Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2022-07-06 PM Development Review Commission Minutes July 6, 2022 Page 1 of 8 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Development Review Commission Minutes July 6, 2022 The Commissioners convened at 7:01 PM at City Hall, in the Council Chamber, 380 A Avenue, Lake Oswego, OR 97034. Members present: Chair Jeff Shearer, Vice Chair Randy Arthur, Bruce Poinsette, Dwight Sangrey, Timothy Lyons, and John Dewes Members absent: Kirk Smith Staff present: Jessica Numanoglu, Deputy Community Development Director; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; Evan Fransted, Senior Planner; Will Farley, City Traffic Engineer; Kat Kluge, Administrative Support, and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Support FINDINGS LU 22-0024: A request for a Major Variance and a modification to an approved partition (LU 20- 0038) to eliminate a condition of approval requiring flag lot screening fences along the side property lines. This site is located at 1880 Twin Points Road (21E09BD02712). The Staff Coordinator is Ellen Davis, Associate Planner. Vice Chair Arthur moved to approve the Written Findings, Conclusion, and order of LU 22-0024. Seconded by Commissioner Sangrey and passed 4:0, with 2 abstentions. *** AP 22-03 [499-22-000160-TREE]: A request for a hearing appealing staff’s tentative decision to approve Type II tree application (499-22-000160-TREE) to remove four Douglas-firs (30”-52” DBH) in order to construct a new single-family dwelling on the site. This site is located at 529 8th Street (21E03CA08500). The Staff Coordinator is Daphne Cissell, Associate Planner. Commissioner Poinsette moved to approve the Written Findings, Conclusion, and Order of AP 22-03 [499-22-000160-TREE]. Seconded by Commissioner Sangrey and passed 4:0, with 2 abstentions. *** AP 22 -04 [499-22-000158-TREE]: A request for a hearing appealing staff’s tentative decision to approve Type II tree application (499-22-000158-TREE) to remove five trees (one 36” Bigleaf maple and four Douglas-firs sized 23”- 47” DBH) in order to construct a new single-family dwelling on the site. Development Review Commission Minutes July 6, 2022 Page 2 of 8 This site is located at 541 8th Street (21E03CA08501). The Staff Coordinator is Daphne Cissell, Associate Planner. Commissioner Sangrey moved to approve the Written Findings, Conclusion, and Order of AP 22- 04 [499-22-000158-TREE]. Seconded by Vice Chair Arthur and passed 4:0, with 2 abstentions. PUBLIC HEARING LU 21-0078: A request for approval of the following for a new park (Rassekh): ● Major Development: Conditional Use permit – athletic field, skatepark and lighting; 65 space parking lot; ● Minor Development: • Construction of maintenance building, picnic shelter, restroom, dugouts, play area and associated site improvements, including utilities and walkways/pathway; and • Removal of 28 trees This site is located at 18011 Stafford Road (21E16D01100). The Staff Coordinator is Evan Fransted, AICP, Senior Planner. Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney gave an overview of the public hearing process, outlined the applicable criteria and procedures, and gave instructions for any additional verbal testimony given. Mr. Boone asked DRC members to declare any ex parte contacts (including site visits), biases, or financial conflicts. Chair Shearer welcomed the two new members (Timothy Lyons and John Dewes) to the Development Review Commission (DRC). All DRC members present declared they have no ex parte contacts (all stated that they were familiar with the site), no conflicts of interest, and no bias. There were no challenges to the Commissioners’ rights to consider the application. Staff Report Evan Fransted, Senior Planner, added Exhibits G-200 and G-201 prior to presenting the staff report. The site is approximately 9.66 acres, with frontage on Stafford Road (a minor arterial street), Atherton Drive, and Ridge Pointe Drive (both locals streets). The site is zoned Parks and Natural Area (PNA) and is vacant. Properties to the north are zoned R-15 and Public Function (PF) and developed with a church and Lake Oswego School District sports field. Properties to the south are located outside of the city limits (in Clackamas County's Rural Residential Farm Forest zone) and developed with a nursery. The property to the east is Luscher Farm (a park and agricultural development owned by the City and located in Clackamas County's Farm Use zone). Properties to the west and southwest are zoned R-15 and developed with residential dwellings and a private open space tract. The site includes sensitive lands that have been delineated as a Class I Resource Protection (RP) District, with a stream corridor and wetland (Atherton Tributary and tree grove in a Resource Conservation (RC) District). The Site Plan rendering showed the proposed athletic field, skatepark, lighting for the outdoor recreational facilities/activities, and the 65-space parking lot. These are considered a major park improvement, requiring a Conditional Use permit for Major Development. The proposed maintenance building, picnic shelter, restroom, dugouts, play area, walkways, and Utilities in the Development Review Commission Minutes July 6, 2022 Page 3 