Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2007-04-02I. CALL TO ORDER APPROYED City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes April 2, 2007 Chair Bill Tierney called the Development Review Commission meeting of April 2, 2007, to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. 11. ROLL CALL Commissioners present besides Chair Tierney were Vice Chair Sheila {Ostly and Commissioners Nan Binkley and Bob Needham. Commissioners Halliday Meisburger and Krytsyna Stadnik were not present. Staff present were Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager; Debra Andreades, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Janice Bader, Administrative Support. 111. MINUTES Ms. Ostly moved to approve the Minutes of February 5, 2007. Mr. Needham seconded the motion and it passed 3:0. Ms. Binkley abstained. IV. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER LU 06-0079, a request by Philip and Y'umiko Sterling Ms. Ostly moved to approve LU 06-0479-1.635 Findings, Conclusions and Girder. Mr. Needham seconded the motion and it passed 3:0. Ms. Binkley abstained. LU 05-0066, a request by Stafford Commons, LLC. Ms. Ostly moved to approve LU 05-0066-16393 Findings, Conclusions and _Order. Mr. Needham seconded and it passed 3:0. Ms. Binkley abstained. V. PUBLIC HEARING LU 06-0030, an appeal of the Community Development Director's decision to approve the following: ■ A request to divide an approximately 66,178 square foot (1.52 acres) site into three parcels, as follows: o Parcel 1 (Flag Lot) at 22,097 square feet o Parcel 2 at 22,727 square feet © Parcel 3 at 21,654 square feet An RC Protection Area determination, per [LOC 50.16.50] Removal of one (1) tree City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 1 of 8 Minutes of April 2, 2007 The property is located at 13 765 Cameo Court, Tax Lot 500 of Tax Map 21 E 04CA. (Continued from March 19, 2007.) Chair Tierney opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedure and time limits. He asked the Commissioners to report any ex parte contacts (including site visits), biases and conflicts of interest, since the previous hearing and to identify any known present or anticipated future business relationships with the project or the applicant. Ms. Binkley reported that she had not been present at the first hearing, but had read and listened to the record. She related that friends lived on Cameo Court. Each of the Commissioners present declared their business or occupation as follows. Ostly (real estate appraiser), Binkley (architect); Needham (lawyer); and Chair Tierney (utilities inspection business). No one present challenged any commissioner's right to hear the application. Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager, presented the staff report. He listed the exhibit numbers of new information that had been submitted since the previous staff report. He said staff currently recommended a pathway alignment that would be a more direct route and that would connect to area pathways to the schools. He pointed out staff report offered a detailed explanation of how the pathway exaction had been calculated to be roughly proportional to the traffic generated by the site's development. He presented many specific examples of places in the City where a pathway crossed open space, driveways, natural resource areas and went through developments and he pointed out they sometimes carne within a few feet of houses. He noted sometimes property owners had fenced or screened the area along the pathway and sometimes they had not. He reported staff found the exaction of an approximately 274 foot long pathway along the common property line between Parcels 1 and 2 was roughly proportional to the impact of the 20 additional trips the two new parcels would generate on the transportation system. During the questioning period, he clarified that none of the pathways in the examples he cited had been dual -function driveways/pathways, but there had been several new developments where building driveways and pathways shared one paved surface and lessened impacts. He clarified that although the Code specified the width of an "accessway" was to be eight feet wide pavement in a 15 -foot wide easement, there was no standard for a "pathway," which was typically five to eight feet wide. He confirmed that each new parcel might be allowed to further partition the property if there was sufficient area to create another lot that complied with applicable criteria, but that could not affect the pathway. He confirmed the Sensitive Lands Ordinance allowed "adjustments" (for example, to setbacks) to compensate for unique characteristics of a site. However, the applicant had not requested that. Chair Tierney asked if the Trails and Pathways Master Plan was City policy or code. Mr. Boone clarified the Master Plan was not yet Code, because it called for Code amendments that had not been made, and staff was relying on the Utility Standard. He clarified that staff had not said there was a Code requirement for a pathway there, but that there was an adopted City plan that confirmed that what staff recommended was the preferable route for a pathway to connect development on one side of it maybe with destinations, like the schools, on the other side, and it would also fill a need for an east/west connector. Mr. Pishvaie advised that neither Planning nor Engineering staff could find a basis for a statement by the traffic consultant that pedestrian and bicycle mode share of transportation was anticipated to decrease, and he stressed that was not the City of Lake Oswego's experience (Exhibit F32). He noted the 2005 Community Survey results showed the majority of respondents wanted development of neighborhood pathways to have high priority. