plan (Exhibit 4 ) and in the building elevations (Exhibits 6 and 7) . The enc.ire record of DR 1-83 is also , adopted as support for the Board ' s decision. B. Compliance with Criteria for Approval: 1 . City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Clan Comprehensive Plan Policies for natural resources, wildlife habitat, dist,lltctive natural areas, wetlands , and open space that are applicable to the proposed weLland enhancement are implemented by the Wetland Development Standard . Compliance with that standard is addressed elsewhere in this report. Commercial Land Use Policies for the Monroe/Boones Ferry site are implemented by LOC 48 . 315 (7) which is listed in the following section of this report. 2, City of Lake Oswego Zoning Code a . LOC 48 . 315 (7) - Monroe/Boones Ferry Site 0 ,` , '--; No change to existing uses are proposed. The project will continue to comply with the -use and intensity restrictions of this section. b, LOC 48 . 530 Vision Clearance - , a The applicant has demonstrated that adequate vision will exist at the new access location on Boones Ferry Road (see Transportation r, Impact Analysis, Exhibit 16 ) . 4,. 3 . City of Lake Oswego Sign Code (Chapter 47) Th e original design g proposed for the shopping A' center illustrated that all tenant signage would be located under the canopy (within the �.. arcade) of the building, This proposal for exposed neon tube signage under the canopy was approved, The applicant now proposes a 2 ' sign band on the building facade (see Exhibits r'- 6 , 7 and 10) , The proposed signage is allowed DR 1-83 (Mod, 1-88 ) Page 4 of 8 0 ) . 1r' by Code and can be approved . Signage is also ,, proposed under the canopy, where the ceiling ;o' will be raised, to allow pedestrians to locate tenant spaces . This signage, where not visible from parking lot or off-site areas, is not regulated by the Sign Code. If it were visible, it could comply with the "directional sign" requirements of the Code. The staff recommends that proposed signage will improve the appearance of the shopping center and should be approved . 4 . City of Lake Oswego Development Ordinance a . LOC 49 . 090 (A,D) - Applicability of Development Standards The applicant ' s plans only involve changes to landscaping , p g , access , pedestrian circulation, building signage and the wetland. Only the standards regulating those activities apply. No expansion is proposed. Y• b. LOC 49 . 315 - Application Completeness The applicant has submitted a complete application. Exhibits to support the applicant ' s request are listed at the end of this report. A development schedule has not been submitted. A final schedule can be required prior to issuance of building • permits. • 5 . City of Lake Oswego Development Standards v ya The applicable development standards have been addressed by the applicant ' s narrative (Exhibit 3 ) . Only those areas where ' additional discussion or evidence is necessary, or those areas where compliance with the standards have not been demonstrated are addressed below: Building Design ( 2 . 020) The applicant has provided adequate evidence to demonstrate compliance with this standard. Revised building colors are shown in Exhibit 18 . The staff recommends that the Board can adopt the findings listed by the applicant on ' : f pages 5 and 6 of the narrative (Exhibit 3 ) as . support for their decision. DR 1-83 (Mod , 1-88) • Rage 5 of 8 •,ifs t � .: Wetlands (4 . 020 ) The applicant has provided a wetland enhancement plan which will increase diversity ti and ultimately create a more valuable wetland . The plan was conceived in order to open up some view of the shopping center from the intersection of Boones Ferry Road and Monroe ; Parkway (see Photos, Exhibit 13 ) . The ,. . ` wetlands plan (Exhibit 5) illustrates a variety of emergent and wetland compatible plantings chosen to provide food , cover and nesting opportunities for wildlife , In „ addition, more standing water will he available to increase diversity . Viewpoints with interpretive signage is planneA as well . . The applicant has demonstrated compliance with the Wetland Standard in the written narrative , (Exhibit 3 ) . The applicant should comply with :: any conditions of a permit which may be required by the Division of State Lands (see Exhibit 19 ) . Street Lights (5 . 0201 The applicant has not listed Street Lights as an applicable standard because no changes to street lighting are proposed; however , the new 0 , ... ' ' access to Boones Ferry Road may require a new light at the driveway intersection with the road. This should be provided if necessary to meet City standards. a }Landscaping ( 9 . 