Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2009-12-07 LAKEQ_,,,, (-------*Hicio"— --\-\ A prarlq1E11, ,Jii , . ( . . r� City of Lake Oswego " ij ") I L ;. '� `"/ Development Review Commission Minutes o{�,, December 7, 2009 CALL TO ORDER Chair Alby Heredia called the Development Review Commission (DRC) meeting of December 7, 2009, to order at 7:10 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 380 "A"Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chair Alby Heredia, Vice Chair Gregg B. Creighton, Bob Needham, Frank Rossi and Peter Scott. Don Richards and Krystyna Stadnik were not present. Staff present: Hamid Pishvaie, Assistant Planning Director; Johanna Hastay, Associate Planner, Massoud Saberian, Principal Traffic Engineer; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Janice Reynolds, Administrative Support. MINUTES (None) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER LU 09-0026, a request by the City of Portland Mr. Rossi moved to approve LU 09-0026-1713 Findings, Conclusions and Order. Mr. Needham seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. PUBLIC HEARING LU 09-0029, a request by Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church for approval of the following: 1. A Conditional Use permit (CUP) for a K-8 school with 320 students; 2. A Development Review (DR) permit to construct a 56,249-square foot Parish Center (A K-8 school and Parish offices), a new parking lot, associated playfield and play structures, and site improvements; 3. Removal of 33 trees to accommodate the project. Location of property: 650, 716 and 790 A Avenue & 653 and 657 Evergreen Road (Tax Lot 8700 of Tax Map 21E 03CD and Tax Lots 13500, 13600 and 13700 of Tax Map 21E 03DC). Chair Heredia opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedure. He asked the Commissioners to report any ex parte contact, bias or conflict of interest and to identify any known present or anticipated future business relationships with the project or the applicant. Mr. Heredia and Needham each declared they had visited the site. Each of the Commissioners present declared his business or occupation: Creighton (architect); Heredia (real estate appraiser); Rossi (planning and design coordinator), Needham (retired lawyer); and Scott (engineering/design). Staff Report Johanna Hastay, Associate Planner, presented the staff report (dated November 25, 2009). A letter in the record asked the DRC to require deconstruction of the existing structures on the site. She advised code criteria did not require that. The applicant had submitted Exhibit F-17 asking for clarification of some of the staff-recommended conditions of approval. The site was in both the R-7.5 zone and the Evergreen Overlay District. Ms. Hastay described existing features on the site and pointed out the surrounding zoning and uses. She advised that the current Conditional Use Permit (CUP) allowed the existing use, but the applicant proposed to expand the intensity of the use from 240 students to 320 students. The applicant proposed to remove some existing buildings, develop a new school and Parish offices, and construct a new play field and a new parking lot with 132 parking spaces. No change was being proposed to the existing, nonconforming, church building. The application complies with the code's current 25% lot coverage limitation even though the City Council was considering allowing greater lot coverage for private schools in residential zones. It complies with all current zoning regulations, Evergreen Overlay District design standards, and meets the conditional use criteria. The applicant had responded to neighborhood concerns about traffic impacts by decreasing the proposed number of students to 320. The Evergreen Neighborhood Association (ENA) had previously submitted two letters in support of the current design, student population cap and overall project, but had just submitted another letter in opposition to the project. Ms. Hastay reported that staff found development would be reasonably compatible with the surrounding neighborhood because the church would not be changed, no new uses were proposed, and the new school and Parish offices would be in the same general area as the old school and offices. A church/school shared parking study showed the proposed parking was adequate. The site was to serve as a transition between commercial and residential uses. To achieve that dense landscaping would buffer the surrounding neighborhood from the parking lot. Mature trees along Evergreen Road were to be preserved. The parking lot along 8th Street would be below the elevation of the street and on the other side of a retaining wall and landscaping. Staff recommended capping the student population at 320 students and other conditions of approval to mitigate the impacts of increased peak hour vehicle trips. They include improvements at the 8th Street/A Avenue intersection and signal. That might necessitate removal of some angled parking spaces on 8th Street. Staff also recommended conditions of approval to ensure the development met with special criteria for school and church-related facilities related to fencing, walkways and safe access and loading. The applicant proposed an internal traffic