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of 8 Minutes of April 2, 2007 Applicant Scott Bullard, 14130 Taylors Crest Ln., Lake Osweeo, OR 97035 and Jeffrey G. Condit, Miller Nash LLP, 111 SW 5th Ave., Ste 3400, Portland OR 97204. Mr. Condit asked the Commissioners to delete the conditions related to the pathway. He held staff -recommended conditions were improperly based on the 2002 Trails and Pathways Master Plan, which had been adopted by resolution, and not after the public process required by state law, so it could not be considered regulatory policy or criteria. He recalled City Councilors had been concerned when they discussed the resolution that staff might apply the related map to specific property before the Plan was incorporated into Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code updates. He advised state law required that all legislative changes had to be adopted by ordinance. In addition, he advised that the Master Plan and related Map were inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan policies, and that conflicting policies could not be applied. He cited court decisions to support that position. He said there were two separate, adopted maps showing pathways and for bikeways but no "cross country" pathways. He said the pathway staff wanted to see through the site would not qualify as a bike path because it was not hard surface through the RC District and it was not along or parallel to an Arterial or Major Street. He clarified that "cross country" pathways were in the Master Plan, but not in the Comprehensive Plan. He agreed there should be connections between developments and destinations, like schools, but the applicant's plan already connected the development with a proposed pathway along Knaus Road via Canyon Court. He held that staff - recommended pathway through the site was intended to primarily serve the vicinity, not development residents. He noted the pathway previously imposed on an abutting development was only required to be ten feet wide, not 15 feet wide, and he also noted the current applicant was actually required to construct the pathway through the site. He held that according to statewide planning goals staff could not justify imposing the condition via interpretation, rather than after a completed public process. He advised the Commission to treat the Plan as one that had never been adopted and did not exist. He advised that staff use of the Utility Standard related to rights-of-way for Special Pedestrian Paths, and General Standards that permitted general conditions of approval could not be justified. He said there was no other place but in the Master Plan that indicated that a Special Pathway was to go through the site. He said the Utility Standard required an exaction to be based on City Engineering standards, but there were none of those illustrated in the record to support pathway exaction at the site. He said for staff to interpret the Utility Standard in such a manner was a violation of statutory construction provisions. He concluded there was no policy basis for applying the Special Pathway to the site. He said the Transportation System Plan did not show a pathway there. He said general authority to impose conditions did not offer a basis for requiring the exaction. He said in Dolan vs. City of Tigard the court ruled that exaction as a condition of land use approval had to be based on an individualized determination and had to be related and roughly proportional to the impact of the development. He said the City had the burden of demonstrating that. He said the proposed development would only generate 20 daily trips, including one bicycle trip and one pedestrian trip. He said staff should not apply a modality split based on the Community Survey, which was not statistically valid. He said if the Commission decided to apply the exaction anyway, they should know there was only one pedestrian and one bicycle trip per day, and the fact that bicycle paths were required to be hard surface meant they should discount the "soft" bike path trip in calculating proportionality. He said the pathway was in a bad location that required entry and exit along private driveways. He noted that even if the Trails and Pathways Master Plan were considered, it did not specify the path was to go through the site, and he stressed it was designed to serve a neighborhood that was almost unanimously opposed to it. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of 8 Minutes of April 2, 2007 Chris O'Connell, Groin Mackenzie, 0310 SW Bancroft St., Portland, Oregon, 97239, the applicant's traffic engineer, stressed the exaction had to be roughly proportional to the impact. He questioned whether encumbering $185,000 (about 4,100 sq. ft.) of the site met that test when he calculated the development's impact as 18 vehicle and 2 pedestrian and bicycle trips per day according to the City's modal split percentages He noted the development would pay Systems Development Charges (SDCs) of $3,312.00 per house for the impact of the two new houses on the roadways. He said there was no SDC methodology to value use of non -vehicle surfaces. Mr. Condit advised that the exaction could not factor in vehicle trips because they were already accounted for in SDC fees. He acknowledged the applicant's calculations were not based on an appraisal of the property, but a real estate professional's research of comparable properties. However, the