of 8 sensitive lands are permitted uses in the PNA zone and are considered minor park improvements. The project includes 56% (5.42 acres) of open space and landscaping, with a variety of trees, street trees, shrubs, and ornamental grasses. The proposed athletic field is made of artificial turf and can be used as a soccer field or two softball fields. The skatepark is approximately 10,000 square feet in area and located in the northeast corner of the park. Staff found that the Conditional Use Criteria are met because the PNA dimensional zone and major public facilities standards are met, the site is physically capable of accommodating the proposed use, and the functional characteristics of the proposed use are such that they can be made to be reasonably compatible with uses in its vicinity. A parking analysis was performed to determine the required number of parking spaces for the park. The athletic field is a single, multi-purpose field that can be used as either a soccer field or two softball fields. The study found that a single soccer field has a higher parking demand (62 spaces) than a softball field (50 spaces), and the skatepark is expected to generate an additional 3 parking spaces (the playground is expected to be secondary to the soccer/softball field). The study found that there would be a total demand of 65 parking spaces, and 65 parking spaces are proposed. A traffic impact analysis was performed to address potential traffic impacts. The proposed development is anticipated to generate one additional trip during the A.M. peak hour, 16 trips during the P.M. peak hour, 40 trips during the peak hour on Saturdays, and an average of 72 weekday trips. According to the operational analysis, the proposed development will have a minimal impact on the nearby intersections within the study area (all found to be operating acceptably under the current conditions and will continue to do so following the completion of occupancy of the proposed development). Queues at the intersections are expected to fit within the available storage provided in the roadways. The Engineering staff concurs with the Applicant's traffic impact analysis and its findings. Staff found that the proposed driveway location complies with all of the applicable standards. For lighting and noise, the closest residential properties are over 250' to the west of the parking lot, over 400' from the athletic field, and over 600' from the skatepark (separated by sensitive lands with trees). The proposed lighting fixtures include directional lighting and cutoffs to minimize light trespass and glare onto residential properties. Lighting for nighttime use of the field activity area will be limited to use during Lake Oswego Parks' sanctioned activities to reduce light and noise impacts. The park will be operated under the Parks' rules and monitored by the City's Parks and Rec Department. Staff finds that, due to the ample distance from adjacent uses and management by the Parks and Rec Department, the proposed park will function compatibility with the uses in the area. Staff finds that the proposed Major Park Improvements meet the Conditional Use Criteria. Artistic renderings of the proposed building plans were shown. These buildings must be compatible in appearance to adjacent structures of good design (4 buildings on Luscher Farm were used for comparison). The proposed buildings are typical in design, in terms of scale and massing, with single-story pitched metal roofs, and concrete, wood, and metal building materials. The Applicant is proposing installation of the sewer and water line by tunneling under the sensitive lands in the RP and RC Districts. The bore entry and exit points will be located outside of the sensitive land districts. Staff finds that avoidance of any impacts to the resource to install the water and sewer lines are not possible, but that the impacts are minimized by boring perpendicular to the stream channel and having the exit and entry pits outside of the resource. The functions and values of the RP and RC Districts will be maintained. Development Review Commission Minutes July 6, 2022 Page 4 of 8 A diagram was shown highlighting the Type II trees for removal. The Applicant is requesting to remove 28 trees in order to construct the site improvements, including grading and paving for the proposed park. The Applicant will be removing one dead tree and 112 sweet cherry and English hawthorn trees under an Invasive Tree Removal permit (separate from this application). Staff finds that none of the 28 trees proposed for removal are significant, and the removal of the trees will not have a significant negative impact on the character or aesthetics of the neighborhood. Staff concludes that the proposed tree removal complies with the Tree Removal Criteria. Condition of approval (COA) B-3 requires that the Applicant submit a final mitigation plan that shows at least 28 mitigation trees (19 of which must be native species). In conclusion, staff recommends approval of LU 21-0078, subject to the recommended COAs. Questions of Staff Commissioner Lyons asked if the lights would be on nightly or only during designated events. Mr. Fransted replied that the lights would be on only during designated events. Commissioner Lyons then