circulation plan intended to minimize the impact on the neighborhood. It required parents to use the southerly 8th Street driveway; stack in a queue for orderly pickup; and follow timed release of exiting vehicles. Staff could support that plan if it is implemented in City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of 13 Minutes of December 7, 2009 association with the street improvements and directional signage the City Engineer called for. The recommended conditions of approval required the Parish offices to be positioned in a manner that would comply with both the A Avenue and alleyway setback requirements. Staff found the proposed design and materials appropriately related to the style of the existing landmark church and other downtown structures. But they are recommending the color of the horizontal lap siding to be changed to a more natural wood color to meet the design standards, Ms. Hastay reported the proposed tree removal met code removal criteria. Ms. Hastay concluded that the application could be made to comply with CUP standards. She advised the DRC could require future reviews of an approved CUP in order to verify continued compliance. She recommended approval of the application subject to the conditions of approval listed in the staff report, but she clarified that staff was generally in favor of the clarifying amendments outlined in the applicant's letter in Exhibit F-17. However, three conditions discussed in the letter required more discussion. The applicant suggested that the size of shrubs Condition B (6) (d) called for was atypical for the industry. But staff believed that the applicant could find appropriately sized shrubs. The applicant did not believe the survey required under Condition D (9) was necessary, but the staff position was that a final survey of the parking lot was necessary to ensure it was graded so it would drain properly. The applicant had asked for more time to demolish the old school after the new Parish Center was occupied, so staff had modified Condition E to clarify when demolition was required. During the questioning period, the Commissioners discussed the proposed traffic pattern with Mr. Saberian (see Exhibit E-19). He advised it offered significantly more vehicle storage capacity; it would keep traffic moving; it would be efficient enough to handle the additional trips generated by up to 320 students; and it would reduce backups on A Avenue. He did not yet see a need to prohibit left turns where drivers exited the site onto 8th Street. He asked the DRC to leave it up to staff to determine when signage was necessary after they had observed how the circulation pattern worked. He had not heard the applicant propose using buses. He confirmed that some diagonal parking spaces on 8th Street close to the intersection might have to be removed. He acknowledged it was possible queued cars would block parking spaces and drivers would have to allow other drivers to access them. He advised peak traffic time at the site lasted ten to fifteen minutes. Ms. Hastay clarified that a driveway from the corner of 8th Street/A Avenue to the front door of the church was an existing circular driveway connected with the church use that was typically used by disabled persons. It would not be changed. Ms. Hastay and Mr. Boone explained that the current CUP did not cap the student population because the current use had existed and been grandfathered in 1982 when the Conditional Use standards were adopted. But the request to increase the intensity of the use affected the permit. Staff had examined the additional impacts of an increase to 320 students, including additional trips, auditorium size, the number of classrooms, shared parking arrangements, the fact that the applicant planned to build the site out to that capacity over ten to fifteen years, and the fact that the City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of 13 Minutes of December 7, 2009 neighborhood association had agreed to the 320 student cap. Staff accepted that cap as long as the applicant made the improvements the City Traffic Engineer called for. Applicant Teresa Paulson, Group Mackenzie, 1515 SE Water Avenue, Ste. 100, Portland. Oregon 97214, testified that the applicant had met with the neighborhood association three times. She pointed out the ENA's September 16, 2009, letter supported the proposal. She stressed that since then the applicant had made no changes to the proposed design. She said they did not need any variances or adjustments because the proposal conformed to all current development standards. She confirmed that the applicant could agree to staff-recommended conditions of approval. Fr. Joseph McMahon 840 A Ave., Lake Oswego, OR 97034, Pastor of Our Lady of the Lake Church. testified that the Parish school had accommodated as many as 500 students in the 1950s. The proposed 320-student cap was a compromise midpoint of historic attendance. He clarified that the school had 16 classrooms in 1982, but since then the number of classrooms had been reduced to make room for uses such as a library and lab. He said the applicant wanted to build a new school with sufficient capacity to eliminate the current waiting list and accommodate future growth. They preferred to cap each class at 28 — 30 students. He clarified that the applicant did not offer pre-kindergarten classes now, but he hoped they would have one in future years. Bob Thompson and Dick Speas, Group Mackenzie. 