applicant contended that even using about half the assessed value, or $100,000, would show the exaction was out of proportion. During the questioning period, Mr. Condit noted the pathway exaction that had recently been imposed on abutting property might be tested in court. He noted that applicant had only been required to install a 10 -foot wide pathway, but he acknowledged that applicant had not offered direct testimony that he disagreed with the exaction. Proponents Mark Allers 316 Second St., Lake Oswego, OR 97034 owner of abutting property, contended the recommended pathway was for recreational purposes and not transportation or security purposes. Ile held there were better connections that would be more direct routes than through backyards to the schools. He questioned why an exaction should be required of the applicant when the pathway went down a private driveway. He said he had spoken to a resident along a pathway who had told him that she had to replace her fencing often and that people coming through tossed their trash into her yard. Rick Rosenbloom, 13346 Goodall Road, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, questioned why there were no sidewalks along Goodall Road. He advised a dual purpose driveway/pathway was dangerous. He said he did not want passers-by looking into his house. He said he was also representing the interests of elderly residents along the street. Sherry Tuppan, 680 Iron Mountain Blvd., spoke on behalf of the Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association and their President, Chris Robinson. She clarified that the Association opposed the condition for a pathway, not the entire application. She said their concerns were related to loss of privacy and property values She observed the Trails and Pathways Master Plan still needed to be officially adopted in a public process. She said the Association was in the process of formulating their neighborhood plan and they had not yet considered pathways. She read from the Association's March 1, 2007, meeting minutes, which reported the membership unanimously agreed that no private property should be exacted by the City for public use as a pathway or a trail. She noted the Association had asked the City for a list of public easements and that staff had cited at least 18 of them earlier in the hearing. She said the City should examine those routes before taking private property. She clarified that the "public interest" to be protected was that of the neighborhood, and none of the property owners on Cameo Court, the applicant, or the Association wanted the pathway. She said the condition for a pathway should be removed from the conditions of approval. Carolyn Jones, 2818 South Compton Way, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, related that she had been one of seven citizens present at the City Council meeting when the Councilors passed the resolution to adopt the Trails and Pathways Master Plan. She indicated she did not consider that adequate notice to or representation of the population of Lake Oswego. She asked that the entire process be reconsidered. City of Labe Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 8 Minutes of April 2, 2007 Mr. Condit said another client, the Lake Oswego Country Club, was concerned about the fact the Map showed a pathway circling the golf course. However, he agreed with Mr. Needham that was not pertinent to the current application. Rebuttal Mr. Bullard anticipated a public process would change the master plan and he asked the Commissioners to eliminate the condition for a pathway. Deliberations Chair Tierney closed the hearing to public testimony, announced a five-minute break in the hearing and subsequently reconvened it. Mr. Needham explained he agreed with staff about most aspects of the application, and he felt that trails were important to the community, but the applicant was not developing the property to the maximum she might be allowed to and he believed the exaction was too large, and not roughly proportional to the impact. Ms. Ostly agreed, even though she stressed that well-designed pathways were important routes for kids to walk to schools and the library. She also advised that imposing a pathway over a driveway and that cut through yards led to serious marketability problems for the owner, and the exaction was not proportionate to the benefit to the development. Ms. Binkley agreed a combination path/driveway would not work because drivers would not recognize the driveway as a pathway. She commented that there might be another place on the site where a path could be located but that was not a Commission decision. She noted a link to Goodall Road was already established. She saw the general pathway issue as one the City Council needed to resolve, not the Commission. Chair Tierney agreed the pathway should not be routed over a driveway. He observed that staff and the applicant had 60 days before the hearing to find an alternate, mutually acceptable location for the pathway, but they had not been able to do that, and the Commission could not redraw it. He observed the record seemed to show the pathway would be routed extremely close to a home. He said he could approve the application without the condition related to the exact location of the pathway. Mr. Needham moved to approve LU 06-0030 as amended removing the condition related to the Uathway. Ms. Ostly seconded the motion and it was passed 4:0. Chair Tierney announced the final vote would be held on April 16, 2007. LU 06-0076, a request by City of Lake Oswego Parks & Recreation Department for approval