020 ) , The applicant has demonstrated compliance with this standard in the written narrative • (Exhibit 3 , pages 9-11 ) . Final plans illustrating the additional trees to be .!anted in planting areas near the buildings and revised plaza landscaping should be submitted for review. Irrigation plans should be submitted prior to the issuance of building . , permits . Drainage ( 11. 020) x. The applicant has illustrated that the modifications will not affect the function or • the capacity of the drainage system Easements for maintenance access to public Facilities will be provided to the City, . DR 1-83 (Mod, l-88 ) Page 6 of 8 Y V, M h 1 e , Access C13 . 020) The applicant proposes to construct a new access from Boones Ferry Road to the site. The access design illustrated in the site plan (Exhibit 4 ) is supported by a Transportation '.. Impact Analysis (Exhibit 16) . The plan complies with the recommendations of the ;; transportation analysis and complies with the City Access Standard . Final street improvement and access design plans should be cr submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval . Site Circulation - Private Streets ( 19 . 020 ) The applicant ' s narrative CExhibik 3 ) and plans demonstrate compliance with this Standard . Site Circulation - Bikeways and Walkways • ( 20. 020) The applicant is proposing to provide a 5 ' wide concrete walkway along Boones Ferry Road as originally anticipated for future construction. In addition, a walkway will .Y allow viewing of the wetland and additional pedestrian connection to the buildings . The proposal complies with this Standard. w " IV. CONCLUSION The applicant has demonstrated that the project complies with the applicable regulations to the extent that approval con be granted with conditions , ' V. RECOMMENDATION ', 1 The staff recommends that DR 1-83 (Mod. l-88) , eliminating original condition 42 , can be approved with the following conditions which Fhall be satisfied prior to the :.ssuance of permits: I 1 , A final development schedule shall be submitted for the review and approval of staff . 2 . Street lighting at the new access from Boones Ferry Road shall be provided , as necessary, to comply with the Street Lighting Standard . DR 1-83 (Mod , 1-88 ) • page 7 of 8 . . 3 . A final landscape plan showing the additional ' ' trees to be planted and the revised plaza design shall be submitted for the review and approval of staff . u r , 4 . An irrigation plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of staff. • 5 . Final street improvement plans and access design shall be submitted for the review and approval of the City Engineer . 6 . The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with any permit requirements of the Division of State Lands . • . Exhibits 1 . Site Location Map ' 2 . Vicinity Map4110 3 . Applicant' s Narrative 4 . Site Plan 5 . Wetlands Plan • 6 . East Elevation 7 . South Elevation 8 . Paint Legend, 2 pages 9 . Arcade Perspective 10 . Arcade Elevation 11 . Plaza Plan 12 , View Analysis Plan • 13 . View Analysis Photos, 2 pages • 14 . Wetland Report - 1988 • 15 . Wetland Report - 1983 16 . Transportation Impact Analysis 17 . Portion of DR 1-83 Findings , Conclusions and Order f. ' 18 . Color Samples * 19 . Division of State Lands Letter of July 14 , 1988 • • • * Not reproducible 4. DR 1-83 (Mod. 1-88 ) �• Page 8 of 8 •• BEFORE TEIE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD - OF THE • CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF i, MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE) DR 1-83 (Mod. ' 1-88 ) -589 (Towne Square at Mt. Park) TOWNE SQUARE AT MT. PARK ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER SHOPPING CENTER ) a, -` NATURE OF APPLICATION -^ The applicant is requesting approval to modify an existing -- shopping center by revising the building signage, building -- colors , access and landscaping . The applicant also plans to implement a wetland enhancement plan for the site located at the northwest intersection of Boones Ferry Road and Monroe Parkway, The changes affect Condition #2 (regarding access ) of the original approval for the shopping center located at the = northwest intersection of Boones Ferry Road and Monroe Parkway (Block 10 of Multnomah County Maps # 4226 and 4227) . y -I-. f ' �l HEARINGS 11 The Development Review Board held a public hearing and considered 1- this application at its meeting of July 27, 1988 . CRITERIA AND STANDARDS __• A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plant Commercial Areas, VII-B, Monroe/Boones Ferry Site, • page 118 • 3� Natural Resources Policy Element, pages 27-58 __ Wildlife Habitat Policies, page 31 Distinctive Natural Area Policies, pages 32-35 -- Wetlands, pages 50-52 _ Open Space Land Use Policy Element, pages 126-138 • • 1 DR 1-83 (Mod . 