Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2019-06-17 PMCity of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of June 17, 2019 Page 1 of 6 APPROVED CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Development Review Commission Minutes June 17, 2019 The Commissioners convened at 7:02 PM in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 380 A Avenue. Members present: Vice Chair Brent Ahrend, Jeff Shearer, Randy Arthur, and Jason Frankel Members absent: Chair David Poulson and Kirk Smith Staff present: Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Kat Kluge, Administrative Support COUNCIL UPDATE Vice Chair Ahrend noted that Councilor John LaMotte was not present to give an update. MINUTES April 1, 2019: Commissioner Shearer inquired if both he and Vice Chair Ahrend needed to vote or if they could abstain, as neither were present. Mr. Boone responded that it was an administrative matter and a majority was needed to approve the minutes. Both Commissioners were eligible to vote, as being present at the prior meeting is not a requirement to vote. Commissioner Frankel moved to approve the Minutes for April 1, 2019, as written. Seconded by Commissioner Arthur and passed 4:0. PUBLIC HEARING LU 19-0025, a request for a Development Review Permit to construct a temporary gymnasium at Lake Oswego Junior High School. This site is located at 2500 Country Club Road (Tax Ids: 21E0500600, 21E0400300, and 21E04CB03000). The staff coordinator is Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager. Mr. Boone gave an overview of the public hearing process. Mr. Boone asked DRC members to declare any ex parte contacts (including site visits), biases, or financial conflicts and their business/employment. All DRC members present declared they have no ex parte contacts (other than the listed site visits), conflicts of interests, and no bias. Commissioner Frankel stated he and his mother both attended the Junior High. Commissioner Arthur stated that his son had attended the Junior High, and there were two companies (Geo Design and KPFF Engineering) that appeared in a conflicts-check ran with his employer, but he is not an equity partner and has no direct contact with these companies, so there is no conflict of interest. Vice Chair Ahrend stated that his daughter had attended the Junior High. Commissioner Shearer stated that he attended the Junior High and played all kinds of sports in City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of June 17, 2019 Page 2 of 6 APPROVED the area in the back. There were no challenges to the Commissioners’ right to hear the application. Staff Report Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager, presented the staff report. Lake Oswego Junior High (LOJH) is on a 30.7-acre site, comprised of both the Junior High and Uplands Elementary school, with four different tax lots. Since the lots are not consolidated, technically the zoning analysis is performed on each individual tax lot. Staff found that the applicant has shown that all zone standards are met based on the entire site, but recommends a condition of approval that all tax lots be consolidated prior to final occupancy, as the buildings cross property lines. The site is zoned Public Functions (PF), with Springbrook Park abutting the site to the south and southwest and all other surrounding properties zoned R-10 and developed with single-family dwellings, except for the River West Church complex (abutting the site to the east). The proposed addition is located on the west side of LOJH, within a courtyard surrounded on three sides. There are sensitive lands that run approximately between the two schools, up towards the northeast side of LOJH; however, the proposed addition is well outside of those areas and does not impact sensitive lands in any way. The request is to construct a temporary gymnasium, and even though it is considered to be temporary, it still needs to meet all Building Design Standards. Enrollment will not be increased; rather, the gym will serve the existing student population. The gym addition is about 10,000 square-feet and will connect to the existing building via a hallway. There will be a new 8-foot wide concrete sidewalk around the rear of the gym that will connect to the existing sidewalk at the northwest corner of the building. Staff finds that all PF zone standards are met. There is a 30-foot setback required from the west property line and the proposed addition is approximately 50 feet from that property line. Maximum height allowed is 35 feet and the gym is just under 27 feet tall. There is a maximum lot coverage of 30% for the site and the coverage is approximately 15%, so they are well under that standard. The automobile parking requirement for schools is based on either auditorium size or number of classrooms and the proposed gym is neither, so it does not increase the parking requirement; however, whenever there is more than a 10% increase to institutional buildings, the bicycle parking requirement is triggered. The applicant, in their narrative, stated the gym addition only increases the size of the school by 8.6%. The City looks at the buildings that existed as of February 19, 1998. The applicant received approval for modular buildings and a hitting shed last year, and those, along with this addition, do increase the size by more than 10%, so triggers the bicycle parking