of the following - I. Delineation ollowing:I.Delineation of a Resource Protection (RP) District 2.A Conditional Use Permit to develop a public park with the following amenities: An artificial turf athletic field a A dog park a Children's play area a A restroom facility and parking lot 3. Removal of eight trees Location of Property: South side of Stafford Road across from Overlook Drive (Tax Lots 2800 and 2900 of Tax Map 21 E 16AD and Tax Lots 400 and 500 of Tax Map 21 E 16D). Chair Tierney opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedure and time limits. He asked the Commissioners to report any ex parte contacts (including site visits), biases and City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 5 of 8 Minutes of April 2, 2007 conflicts of interest, and to identify any known present or anticipated future business relationships with the project or the applicant. Commissioners Ostly, Needham and Chair Tierney reported they had taken their dogs to the dog park. Each of the Commissioners present declared their business or occupation as follows: Ostly (real estate appraiser); Binkley (architect); Needham (lawyer); and Chair Tierney (utilities inspection business). No one present challenged any commissioner's right to hear the application. Debra Andreades, Associate Planner, presented the staff report (dated March 23, 2007). She pointed out surrounding uses and the location of the wetlands on the site. She advised staff had accepted the applicant's delineation of the RC District. She explained the criteria for a Conditional Use Permit. She said the proposal complied with the requirements of the R-15 Zone. She explained the application had to be considered under R -l5 zone standards because the application had been submitted before the site had been rezoned Parks and Natural Areas (PNA). She said staff found the site was capable of accommodating the proposed use, because it had already been used that way, and that parking was adequate when compared to similar uses they had investigated. She said the applicant would make improvements to the intersection near the access. She said lighting was to be configured to avoid glare to nearby residences, and all City field lighting was shut off at 10:00 p.m. She advised the Sensitive Lands Ordinance allowed a soft turf trail in the resources buffer. She presented the materials board, the landscape plan, and the parking plan. She advised the existing barn -like building did not meet a requirement in the Design Standards that it had to be within 30 feet of a public street for good pedestrian access, so the applicant could either move it closer to Stafford Road or apply for a Class 2 variance. She reported staff recommended approval of the application with the conditions recommended in the staff report. During the questioning period, Ms. Andreades clarified that the Parks & Recreation Department was the actual applicant; a Class 2 variance was necessary because the structure was used for something other than a single-family residence, and the Class 2 variance could be approved administratively. Applicant Kim Gilmer, Director, Parks & Recreation Department, and Teresa Paulson and Dan Jenkins, Group Mackenzie, 0690 SW Bancroft St., Portland, Oregon 47239, pointed out the locations for the different uses on the site, as well as the access, amenities, lighting, parking and wetlands. They explained a task force had found that the Luscher Farm property was the most suitable for field development. They said the application reflected the input of all stakeholders, including the sports community, Palisades Neighborhood Association, and dog park users. They said there was parking for 121 vehicles. They explained there would be two dog parks for larger and smaller dogs, and there were two wetlands but one was not significant enough to be regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers. They clarified the portion of the pathway through the resource area would be of permeable material and there would be a special kind of lighting that would prevent offsite glare. Brent Ahrend, P.E. Traffic Engineer, Group Mackenzie, Incorporated, 0690 SW Bancroft St., Portland, Oregon, 97239, presented the traffic impact study. He advised the Stafford/Overlook intersection would continue to operate at the current level of service, with site access from the existing signal and new turn lanes and a cross walk to enhance safety. He explained the applicant proposed enough parking spaces to satisfy the needs of each use. John van Staveren, Pacific Habitat Services, Inc., 9450 SW Commerce Way,, Wilsonville, Oregon, testified that the wetland resource had been delineated and the Army Corps of Engineers and the Division of State Lands had reviewed the application. He said the Corps had decided one of the wetlands was not significant enough to regulate and the wetlands would be enhanced to meet DSL requirements and enhance water quality and wildlife habitat. He clarified the water would be cleaned before it was directed into Lost Dog Creek. During the questioning period, the City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 6 of 8 Minutes of April 2, 2007 applicant's representatives described the buffering of the wetland and explained they had not yet decided exactly where the debris bins for the dog park would be located. They explained the entry road was curved to present a pleasant appearance, slow traffic, improve pedestrian safety and offer a more gently sloping drive. They explained that the parking area would be graded to direct water toward a central swale area and part of