1-88) ., �. EXHIBIT • 4" • DR i-C11 1 e+ ti l y, ' i V $ V l� B. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Code: . • LOC 48 . 300-48 . 315 Commercial Districts LOC 48 .530 Vision Clearance wi C. City of Lake Oswego Sign Code: LOC Chapter 47 Signs D. City of Lake Oswego Development Ordinance: LOC 49 . 090 (A,D) Applicability of Development Standards -- LOC 49 . 300-49 . 315 Major Development Procedures ' _, LOC 49 . 615 Criteria for Approval LOC 49 . 620 Conditional Approvals • - E. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards : 2. 020 Building Design 4 . 020 Wetlands N mmrW 5. 020 Street Lights -r 9. 020 Landscaping, Screening and . , Buffering 11. 020 Drainage Standard for Major -5 Development 18 . 020 Access Standard _: 19 . 020 Site Circulation - Private 4110 " 1.-.'.' . Streets/Driveways _� 20. 020 Site Circulation - Bikeways and Walkways ., -•- CONCLUSION The Development Review Board concludes that DR 1-83 (Mod. ' 1- -- 88) can be made to comply with all applicable criteria by . y.: the application rf certain conditions. } R a FINDINGS AND REASONS . The Development Review Board incorporates the July 15 , 1988 K staff report on DR 1-83 (Mod . ' 1-88 ) as support for its x .- decision, supplemented by the following: __ 1 . At the Board ' s meeting of July 27 , 1988 , four citizens • ' �« raised concerns about the applicant ' s proposal to make ,.� modifications to the shopping center . The concerns are 2 DR 1-83 (Mod. 1-88) 0 . ' * AGE 4 Yi + W l rV '. addressed as follows: a 3 a . Three of the citizens questioned the color proposed • for the back (north elevation) of the shopping enter 4 • since it would be visible from their homes. The 5 Board found that the applicant had demonstrated that • the color palate (Exhibit 18) would not detract from �`4 7 the existing complementary relationship between the ; s . 8 shopping center ' s form and overall proportions with .. l respect to adjacent structures of •good design. No changes to the structure were proposed. The Board 11 also found that the color proposed for the rear of 1. -' the shopping center would not contrast with the 13 earth-tone residences to the north. The applicant ' s 14 architect provided a larger color sample (Exhibit 15 28) which illustrated that the color proposed for 18 the north elevation was not bright or glaring. 1, b. Two of the citizens stated that they did not believe , 18 the applicant had demonstrated that the shopping „M l9 center would function as a neighborhood facility and " , 20 that it would have the appearance of serving a much . \ _1 larger geographic area . The Board found that the applicant proposed no changes that would affect :3 compliance with the City' s Zoning Code and that the • _11 shopping center remained in full compliance with LOC • a 48 . 315 (7) which regulates the use and size of the �► k{ 5 center . c. Two of the citizens raised questions concerning them . :S. maintenance of landscaping and the need to keep , unwanted q people from walking through the landscaping 5 between the residential area and the shopping 31 center , The applicant testified that landscaping would be maintained and enhanced and that with aL 3.3 additional tenants at the center, security would be IA.. ' • a 3 DR l-83 (Mod , 1-88) PAGE b lr all d . One of the citizens believed that the realigned and ` '• • I . _ reconfigured access to Boones Ferry Road would cross a portion of the wetland. The Board found that the �' ' - driveway would cross an area that is presently lawn p with some trees that were planted along with the development ,,L the shopping center . The proposed driveway twould not encroach into or modify the ` boundary of the protected area that contains both �• wetland and upland features. +„' e. One citizen questioned whether new buildings would ;r be constructed on the property. The Board stated . __ that they were not approving any additional future n• , ` 13 development as part of this application. _ Applications for additional buildings would be _w reviewed as separate items, if, and when they were F proposed. - 2 . The staff indicated that another citizen had called and -5 asked the Board to insure that signing at the -p interpretive stations around the wetland include -� information about the importance �-of staying out of the -y wetland. Based on the applicant' s testimony and the Wetland Enhancement Plan (Exhibit 5) , the Board found _ that the combination of barrier plantings and signage l_ would minimize any disturbance of the wetland . 