standard. A total of 96 bicycle parking spaces are required for the junior high and there are currently only 40 spaces, so there is a deficiency of 56 spaces. The Applicant has two options: install 56 bicycle spaces, or delay putting in all bicycle parking spaces, utilizing a provision in the code that requires 30% of the spaces to be installed now (the existing 40 spaces covers that) and to execute and record a covenant to undertake a bicycle parking study and install those found required per the study in accordance with Table 50.06.00.25. This is reflected in recommended condition A(1)(a). The addition will be located on a flat, grassy area and no trees will be removed. The proposed gym will be connected to the existing gym and will be similar in height and scale. Along the west property line, there is a stand of trees that acts as a buffer and a gate in the fence leading to adjoining property; however, there are some gaps in the buffer, which will be discussed later. The main standard to look at is the Building Design Standard. This requires that the addition be City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of June 17, 2019 Page 3 of 6 APPROVED complementary in appearance to adjacent structures of good design with regard to materials, roof lines, height and overall proportions; be designed to integrate with existing buildings; and their elements are to be complementary in appearance to the building upon which they are associated. Ms. Numanoglu noted that “complementary” does not mean that it matches exactly, but that it is pleasing and fits into the overall design character of the structure. This building can only be seen by the properties abutting the site to the west. The single-family dwellings are not subject to this General Building Design Standard (which applies to commercial, institutional and public-functions structures). Therefore there are no nearby buildings of good design to compare the addition to. Staff finds that the addition is complementary: the metal siding, clerestory windows, and the paint colors (neutral tones) are complementary to the red bricks of the main part of the school, as well as the neutral color of the existing gym. It is similar in scale and proportion to the existing gym. Ms. Numanoglu noted that the clerestory windows provide some visual interest, along with the color panels, but still maintains the privacy of the dwellings next door. Schools are required to provide 20% of the gross site area in open space/ landscaping. This site has over 60%, so well over that requirement. Screening or buffering is required between dissimilar uses (the single-family dwellings next door). The applicant is proposing to put in an arborvitae and sweet viburnum hedge of about 100 feet in length and five feet tall at planting. This meets the standards, but the applicant may find later on that this hedge poses some security concern, so staff is recommending a condition of approval to allow the applicant some flexibility. The hedge is shown to be offset about five feet from the fence line and that is fine, but could give students or others a place to hide and could become unkempt. They may also want to avoid blocking any existing gates in the fence, so the applicant could put in a break in the hedge to allow for access to the gates. Technically, the applicant only needs to provide buffering where there are existing gaps in the trees and other landscaping. Condition A(1)(c) provides some flexibility to make modifications to accommodate these concerns, if the applicant so chooses. Ms. Numanoglu noted that staff is recommending approval, subject to the conditions identified in the June 5, 2019 staff report. If DRC members have technical questions or other questions she is unable to answer, the applicant has brought their whole team. Questions of Staff Commissioner Arthur asked about the discussion regarding the neighborhood meeting notice requirement on page 6 of the Staff Report and the purpose of that meeting. Ms. Numanoglu responded that the neighborhood meeting is beneficial both to the applicant and to the neighborhood, giving the opportunity to identify issues early on so the applicant could address them before they finalize their plans and go to hearing; and it keeps both parties from being blind-sided by the proposal. Ms. Numanoglu noted that the applicant is expected to take any concerns raised during the neighborhood meeting seriously, but they are not required to change their plans. Commissioner Arthur noted that staff identified that the applicant did not satisfy the 20-day notice requirement, and stated that did not seem to be a concern of the City. Ms. Numanoglu acknowledged that the applicant was about a week deficient, but because the City provides notice to all properties within 300 feet and to all neighborhood associations 20 days prior to a public hearing and posts a notice on the site, that cures any kind of lack of notice, as citizens still have an opportunity to comment and testify. Vice Chair Ahrend indicated that it appeared there were quite a number of attendees at that neighborhood meeting, per the sign-in sheet. Ms. Numanoglu affirmed this. Vice Chair Ahrend inquired about the modular buildings added last year (noting that application did not come before the Commission). Ms. Numanoglu replied that not all applications will be referred to the DRC, especially when they are fairly straightforward and have minimal impacts. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of June 17, 2019 Page 4 of 6 APPROVED Those type of applications are generally reviewed by staff. Ms. Numanoglu then added that the modular buildings are on the north side of the site and had little to no impact to any adjacent properties, and it also didn’t increase enrollment. Vice Chair Ahrend asked about the 10% increase to the school and bicycle parking and whether it also applies to the vehicle parking. Ms. Numanoglu replied that it does not apply to vehicle parking. Vice Chair Ahrend then inquired if vehicle parking spaces were added at the time the modular buildings were added. Ms. Numanoglu stated she believed they were, but that wasn’t her application; however, she recalls reading it as background for this application. Vice Chair Ahrend pointed out that the applicant stated they were adding 14 vehicle parking spaces in their narrative, but that didn’t appear in the staff report. Ms. Numanoglu replied that was probably a carry-over from the prior application’s narrative and that the applicant can confirm that. Vice Chair Ahrend inquired about the definition of “temporary”, since this was being treated as a permanent structure, using those standards. Ms. Numanoglu stated that the City views it as a permanent structure; however, the applicant portrayed it as a temporary structure, so it may not be there in five years. Vice Chair Ahrend then asked if there was a time limit or if the structure could stay there as long as the applicant wanted. Ms. Numanoglu affirmed there was no time limit. Vice Chair Ahrend asked if the City knows why the tax lots were not consolidated at the time of the last application. Ms. Numanoglu stated that she did not know. Mr. Boone added that the issue of tax lot analysis has been evolving, starting when he first arrived, and that with this application, the setbacks were based on the entire site, rather than the tax lot boundaries, so it was time to do it. Mr. Boone then added that the City has done that on two other recent applications. Applicant Testimony Keith Liden, with Bainbridge (representing the School District), stated that everyone from the applicant’s team was there, except Tony Vandenberg, and they could answer additional questions regarding architecture, engineering and other technical issues. Mr. Liden acknowledged that staff really went through everything that needed to be discussed, but would like to highlight a few basic parts of the application. There are four elements of the proposed improvements: the temporary gym; a stormwater treatment facility (or raingarden) on the north side; the sidewalk; and the hedge. The applicant geared the work on maintaining a compatible relationship with the neighbors. The colors chosen for the building are the outcome of the neighborhood meeting (the School District originally chose a different color palette), so the building will really not be that noticeable to the neighbors on the other side. The sidewalk is intended for emergency access and egress and is not intended to be a regular route in and out of the gym. Looking at the Conditions of Approval, the School District is satisfied and will comply with them, as follows: add 56 additional bicycle parking spaces; implement outdoor lighting compliance with Lake Oswego Code (LOC); submit a final storm drainage report; submit the final stormwater management plans; maintain erosion control; and implement conditions for Certificate of Occupancy including the parcel consolidation. Questions of Applicant Vice Chair Ahrend asked Mr. Liden to speak to some of the questions he had; such as, what “temporary” means. Mr. Liden replied that the School District is ultimately planning on replacing City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of June 17, 2019 Page 5 of 6 APPROVED the entire school, thus the use of the term “temporary”, but that would take another bond measure to have the funding to do that. Mr. Liden added that also applies to the modular units in the front. Ms. Caitlin McGehee, of Oh planning+design stated that the goal was to replace the school in five years. Commissioner Frankel inquired about the plan for the area between the fence and the hedge, as there are a lot of things that can happen behind that 5-foot setback. Ms. McGehee responded that they intend to go with the recommendations of the City and modify the hedge to allow for staggering (being off-set to allow for interior views), so there will be no hiding places, and they will also allow for a gap at the gate. Vice Chair Ahrend asked if the condition of approval recommended by staff allows the flexibility in design that the applicant needs. Ms. McGehee affirmed. Commissioner Arthur inquired if the gym will be a standard basketball court size. Ms. McGehee affirmed and added that it meets the high school competitive standards. Commissioner Arthur then asked if the gym is anticipated be open to the public as part of the City’s Parks and Recreations program. Ms. McGehee responded that it would not. Commissioner Arthur inquired if any gyms were open to the public, as there is a new bond measure with a new recreational center being discussed. Ms. Jamie Harwood, with the School District, replied that the gym will not have that sort of access to it through the school and it is not conducive to spectators due to the