1515 SE Water Avenue. Ste.100, Portland, Oregon 97214, presented the design. They said it met all code requirements and was the same plan they had presented to the ENA in August 2009 that the Association had previously supported. They said the buildings would be built to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) silver or gold certification standards. They stressed that uses on site would not change. The school would be in session during redevelopment. It would be located where students would have good access to the playfield. They said the drop-off and pick-up area would work well. The driveway the Commissioners had asked about was an existing driveway to the front door of the church that that served church functions. They recalled the school had 16 classrooms in the 1950s, but after that student population had decreased and classroom space had been allocated for a library, computer rooms and other purposes. Now there were nine classrooms and three special education rooms. The new building would have nine classrooms, four special education rooms and a larger gym and cafeteria. The school would be on the ground floor and would be about 4,000 sq. ft. larger than the old school. The new Parish Center would be on the second floor and be about 4,000 sq. ft. smaller than the old space. The architects testified that the proposed plan complied with all code-required setbacks and saved all significant trees on site. They said the design process had been a collaborative process and it had improved during the process. It met the height restriction and overlay district criteria. They pointed out architectural details and materials that made it fit the neighborhood and the church and connected the structure to A Avenue. They said the applicant could agree to replace the proposed gray City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 13 Minutes of December 7, 2009 horizontal siding with a warmer, more wood-like color. They concluded that the application met the code, was a state of the art learning environment and would be operated in a sustainable manner. During the questioning period, the applicant's representatives clarified the trash enclosure would have a brick exterior to match the church, a metal roof and gates to screen it from view. They estimated that up to 70 vehicles could queue up to the drop- off and pick-up area. Their experience was that users endeavored to keep it a very efficient circulation system. They explained the proposed handicapped parking spaces were located where they were most needed which was where they would serve the church during church functions, but they acknowledged that they could convert a space closer to the playing field to a handicapped space. They added that the drop-off area had an easy curb to transfer disabled persons across. During the school day there would likely be 20-22 cars in the parking lot belonging to teachers, Parish staff and a few visitors. The Commissioners wanted to know how parking would be affected by other events on site during school operation. The architects said students would have direct access to the playfield from the school. The applicant would try to schedule funerals and daytime events between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. so they would not impact student pick-up and drop-off activity. They anticipated the only time buses would be used would be to carry students on field trips. There would be enough room for two buses to queue up. They clarified that Parish office space would decrease and the school space would increase and the overall net change was an additional 67 sq. ft. Since it would be a "replacement" school most of the additional school space would be used to build a bigger gym. The existing building was worn out, expensive to maintain, did not meet the current code, and should be replaced. They anticipated that the new LEED-rated building would cost less to maintain. Mr. Heredia wanted to know what it was that made the designers believe the proposed contemporary structure — especially its rooflines - fit the neighborhood on 8th Street. They explained their original design had featured dormers. However, it greatly exceeded the applicable height limit and the neighborhood association did not want it that high, so they had changed the design, including the roof form. It now complied with the roof height limit and the Evergreen Overlay. A hierarchy of rooflines, articulation of the building and use of materials and scale tied it to the neighborhood and the church. Stone accents resembled stone seen along A Avenue and in the park, The mechanical components were set well back so they were less visible. Mr. Heredia asked what building in the vicinity the contemporary building the applicant proposed was similar to. The architects responded that it could be considered similar to one of the commercial buildings along A Avenue, but it was unique, because it had been designed to be a state-of-the-art educational facility and there were no others in the neighborhood. It met the code and the criteria of the neighborhood overlay. They had used materials and undulations that made it fit into a residential setting. Mr. Heredia observed that the structure had been designed to meet the required standards but that did not necessarily make it fit the neighborhood. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 5 of 13 Minutes of December 7, 2009 When asked, the applicant's representatives clarified that the mechanical penthouse was nine feet above the roofline, about 40 feet above grade and fully enclosed. It contained large fans that used less electricity. It had been centered on the roof so it was less visible behind the roof parapet, but drivers on A Avenue could see it. Staff advised that the mechanical units were not subject to the maximum height standards. The applicant's representatives explained the LEED certification process gave a developer points for recycling buildings and they would consider doing that. Proponents Larry Latuszek, 1286 Larch St., Lake Oswego, OR 97034, Business Manager, Our Lady of the Lake Parish, testified that the proposed plan would improve an already efficient system of drop-off and pick-up. There would not be constant traffic— it would peak during ten to twenty minute intervals after 8:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. Typically by 3:20 p.m. the area was clear. He related that the applicant encouraged carpooling and this year there were 28 families that each had three or four children attending the school. Joan Cod, Principal, Our Lady of the Lake School, 716 A Aye, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, agreed with_Latuszek's testimony regarding traffic and carpooling. She said the new circulation plan would be safer and more efficient. When she was asked to explain how the alley was currently used, she said some drivers might come from Evergreen, but she believed the majority came from A Avenue. They drove about halfway into the alley to drop-off and pick-up and then exited through the 8th Street driveway. Charles Corry, 1828 Palisades Terrace Dr., Lake Oswego, OR 97034, testified the current view from A Avenue was not residential and the proposed design would enhance the streetscape there. Stone material would tie the structure to the downtown area and the open space and the church would offer a much better transition into the residential areas. Rob Chevalier, 1570 Bonnie Brae, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, said the design was contemporary, but attractive. To some extent the design had been dictated by regulations. He opined that the Evergreen Overlay's setback plane was intended for and more appropriate for residences and to apply it to all uses in the district was a mistake. The proposed building featured design elements that fit the church and A Avenue. He said it offered a variety of design that was good for the City. He said the proposed circulation plan would reduce unsafe stacking on A Avenue. Ted Hobbs, 340 8th St.. Lake Oswego, OR 97034, was concerned about the impacts of a 25% increase in student population and two-way traffic on 8th Street, including traffic volume, noise, pollution and it would be less safe for children walking down Stn Street. He recommended the current circulation pattern be maintained because it had less impact. He did not think the buffer between the parking lot and 8th Street was large enough. He said the applicant was proposing 132 spaces, which was close to the maximum of 134 spaces allowed. He wanted the number to be closer to the City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 6 of 13 Minutes of December 7, 2009 minimum of 107 spaces so the parking lot would be smaller. During the questioning period, he recalled traffic increased between 7:50 a.m. and 8:45 a.m. and the heaviest volume was in a 15-minute window. He indicated he did not feel the applicant or staff had adequately explained why all traffic could not access the site directly from A Avenue. He was asked what the difference in the number of queued up cars was under the old and new pattern. He was not sure, but he guessed it would be about the same. He confirmed his concern about light trespass had been addressed. He confirmed there was no sidewalk on the west side of 8th Street and the new sidewalk would be across the street. He anticipated drivers in a hurry to access the school would tend to speed down the slope of 8th Street. He clarified there were no stop signs on 8th Street or Evergreen Road. He confirmed there was existing diagonal parking on the east side of 8th Street, and that he appreciated the plan to make the parking lot lower elevation than 8th Street. But the existing large hedge that blocked the view of the lot was to be removed and it would take time for the new landscaping to mature to provide adequate buffering. He related that he could hear car alarms on Sunday mornings and traffic generated pollution. Carol Goss. 231 6th St.. Lake Oswego. OR 97034, suggested the applicant should propose closer to the minimum number of parking spaces in order to reduce the amount of impermeable surface. She was concerned the development would generate more runoff. She wanted the applicant to