1 3 . The Board questioned the applicant about the proposed o -w circulation for trucks on the property. After testimony -- from the applicant ' s traffic engineer , the Board found • �: _�, the applicant ' s proposal satisfactory and that no ,E' additional conditions were necessary to control truck e . '.: access and circulation. ' ORDER ,� .. 33 IT IS ORDERED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD of the City Of , ! Lake Oswego that: 4 DR 1-83 (Mod. 1-88) PAGE I a ` `uf i,. m '•; N 1 w A. DR 1-83 (Mod . ' 1-88) , eliminating original condition #2 , 1• is approve.i subject to compliance with the conditions of approval set forth in Subsection B of this Order . ,'. '. B. The conditions for DR 1-83 (Mod. ' 1-88) are as follows: The following conditions shall be satisfied prior to Q ° the issuance of permits: 1. A final development schedule shall be submitted for the review and approval of staff. 2 . Street lighting at the new access from rioones "' . . _ Ferry Road shall be provided , as necesselry, to -.. comply with the Street Lighting Si,andar, t1 , 3 . A final landscape plan showing the additional - trees to be planted and the revised plaza design shall be submitted for the review and approval of "� staff . 4 . An irrigation plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of staff . . 5 . Final street improvement plans and access desig�i 'a,. -~ shall be submitted for the review and approval of .a the City Engineer . b" 6 . The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with . any permit requirements of the Division of State Lands . l r -y n. WO ' r r ' ., L M 3 V • . \ . ••••••• ..L w� • • le 41110 . 5 DR 1-83 (Mod . l--88) "; rAvr, w r .. ti •'e C ! ., 4 y , 14. r M� 1 1 ' , ., r /. yP I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by — the Development Review Board of the City of Lake Oswego. N' 4p9 ' _ DATED this •*' 1st _.__ day of „ st , 1988 . d• 4Sa ` - 4, 1,1n G . 0,...e.__. ..,. , . ,,,. . . . , ,.. James A. Miller, Cho rman Development Review Board .4„.e. ,_t_e_.„4 -- Se et ry t;,. w , , f., ., ATTEST: ' Z ORAL DECISION - July 27, 1988 3• ,4$ ' �_ AYES: Miller , Zinsli, Martindale, Swillinger, Greaves, Ingrim NOES: None A ABSTAIN: None �_ ABSENT: Foster -- WRITTEN FINDINGS - August 1, 1988 1 AYES : Miller, Zinsli, Martindale, Ingrim, Gri.aves, Swillinger NOES : Nine ABSTAIN: Foster -- ABSENT: None ".4 ." 4 4111 • 6 DR 1-83 (Mod, 1-88) PAxE •° • • • . 1 tl i , • CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES 4f..P0 �. July 27, 1988 I . CALL TO ORDER The Development Review Board meeting of July 27 , 1988 was called to order by Chairman Miller at 7 : 30 p.m. • II . ROLL CALL " . Board members present were Mr . Miller , Mr . Swillinger , Mr . J Ingrim, Mr . Martindale, Mr . Zinsli and Mr . Gr, oaves . Mr . Foster was excused . Also present were Robert Galante , Senior Planner ; Cindy Phillips , Deputy City Attorney; and Joyce Faltus , Secretary. III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - None • TV, PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS - None • V. PUBLIC HEARINGS ` , ': DR 1-83 (Mod. 1-88) , a request by OTAK, Inc. for approval to modify an existing shopping center by revising building signage, building colors, access and landscaping. :The ` •. . applicant also plans to implement a wetland enhancement plan for the site located at the northwest intersection of Boones Ferry Road and Monroe Parkway (Tax Lot 101 and 200 of Tax Map 2 lE 5AA and Block 10 of Multnomah County Tax Maps # 4226 and 4227) . ti Robert Galante presented the staff report . He submitted Exhibit 20 , a letter from the Mt. Park Homeowners • Association approving the remodeling of the Towne Square shopping center , and Exhibit 21 , a letter signed by ten tenants of the shopping center expressing approval of the proposal , and another letter supporting the application from Carribee. Salon. Mr . Galante noted his telephone conversation with citizens who were concerned about the wetlands , the signage, and the building colors . He explained that the Mt. Park Homeowners Association has given its approval of the color scheme and that the Board reviews color , to the extent necessary to determine