the lot would be porous asphalt. They explained they did not propose lighting for the dog park for budgetary reasons. Mr. Boone advised the Code did not require lighting there. Proponents Jim Poloni, 1460 Skylands Dr., representing the Lake Oswego Youth Snorts Alliance, said the Alliance supported the plan because the City needed more athletic fields for youth groups to use. Bill Korach, Superintendent of Schools, 352 Livingood, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, said the School District supported the plan because adding fields would make a big difference to community recreational park users. Larry La aro Vice President of the Lake Oswego Soccer Club 48 Hillshire Dr., Lake Oswego, OR 97034, indicated the Club supported the plan because they currently had to rent field outside of the City. James Rivera, 4268 Albert Circle, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, representing Lakeridge Youth Football, said his organization supported the plan because the City needed more fields. David Martin 30 Da Vinci Lake Oswego, OR 97035 President of the Lake Oswe o Little League Association, said the Association supported the plan because it would all alleviate use pressure on existing fields. Mark Olen, 4860 Hastings Dr., Lake Oswego, OR 97035 said Lake Oswego Junior Baseball, the Lake Oswego Junior Soccer Club and the Lake Oswego Youth Sports Alliance supported the plan. Steve Dodds, 17963 Ridgelake Drive, Lake Osw_ ego, OR 97034., said he had served on the committee that reviewed possible sites for fields. He advised it was better to have fields controlled by the City than by the School District, and to formalize standards for the dog park. Gary Goldstick, 961 Terrace Drive, Lake Oswego, OR 9703 4., representing Friends of Luscher Farms Dog Park, said the applicant had done a good job of achieving compromise between users and he looked forward to having a dog park that could be used in all seasons. Jack Sullivan, 17660 Stafford Rd., Lake Oswego, OR 97035, testified that he generally favored the plan, but he was concerned about impacts to his residence and his nearby development. He listed his concerns, including properly delineating the seasonal streambed and ensuring buffering trees would remain to protect the residence from glare of lights and offer protection to wildlife. Patty Bauman, Lake Oswego Youth Lacrosse, 2065 Lilli Lane, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, agreed there should be a multi -sport field to serve football, soccer, lacrosse and baseball players, not just soccer and baseball players. There was no testimony from anyone opposed or neutral to the application. City of bake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 7 of 8 Minutes of April 2, 2007 Rebuttal The applicant's representatives reported they had met with Mr. Sullivan and discussed his concerns. They said the dense stand of trees that served as a northern buffer would be left in place. They said they had slightly relocated the north dog park to gain more room between it and the Sullivan property. They pointed out their photometric exhibit showed light would be controlled. They said they planned to enhance natural vegetation and wildlife habitat. They confirmed the wetland had been delineated according to DSL standards and it would be enhanced and regulated to ensure existing drainage patterns into the wetland would not change. They explained that fields could be striped for multiple use and after that it was up to the sports leagues to work out their schedules. Deliberations No one present requested that the record be kept open for additional written evidence or testimony. Chair Tierney closed the public hearing to additional testimony, The applicant waived their right to more time to submit a final written argument. Ms. Ostly observed the applicant had balanced uses and would offer a park that would serve all ages and offered the amenities of restrooms and drinking fountains. Mr. Needham indicated he favored the plan to protect and enhance the wetland. Ms. Binkley said she liked the fact that people of a wide range of ages would use the park and that fact it had two dog parks. Chair Tierney thanked the applicant for a process that produced a good plan the community supported. Ms. Binkley moved to approve LU 05-0076, Ms. Ostly seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. Chair Tierney announced the final vote would be held on April 16, 2007, LU 06-0073, a request by Blazer Development, Inc, for approval of the following: LA Development Review Permit to construct a 3 -story, mixed use residential/commercial building with the following exceptions pursuant to LOC 50.65.075; + An exception to LOC 50.65.030(2)(x) to reduce the percentage of the ground floor abutting pedestrian ways (measured linearly) that are required to be designed with display windows and entry features from 80% to 65%; and, Reduction in the 40% combined Landscaping & Open Space requirements to 20.3% [LOC 50.45.010(1) and LOC 50,47.010(2)]. 2. Removal of nine trees. Location of Property: 510, 516-518, and 530 4`h Street (Tax Lot 1800, 1900 and 2000 of Tax Map 21E 03DC). Staff coordinator is Jessica Sarver, Associate Planner. Chair Tierney announced this hearing had been continued to April 16, 2007. VI. GENERAL PLANNING & OTHER BUSINESS (None) VII. ADJOURNMENT There being not further business Chair Tierney adjourned the meeting at 10:45 pm. Respectfully submitted, �anice Bader Eco, dministrative Support III Ddr6minutes104-02-07.doc City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 8 of 8 Minutes of April 2, 2007