aim higher than LEED Silver certification. Mr. Boone advised the applicable criteria did not call for a certain LEED level. Neither for nor Against Paden Pritchard, 204 6th St.. Lake Oswego, OR 97034, Evergreen Neighborhood Association, said the ENA liked the new architectural concept and materials the applicant had presented and they wanted the applicant to upgrade the school. But they had questions and concerns they had discussed in the letter they had submitted. He highlighted some of them. He said the ENA disagreed with the staff's interpretation of the code related to the front setback. They believed A Avenue should have been designated the primary frontage and the school should be defined as a "church-related use." That would mean a larger; 25-foot setback was required along A Avenue. They worried the small setback would become a larger problem if the church building was enlarged in the future. They said if the sewer easement was actually an access easement that area had to be deducted from the overall site area prior to calculating the maximum lot coverage for the project. They questioned whether the generator was allowed to be in the side yard setback. The ENA contended the traffic study was inadequate and there were errors in it. Neighbors have observed more than the stated number of cars queuing and the study described stop signs at 8th and Evergreen that did not exist. The Association questioned whether the complicated proposed queuing system would work due to conflicts between queued vehicles and vehicles accessing parking stalls. They said the new plan put all traffic on 8th Street, which was a residential street. They anticipated with the proposed plan drivers coming from Highway 43 would chose to City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 7 of 13 Minutes of December 7, 2009 take A Avenue to 6th to Evergreen to the new south 8th Street entrance because that was the "path of least resistance." They noted lith Street traffic was not examined in the traffic report, but it should have been. They anticipated that traffic would also come via Iron Mountain and Berwick or 10th to Evergreen and 8th to avoid waiting at a signal to turn. That traffic problem would be exacerbated when there were 320 students and 27% more traffic. Mr. Pritchard said traffic and building mass were the ENA's two major concerns. He explained how they wanted them addressed. Traffic should be addressed by eliminating the proposed new south 8th Street driveway. School traffic should continue to use the ally for drop-off and pick-up. The 8th Street exit should be limited to right turn only. The ENA had provided a sketch indicating where appropriate signage should be installed to prohibit undesirable movements during pick-up and drop-off times. Building mass should be minimized. The ENA preferred the applicant's original plan because they wanted to see the school footprint reduced and located in the northeast corner of the site, with the Parish Center between the church and school. They worried that otherwise the applicant would eventually take advantage of a new, increased, lot coverage limit and use the proposed amphitheater area as a future building site. During the questioning period, the Commissioners wanted to know how ENA concerns had been addressed at neighborhood/developer meetings. Mr. Pritchard said they had not discussed traffic very much. Mostly they talked about the architectural renderings and site plan. He said they had not seen a diagram showing queuing until it came out in the staff report. They always told the applicant they did not like the amount of traffic the traffic report projected for 8th Street. They thought the new plan would draw drivers onto 6th Street to Evergreen and then to the proposed new south 8th Street entrance. That was because drivers would want to avoid having to wait at a signal at 8th/A Avenue to turn. The ENA wants the proposed new south entrance eliminated. They said signage at the 8th/Evergreen intersection might help. They suggested prohibiting turning movements during peak hours on weekdays. That might reduce the impact of traffic on the neighborhood. He confirmed the ENA wanted to keep the current traffic flow through the alley because the report showed that most peak hour drivers used the alleyway instead of 8th Street to access the site. Diana Boom, PO Box 328. Lake Oswego, 97034, agreed with Mr. Pritchard's testimony. She said the current system worked. Drivers came into the alley and queued up in orderly lines and exited onto 8th. She did not want all the traffic directed onto 8th street. She said the highest traffic volume was in 20 to 40 minute periods. She was concerned about the noise and smell generated by running vehicles waiting in the queue. To place the queuing area closer to 8th and Evergreen would bring those impacts much closer to homes. She testified the 320-student cap had never been negotiated with the neighborhood. The neighborhood had calculated that the school would be able to accommodate as many as 500 students based on the number of classrooms. When they protested the applicant set a cap of 320 students. They did not negotiate that number with the neighborhood. She said the ENA may have