if the • DRB Minutes 7/27/88 • Page 1 of 6 EXHItit 4, 51-1 . , . rc. , project is complementary with nearby buildings . Staff received a call from Wilma McNulty, requesting that the 1'`' signage along the wetland area include wording which would r .. explain what damage and/or impact human entry into the wetland could cause. Mr . Galante stated that staff recommended approval of the proposal with six conditions , which he reviewed. t Chairman Miller explained the hearing procedures and the time limits for testimony. Applicant Mason Frank, Birtcher Properties stated he was very excited about converting the shopping center so that it would be a major contribution to the Lake Oswego community. Mr . Frank explained the four major existproblems that currently with the center : 1. Visual access - the site is virtually impossible to see from the road. View corridors will be created through the wetlands area and a wetlands e program established, providing the opportunityctoent experience the wetland without intruding in the wetlands protected area . 2. Physical access - the site has only one access point Y • with poor visual access , which provides very poor circulation to and from the site. "7 3 . Very little signage/tenant identification - Mr . Frank 1 explained the importance of the proposed signage program. 4 . The center has a drab physical a unfinished, ppearance and appears Mr . Frank described the kind of warm, friendly, village- type atmosphere he envisioned for the center , He explained that the color accents for the project are being designed around the roof that presently exists . The lighting, signage and design for the arcade was discussed , To better identify the tenants, Mr , Frank described the signage plans ( logo strips ) along the facade of the • buildings . He explained that Birtcher plans to reactivate the fountain/waterfall, to provide an inviting access into that courtyard area , with seating, trees, etc. He further , . ; :� described the landscape enhancement plans for the wetlands area and around the clocktower , �'° • h DRB Minutes 7/27/88 Page 2 of 6 . • . i Opponents Tom Arestad, 12537 S.W. 27th Place stated that as a " ; 1a neighborhood commercial center, the Towne Squire Shopping Center presently meets the needs of people within a two mile radius . He stated that people are well aware of the shopping center and of the tenant stores. He added that the developer was trying to change it into a highway commercial center to lure impulse sho pers . When center was first proposed the perireterr and boundary eof the wetlands was studied with great care. He questioned the need to enhance the wetlands by putting a road across it. Chairman Miller explained that the wetland area is clearly defined and definitely not where the road was proposed to `'% be built. • Gene Meyer, 12434 S.W. 27th Place asked whah ran be done • to make this shopping center more successful than • Mercantile Village, which has two separate 4-lane accesses and is having economic problems. He is also concerned about trucks using the same new access road that cars would be using. Mr . Meyer further stated that the neighborhood has certain requirements to conform to certain color schemes and that the color scheme of the side of the center facing their homes presently clashes �a ,j ti� with that requirements . Additionally, Mr . Meyer asked that the three newly proposed buildings be discussed . Mr . , KX . Meyer asked if there were plans to install fencing or provide a security guard. He said the neighbors are very concerned about the security issue. There is presently no problem with the center ' s lighting system and Mr . Meyer questioned whether additional lighting would be intrusive. Sophia Dyer, 12510 S.W. 27th Place stated that her concerns concur with Mr . dditionally, she y' Meyer ' s..questioned how this center could compete with Mercantile • `. . Village which is, located at a major intersection , with easy access to I-5 . Ms . Dyer also questioned the kinds of services , businesses and customers the area was trying to . attract, as this would hate a major impact on this family- oriented community. • ;,� Bette Ward, 2704 S.W. Orchard E Iill Lane stated that she +; fully supports all of the foregoing testimony. Additionally, her home is 80 feet from the north side of this center and, therefore, the color on the north side of the building is of vital concern, Ms . • Ward stated she is concerned that the buffer at the end of the parking lot, adjacent to her home, will hardly serve its purpose as a ; •: 0r < ORB Minutes 7/27/88 Page 3 of 6 ,�yyam� _ v •. _ .. .. .... T . V a buffer due to its lack of growth. The securityalong area is also of that a ea is alsomigh greatbe concern also and Ms. Ward suggested appropriate. 