width. Ms. Harwood added that the only gyms that are closed to the public now are: Westridge; LOJH; and River Grove; however, the other school gyms and the fields at Lakeridge Junior High are accessible to Parks and Recreation. Vice Chair Ahrend asked if his understanding that there is not much infiltration with the raingarden and thus required an overflow to the stormwater system was correct. Mr. Alex Simpson, Civil Engineer with Harper Houf Peterson Righellis, Inc., stated that Vice Chair Ahrend was correct; there is no suitable infiltration and the facility is sized to store/meet the City’s Flow Control Standards and will draw down over the required release rate into the system. Vice Chair Ahrend then asked if staff will review the final stormwater calculations and design. Ms. Numanoglu affirmed. Commissioner Shearer inquired if the existing drainage system can handle the additional load. Mr. Simpson replied that the system they will connect to will be the existing roof drainage system that flows to the north and eventually out onto Country Club Road. Vice Chair Ahrend inquired if the existing roof drainage system will be tied into this system. Mr. Simpson responded that the roof structure drains will not be modified at all and the new gym will connect to that existing system on the main school building. Commissioner Shearer asked if the plans included putting French drains around the foundation and crossing the slab. Mr. Simpson stated that he believed the current plan just shows a French drain on the west side. Commissioner Shearer opined that the property was pretty boggy historically. Public Testimony Vice Chair Ahrend noted no one signed up to testify on this application. Deliberation Mr. Boone inquired if the applicant wished to submit final written argument or if they wished the Commission to deliberate on the evidence and arguments received to this point. Mr. Liden responded that they wanted the Commission to deliberate on the evidence provided. Commissioner Frankel noted that he is happy with the application and would say “yes” based on this. Vice Chair Ahrend stated that his questions have been answered and he is comfortable with it too, so would entertain a motion. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of June 17, 2019 Page 6 of 6 APPROVED Mr. Boone indicated that staff has a recommendation to DRC before proceeding to a motion. Ms. Numanoglu pointed out that the School District is on a very tight timeline with a number of their projects, which need to be done by the end of summer, and the District was hoping to have this application heard at the June 3, 2019 DRC meeting, but that just could not happen. Ms. Numanoglu added that in anticipation of a decision to approve, being without further testimony or changes, staff has prepared draft Findings for review (these incorporate the findings and conditions in staff report), and if DRC members were so inclined, the Commission could adopt those Findings as part of its decision tonight (this would negate the need for a special meeting on June 24, 2019, as there is no quorum on July 1, 2019). Vice Chair Ahrend inquired if there were any requirements to hear Findings a different night. Mr. Boone responded there was not, and with no issues being raised, DRC members could adopt the staff report as Findings. Decision Commissioner Frankel moved to approve the Application, as conditioned; and adopt the Findings as drafted for LU 19-0025. Seconded by Commissioner Shearer and passed 4:0. Commissioner Arthur noted his concerns over the non-compliance of the statutory notice for the neighborhood meeting and asked that the Planning Department be attentive to that; and if the presently mandated notice period is not necessary, maybe that requirement should be changed. Moreover, if the statutory notice period for the neighborhood meeting is appropriate, and while the present requirement remains on the books, it should be observed by applicants, and enforced. OTHER BUSINESS Schedule Review and Management Update Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager, updated DRC members about upcoming meetings: July 15, 2019: two tree appeals are scheduled. Mr. Boone stated he would not be present and David Powell would appear in his stead. Ms. Numanoglu acknowledged that this was Vice Chair Ahrend’s last meeting and that all of the staff were very sad about this. Ms. Numanoglu stated that Vice Chair Ahrend has been one of the finest Commissioners the City has ever had, with his eight and a half years of service. Ms. Numanoglu added, on behalf of staff, they all have the utmost respect for him and thank him for his service, and would love to have him back if he ever decided to reapply. Ms. Numanoglu invited members to join staff for cake in the next room, and informed members that both Vice Chair Ahrend and former Commissioner Paden Prichard would be receiving “Distinguished Service” awards at the City Council meeting on June 18, 2019 at approximately 3:00 PM. Vice Chair Ahrend stated that he will miss everyone and that he’s enjoyed his eight and a half years on the DRC, and has learned a lot about architecture and City code, but is sure they will still be in touch, as he is still in town. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Ahrend adjourned the meeting at 7:44 PM. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Kat Kluge Administrative Support