City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 8 of 13 Minutes of December 7, 2009 submitted letters in support of the new plan but they always mentioned that traffic was a problem for them. Darryl Boom, 557 Evergreen, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, agreed that if traffic were not properly managed drivers would use 6th Street and Evergreen to access the school. He wanted to be assured that the plan would maintain the pedestrian character of Evergreen Road. He hoped there was a way to make the parking lot smaller. Warren Bacon, 752 Lake Forest Dr., Lake Oswego, OR 97034, said the applicant had worked with the neighborhood and fit the structures to the neighborhood. But he was still concerned about potential future development on the site if the student population increased to 320. He calculated that nine classrooms would hold 270 students, so the applicant would need more space for the rest. Ann Maneakis. 333 Ninth St., PO Box 64, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, a 9th Street resident, observed the applicant planned a two-tiered project. She was concerned that if the City changed the code to allow more lot coverage that would allow the applicant to make an enormous change in site density in the future. She opined that no one really knew the reality of traffic in the neighborhood, so an objective, professional, legitimate, traffic study was needed. The applicant's consultant had done the study in the record and it was flawed. It referred to traffic control devices that did not exist. She had read that the applicant argued that traffic would be kept on a main arterial street, but she did not think it would be. She suggested requiring the applicant to fund a new study the DRC could use to fashion appropriate conditions of approval. The ENA should be allowed to participate in choosing the consultant. She wanted the City to change policy and require more uses than just commercial use to provide such a study. Alexis Wittman, 908 Lakefront Rd., Lake Oswego, OR 97034, did not live in the neighborhood, but enjoyed walking there. She said the new sidewalk would change the pedestrian nature of Evergreen. She advised that it was the existing green front lawn that marked the transition from downtown to the neighborhood. She was concerned the development would generate more runoff and more impact from night lighting. She questioned its architectural compatibility with other buildings. She said an elementary school should offer students a "home-like" feeling. The playground was too small and the school did not need such a large parking lot. She asked for statistics showing how many kids walked to school or was driven there. That would indicate whether the school was serving the neighborhood or had a more regional draw. Rebuttal Ms. Paulson said the amendments Mr. Pritchard asked for had no bearing on the application, which had not changed since it was submitted in early fall. She clarified the applicant had proposed 132 parking spaces and then reduced the number to 130 to increase landscape islands. That was fewer spaces than the minimum of 212 parking stalls the code required. The applicant had used a shared parking study to City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 9 of 13 Minutes of December 7, 2009 demonstrate they needed fewer spaces than the code required and staff agreed that 130 spaces was adequate. Mr. Thompson addressed site concerns. He testified that at the August ENA meeting the applicant's traffic engineer had specifically talked about traffic queuing and that was reported in the meeting minutes, The applicant had explained where the queue and pickup area would be. No one had asked him any questions about traffic at that time. The landscape islands had been configured to be long and narrow to accommodate stacking of cars. Under the proposed circulation plan at least 70 cars could queue up. Currently about 50 cars queued for a 240-student population. The applicant's representatives addressed the issue of pedestrian orientation of Evergreen Road. They said the City required wide sidewalks on Evergreen, but the neighbors did not favor that, so the applicant proposed a five-foot wide meandering pathway through the existing trees. They pointed out the civil engineering plan showed how runoff would be managed so it left the site at the predevelopment rate. Night lighting of the parking lot complied with City standards. They responded to Mr. Pritchard's letter and testimony. They clarified that the cedar trees in the right-of-way of the alley would be saved. The "easement" was a sewer easement and that area had been factored into site plan calculations because the applicant owned it. They did not agree to eliminate the south driveway on 8th Street, but they agreed it was a good idea to install signage. They stressed that the applicant was showing their "master plan" and they had no secret intent to come back with another plan after the City Council approved the increase in allowable lot coverage. They said they proposed 25% lot coverage. They would like to have a covered drop- off area, but could not do that under the current limit. They agreed that another 5% lot coverage would allow room for another structure