0 :;*t, ': r M'• Rebuttal Mason Frank addressed three issues: 1 . Sec urity - Mr . Frank stated that security is a main concern and that they are very active owner/ developers who want to protect their investment. Presently the center is under foreclosure bank, being en absentee owner, is therefore nless d e concerned with the security issue. Mr . Frank stated ..4-7�Ir; , he would work with the citizens regarding the fence/security issue. ; 2 . Access and circulatiorafficn study showed that less impact proper oMonroecess U Parkway. • 3 . Color - Mr. Frank explained that they' ve inherit color scheme and that if the color on the north side is of concern to the neighbors, he would certainly work with them. A sample of the earthtone color proposed for the rear of the buildings was submit ted as Exhibit 22. Dan Seaman Kittleson Associates, explained redesign of the entranct_ the planned 9 northbound left turneSs, which has an exclusive pocket. The main entrance would require elimination of some parking spaces to allow proper storage at the entrance. The present egress has extreme bad sight distance to the north, and closure is Trucks would 1 generally enter on the south from Boones proposed . Ferry and use Monroe Parkwayto back the buildings. go around to the back of Mr. Frank further stated that they want to enhance the community and provide services that the community wants and deserves. With regard to truck access, he added that truck deliveries are infrequent and can easily be scheduled . Except for lighting the City the new intersection, Mr . Frank stated thatgtheht ronlire at with regard to lighting are in the arcade itself, y plans With no further testimony, the public portion of the meeting was closed for Board deliberation. 4, I • . . ....., DRS Minutes 7/27/88 Page 4 of 6 j y ' , , • , Regarding the addition of a traffic signal at the new access , Mr. Seaman stated that traffic volumes indicate "' . the area would operate at an acceptable level of service and that warrants do not indicate that an additional traffic signal is necessary. He further added that truck s ' ' schedules would be determined by the center ' s tenants and planned for off-peak hours when the traffic volume is • lowest. ` Mr . Galante added that there are new building sites r , indicated on page 19 of the site plan. He suggested the Board state, in the Findings, that this approval in no way endorses any future buildings or expansion of the Center , as those areas are not part of the request. With no further testimony, the public portion of the hearing was closed for Board deliberation. r :,,• Issues Discussed: * ;: • r 1 . The Board agreed that the applicant adequately addressed the concerns about the wetland issues, in that there would be no significant impact to the existing wetlands . 2. The Board agreed the applicant has dc,ne a fine job by helping the community salvage the facility and make it a ° a positive force. 3 . The Beard discussed the access from the residential area and felt the security problems are mostly due to the low vacancy rate; that as the center becomes more active, there will be less security problems. 4 . The Board agreed that traffic safety would be improved r by closing the old access road. Y 5 . The Board agreed that the earthtone color would be used, as opposed to the yellow color , ong the� buildings . Mr. Ingrim moved for approval of DR 1-83 (Mod.1-88) pursuant to the recommendations of staff . In addition, he added that this approval in no way endorses any future buildings or expansion of the Center , as such issues are not od ait pat f the request . Mr. Zinsli seconded the motion carrieda with Mr . Miller , Mr. Zinsli , Mr . Ingrim, Mr . Martindale, Mr . Swillinger and Mr . Greaves voting yes , .. , DRB Minutes 7/27/88 M Page 5 of 6 • • r ' , .. r 1 d • VI . OTHER BUSINESS - Findings, Conclusions and Order • Mr. Greaves moved for approval of DR 9-88/PD 9-88 Findings, Conclusions and Order with the modification on page 2, line 32, that staff will bring the plans to the Board. Mr. Martindale seconded the motion and it carried with Mr . Miller, Mr . Martindale, Mr . Greaves and Mr . Swillinger voting yes. Mr . Zinsli and Mr . Ingrim • \v: abstained. J r VII . ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Development Review Board, the meeting adjourned at 10 : 00 p.m. Respectfully submitted , oyce A. Faltut Secretary • •'1 • • ' • DRB Minutes 7/27/88 ' Page 6 of 6 • h a 4 + ,a • , t: . I3I RICHE R Partners In America's Progress tor 50 Years rune 4, 1991 i Mr. Robert A. Galante City Planner City of Lake Oswego :•SO "AI Ave. ' . —aKe Oswego, OR 97035 DR 1-91/SD 7-91/VAR 10-91 Building "D" at Oswego Towne Square 'ear Bob: .ith consideration of the concerns raised at the May 20, 1991 public hearing, we asked Tie traffic consultant to perform an actual traffic count of the current conditions and .: compare it to the May 1988 report and the March 1991 update which was included in ;gyp application. We have attached a copy of their report for your consideration and .e�idence for our rebuttal at the June 17, 1991 public hearing. ou may call Dan Seaman or Andrew Mortenson at Kittelson and Associates or me if you `lave any questions. _ ncerely, • T=R T CHER FRANK PROPERTIES i ei D. Lewis, P.E. ^: i. :e President G :Instruction .,-.`km/Gen//33/061 .. L id losure k _ Mason Frank Tom Kuhn File; Bldg, "D" - DRB r 410EXHIBIT • Sp gs- • P . t112.. 1—CH ri • 1 iii,i.et.,,,k Ij•:trt... Irair,i,,Ie Li.it i `sti ensl .• i I . . . • E ..: ASSOCIATES, INCKITTELSON & ' ' . TRANSPORTATION PLANNING/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING { \ 610 611 ALDER SJ Td'„.p RT u N 7 eAN� viRF_ D 9'�?J6•(503� 26 511<(;,•Fl+),;5C3 2'3•8169 May 31, 1991 Project No.: 527.00 Mr. Ken Lewis - Birtcher Frank Properties - One Centerpointe Drive, Suite 300 .- Lake Oswego, OR 97035 SUBJECT: Towne Square at Mountain Park Shopping ' Traffic Impact Analysi8 Update Center , Dear Mr, Lewis: Pursuant to your conversation with Dan Seeman, Kittelson & Associates, Inc, has reviewed the traffic analysis which was conducted for the Towne Square at Mountain Park Shopping Center in May, 1988; and subsequent analysis assessing traffic conditions • relevant to the recent proposed land use changes summarized in our letter dated March 14, 1991, This letter addresses the adequacy of the original report and updated letter in assessing traffic conditions, in light of the more recent proposed land use changes and \ ;.;', development. The May 1988 study considered the full occupancy of buildings which at that time were vacant, This amounted to a total oc 28,100 gross square were retail related and 16,100 of which were office related, In addition,the study of which considered the traffic impacts of three yet-to-be constructed buildings, ` hose buildings were each assumed to be 4,000 gross square feet in size, and for traffic analysis purposes were assumed to be a drive-in bank, a convenience market and a general retail, • Revised plans, provided by Birtcher Frank in March 1991, indicated that in place of the originally proposed three new buildings, a single 9,000 gsf building is proposed, This . `'. building is to be located immediately west of the Monroe Parkway driveway to the center, This building is intended to be used for,• ' ' general retail purposes (i.e. clothing merchandise) ., • or as a medical office building, Also, a 6,000 gsf building for daytime child care use would be added in the northwest corner of the center, The May 1988 traffic analysis concluded that the then-proposed shopping center • expansion could be constructed with minimal adverse impacts on the surrounding road system. The study further recommended that the relocated access should be equipped with a northbound left turn lane on Boones Ferry Road, With this improvement, the new ' slit pping center entrance would operate at an acceptable level of service "D" with the projected traffic to be added by full occupancy of all existing buildings and the then- proposed three additional buildings, This improvement has since been installed, thereby 0 -..• , • .., . , n _l 4' p' .Y. 1111111111111111111111111111 e b• •It . Mr. Ken Lewis May 31, 1991 . Page 2 thereby providing the projected acceptable service levels at site driveways and at the Monroe Parkway/Boones Ferry Road intersection. %o The purpose of this letter is to compare the traffic impact of the center on the surrounding road system, in light of the revised development plan and the addition of a 6,000 gsf child care facility located in the northwest corner of the shopping center site, Specifically, this plan substitutes a single 9,000 gsf building for the three buildings totaling 12,000 gsf, and ` adds a total of 6,000 gsf building space for the daytime child care facility, • •' ., Updated Traffic Counts ' '-; • This study updates the base traffic count data from the May 1988 study with counts r 7 ' '\ performed in May 1991. Approach volumes at the Boones Ferry Road/Monroe Parkway intersection have grown slightly over 2 percent in the past three years, from a total of 1080 vehicles in 1988 to 1105 vehicles in 1991. Given the typical variation in traffic volumes from day to day, this minor increase may be considered insignificant, Even so, the traffic analysis that follows uses the updated counts. -: - Trip Generation In the original study, an average weekday p.m. peak hour was determined to be the most , critical hour for the adjacent roadway system. During this hour, the previously assumed new buildings would generate an estimated 415 vehicle trips (see Table 1), ap$rwdmately one-half of which would be entering and one-half would be exiting. As shown in Table 1, the combination of a 9,000 gsf general retail store and 6,000 gsf child care facility would generate an estimated 204 new p.m. peak hour trips. This f'ssumes the worst-case condition that the trips generated by the new child care facility are all now trips, with no n portion of"pass-by" trips identified that were already in the original mainstream traffic flow on Boones Ferry Road or Monroe Parkway, Thus, the revised development plan for the property will result in a reduction of approximately 2.10 p.m, peak hour vehicle trips � • over thepreviouslyproposed uses, The revised uses will generate approximately one-half ' as many p.m. peak hour trips as those previously proposed, . . Traffic Impacts ` The May 1988 traffic analysis showed that all intersections in the vicinity of the site '`` would operate at acceptable service levels during an average weekday p.m. peak hour, The results of the level of service analysis from the May 1988 study at these intersections ,, are shown in Table 2. Based on updated traffic counts, and the most conservative trip r' generation estimates of the currently proposed uses that includes the 9,000 gsf general • retail and 6,000 gsf child care facility, level of service was calculated at the same intersections as in the May 1988 study, These results are also given in Table 2, The ` • results show that traffic operations at all intersections in the vicinity of the site will ''' 0 remain at acceptable service levels, • • • II 0l t 1 • Mr. Ken Lewis May 31, 1991 • to Page 3 • 410 • ,•'' • TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON P.M. Peak Hour •y4 ' ......1.® As Previously Proposed in May 1988 Study; - P.M. PEAR HOUR TRIPS �- AREA (gsf) TOTAL IN OUT Drive-In Bank 4,000 110 55 55 Convenience Market 4,000 285 145 140 General Retail 4,000 20 10 10 «: r. TOTAL: 12,000 415 210 205 < "• :'I, r. • • 84 109 1 As Currently Proposed P,M, PEAK HOUR TRIPS AREA(gsf) TOTAL IN OOUT General Retail 9,000 44 22 or 22 Medical Office 9,000 33 •.r 9 24 Child1. er 6,000 160 75 85. Care Cent ; . • TOTAL: (with Gen. Retail) 15i000 204 97 107 or '•b TOTAL' : (with Med, Office) 15,000 19+3 . . . • �.� ..,, ^ r a a . a e •41) .. , , i . . , Mr, Ken Lewis May 31, 1991 ' ' Page 4 • TABLE 2 a t LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS COMPARISON SIGNALIZED tJNSIGNALIZED r ' INTERSECTION INTERSECTION ' ? RESERVE INTERSECTION DELAY V/C LOS CAPAC ITY LOS As Previously Proposed: Boones Ferry/Monroe Pkwy 20,4 .66 C Monroe Pkwy/Shopping Center Entrance 59 E c , tr Boones Ferry/Shopping Center Entrance 104 D a LT As Currently Proposed: Boones Ferry/Monroe Pkwy 17.8 .63 C v o Monroe Pkwy/Shopping Center Entrance 140 D ` Boones Ferry/Shopping Center Entrance 134 D I trust that your concerns have been adequately addressed. Ii there are any questions or concerns that I may be able to answer please don't hesitate to call, Sincerely, • Andrew J. Mortensen Associate • attachments ',,*, ',.-'' ., , .• • .•,' ,:',t :'.'.' .....,.....::, , .':- .; .. '-.. ::: .".. .::••:•':'::.; • •..--1':' `''' '''.''' 7.4' '..' *': • „•ff• .:.,.:,-.., .', . ,.•.,;:,!..,..; '',.: ,' ',• .,,,t.: . . V • ,;",..,...-c..I." ,....• '''''; • , • ',-'''':,4 '•'':fl'...,:, ,.. 4,.., •. , ' 1' ......:...' ',' ''*, ,'''-'....'•,"•,1'''. ... .: 't• ,,',',' .,,,,,''.•*:'...,,,•r i:, .. :, :..::'•,`:....';,:.. ' ' . . t•, • I ''•'''' .r' ' . . 1. 'I'. ....,•, ‘,'... .. , ... •''' ' — , . . ..- .,' • . i. ..., . . . • . ...' . . * . . 1'.• ''''' .. , ,. . . . .. ,. n • , .. , . , 1 • • . . 1, • ' 0 . ... : .•41P, lik'' ... ' .• .St . . . . ,. .- ' . • ,.• ,, • ., , .., . . ,' • . AI 6`3 • fj 1' 1', V Q • a1 N A M y I ;1. 7 ' Y , n. i * � •Y dd . G‘ i l '' 1 .04 yv ^��'J� Ji. ti° w • • , x •