on the site that could accommodate future growth. The project allowed some growth and made sense. Chris Kuomo, Group Mackenzie, 1515 SE Water Ave.,Ste.100, Portland, OR 97214, clarified the applicant had proposed the scope of the traffic analysis and staff had approved it,(Appendix I in the record). The applicant had addressed all staffs concerns and all the standards. They agreed with staff recommended conditions of approval. The development would bring change and some increase in traffic impacts. But there was no operational capacity issue because all intersections were projected to operate at Level of Service (LOS) A or B. The queue was accommodated. The school currently had 239 students and would only grow to 320. It had accommodated substantially more students in the past. He confirmed that Group Mackenzie had conducted their own traffic survey. The Commissioners asked how the setback on A Avenue had been determined. Staff advised the code allowed the City Manager to determine which frontage would be the primary frontage of a corner lot. The site had three possible frontages: Evergreen, 8th and A Avenue. Staff and the applicant had agreed to designate Evergreen as the primary front yard, where a 25-foot setback was required, and the others were to be other front yards, where a 12.5-foot setback was required, The setback along City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 10 of 13 Minutes of December 7, 2009 Evergreen served as a good buffer for the neighborhood. The development conformed to the required setbacks on all streets. The applicant's representative confirmed there was no sign at the corner of 8th Street/Evergreen now even though a 2004 survey showed one was there. He said the school managed queuing in the parking lot very well. They sent parents a diagram at the start of the school year that explained the plan. He described the five-cars-at-a-time queuing procedure they followed. The teachers directed the students and drivers during that process. He confirmed that currently all 50 cars queued in the parking lot. When Chair Heredia recalled neighbors experienced queuing all the way to A Avenue, he explained that was due to a conflict of westbound drivers on A Avenue trying to turn through opposing eastbound traffic. He confirmed that there was never a backup because of cars queuing into the alley from the site. That was why the applicant wanted to direct all traffic onto 8th Street and then to the A Avenue signal. The Commissioners observed it seemed awkward to have to make a wide turn right out of the north 8th Street driveway while avoiding the diagonal parking there. Ms. Hastay said the Engineering staff might determine that some of those spaces should be eliminated. Deliberations When invited by the Chair no one asked to keep the record open. The applicant waived their right to addiotnal time in which to submit a final written argument. Chair Heredia closed the public hearing. Mr. Needham indicated he liked the overall project, but he wondered if the applicant had considered alternative locations for the mechanical penthouse. He recalled that neighbors were concerned that the plan would double the impacts on 8th Street residents, which was already the most heavily burdened street. He was not sure the traffic study addressed all the issues. He anticipated there would be quite a few drivers choosing to use 6th Street because that route would be easier during heavy traffic. But he said the window of difficulty was short. He wondered if drivers would decide to use Iron Mountain and Evergreen to get to the site. Mr. Scott asked who would fund another independent traffic study. Mr. Boone observed that the applicant had submitted a traffic study and anyone else who wanted to could have and should have submitted one. If the Commissioners wanted to tie the approval to some specific conditions, Mr. Pishvaie suggested they follow the example of the Lakeridge High School CUP and its post approval review process and require an annual DRC review to ensure the conditions were being met. They could establish benchmarks and compare future impact data with them at the next review. Mr. Needham suggested an alternative approach would be to ask the applicant to identify a contact person the neighbors could bring their complaints to, That might solve a problem before it became worse. Mr. Rossi said the development was well done, but he was also concerned about traffic and queuing and wanted to require an annual review. That would motivate the applicant and the neighborhood to work together to make adjustments. Mr. Creighton said the overall design was well thought out and integrated. He appreciated the fact that the applicant had worked with the neighbors. He indicated that he would have preferred that the development have a stronger presence on A Avenue, but the front setback plane standard prevented that. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 11 of 13 Minutes of December 7, 2009 He said the mechanical penthouse was far enough in the background that it would not be easily seen. He was concerned about the angled parking space that drivers would have to avoid when exiting the north 8th Street driveway, but he would let staff resolve that. Chair Heredia said it was an attractive building, but he indicated he found it lacking when he compared it to neighborhood character. He noted the issues of utilities, lighting and the view of the parking lot had been addressed. Mr. Heredia and Needham agreed that it would be more proactive to leave it up to the applicant to appoint a contact person to liaison with the neighborhood instead of requiring that. The Commissioners discussed what to review in the future and when to conduct the reviews. Mr. Boone advised that staff would deal with traffic related impacts during construction. Mr. Needham observed that the impacts the Commissioners wanted to monitor would start when the hardscape was installed and the new circulation system began. The Commissioners then took a five-minute break to allow staff time to fashion their recommendation. Mr. Saberian related that he had examined the traffic analysis and thought it had been done in good conscience without any bias. But because he had some concerns about the queuing he had recommended conditions of approval that would make the 8th Street/A Avenue intersection flow better. He related that in past years he had observed regular backups from the alleyway onto A Avenue and 6t" Street and sometimes all the way back to the signal. But over time that situation had gotten better and he saw less and less queuing onto A Avenue. The worst time was the first week or two of the school year. He thought the school had done a good job managing traffic on site in the parking lot. The proposed plan offered more room for stacking and queuing there and the applicant had to manage it on site. He explained his concern as a traffic engineer was about queuing that backed up in the alleyway or onto 8th Street or A Avenue. He was also concerned about cut through traffic. He knew there was already some from the school who cut through the neighborhood. He did not want it to get any worse and he hoped it could be reduced. He recommended benchmarking in the rainy months of October and November because his experience was that was the worst scenario. But he said any time staff saw backups from the parking lot onto 8th Street they would ask the applicant to resolve the problem. He suggested conducting the first review on the second anniversary to allow time to educate drivers about the new circulation system. He suggested another benchmark would be a base count of traffic leaving school and turning left on 8th to Evergreen. The count on Evergreen should also be in October and November. He advised the bulk of the concentration would be on Evergreen compared to 4th, 5th or 6t" Streets. Mr. Needham agreed and recalled the neighborhood was very concerned about Evergreen. He said he was also interested in traffic counts between 8t" Street and Iron Mountain. He asked about stop signs. Mr. Saberian said staff would look into whether there should be a four-way stop. Mr. Needham asked if the exit from the parking lot should be right turn only. Mr. Saberian said if staff found a turning radius or sight distance was a problem they could adjust a parking space there. He said the school could decide to ask drivers to only turn right at departure time. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 12 of 13 Minutes of December 7, 2009 Chair Heredia did not want to wait two years for the first review. Ms. Hastay reported the applicant planned to open the new school and Parish Center at the beginning of the next school year. The Commissioners agreed to require a review one year from that date. They wanted to set benchmarks to measure from and conduct three consecutive annual reviews. They would benchmark offsite queuing onto 8th Street and the traffic count on Evergreen. Mr. Saberian suggested the neighborhood could assemble volunteers to conduct a one-time license plate survey at key locations so they could determine where cars came from. Mr. Needham suggested staff track traffic complaints and present them to the DRC during the review to help the Commissioners understand where the problems were. Chair Heredia said the "bottom line" was that the applicant had to continue to work with the neighbors. Applicant response The applicant's representatives recalled the review process had worked well at Lakeridge High School. They indicated they could agree to a requirement for an annual review for three years starting one year after they got the certificate of occupancy. They said the Parish business manager would be the liaison to the neighborhood. Mr. Needham moved to approve LU 09-0029 with the changes and review process the Commissioners and staff had fashioned during deliberations and the clarifications the applicant asked for in Exhibit F-17 and staff had accepted. Mr. Creighton seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. Chair Heredia announced final vote would be conducted on December 21, 2009. GENERAL PLANNING & OTHER BUSINESS (None) ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Chair Heredia adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 40 I w L • EtelP 111 anice Reynolds A dministrative Support LldrelminuteslDecember 7,2009.doc City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 13 of 13 Minutes of December 7, 2009