inquired whether there was a cut-off time when the lights must be turned off. Mr. Fransted relayed that there were Parks and Rec rules that would be followed and would be managed on a case-by-case basis. Chair Shearer pointed to the LORAC Overlook Driveway Plan, asking that a description be provided. Mr. Fransted explained that the driveway in question was not part of this application, rather it was part of the Lake Oswego Recreation and Aquatic Center (LORAC) project. Chair Shearer stated he asked this question because of the pedestrian safety concerns at the Overlook and Stafford intersection. Jessica Numanoglu, Deputy Community Development Director, informed members that the LORAC project will come before the DRC in August, and was off-site from Rassekh Park. Chair Shearer opined that the City should be looking at the missing section of sidewalk near the site, pointing to the Palisades Neighborhood Association (PNA) document (page 14) where it recommended that a multi-jurisdictional traffic review should be completed on Stafford (the roundabout was under Clackamas County's jurisdiction, with improvement plans for Stafford Road from the Bridge to Childs Road), as this project fell into part of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan (page 1). He asked if this should be taken into consideration. Ms. Numanoglu replied that Will Farley, City Traffic Engineer, could speak to that, adding that it was the responsibility of this applicant to show that they met the traffic impact requirements for this development, as was found by staff. Mr. Farley responded that there was a traffic review of Stafford being completed (from just north of the roundabout to State Street), separate from this application, and funded by the American Rescue Plan funds. Mr. Farley then explained that Clackamas County was reviewing and designing Stafford Road from south of the roundabout to north of the river, and was looking at widening the roadway, adding bicycle lanes, and realigning Johnson Drive and Childs Road (installing a roundabout or signal at Childs Road). Chair Shearer voiced his recollection that the County's documents indicated that they were not looking at the roundabout. Mr. Farley acknowledged that there were no current plans for improvements at the Stafford Road roundabout, but that the County was looking at what may need to be done there (this roundabout was not in the City's jurisdiction). Chair Shearer requested an explanation of why this was not being taken care of, given the inclusion into the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Boone explained that the City was unable to identify any regulatory Comprehensive Plan policies in either the City's Plan or in the PNA Plan, and, more importantly, members were to look at this application and what traffic may be generated from it on the surrounding infrastructure. Chair Sheared asked for confirmation that LOC 50.03.003.5.(c)(e) required that this traffic question be addressed. Mr. Boone affirmed that this was required under the development application before them; however, they were to determine whether this application created an adverse impact on the infrastructure on the streets, not considering potential impacts from other area development (as this would be beyond the scope of the application - Applicants were not required to perform an Development Review Commission Minutes July 6, 2022 Page 5 of 8 entire area traffic analysis). Mr. Farley informed members that the traffic impact study performed was scoped with both City and County staff to determine the distance from the development for analysis, adding that the County was also reviewing the study to make sure they followed suit. He then noted that the County provided comments on the LORAC project, as greater impacts were expected from that development. Mr. Boone read the code in question into the record; pointing to "...created or contributed to by the proposed development." Commissioner Sangrey asked Mr. Farley if his department had performed a traffic assessment for the LORAC project. Mr. Boone stated that the LORAC application was not before them at that time. Mr. Farley replied that the traffic study analyzed the impacts of Rassekh Park by itself, and when looking at possible impacts from a completed Aquatic Center, as well as the reverse as part of the LORAC study. Mr. Boone reminded members that the question before the DRC was, "What does this development do?" and then impose conditions to mitigate this development, noting that they would look at LORAC separately, imposing mitigations for its traffic impacts. Chair Shearer asked about the nonenforcement of overflow parking on Atherton Drive. Mr. Farley relayed that he had received complaints about parking on Atherton Drive and had evaluated this himself, acknowledging that the posted signage may not be easily understood for enforcement, and that the City was making an effort to install signage that made it clear where parking was allowed and where it was not. Chair Shearer then asked about the HOA signs and whether the City would be installing islands, as depicted on the drawing. Mr. Farley replied that the island was actually and existing splitter on the roundabout going onto Atherton Drive and that there were no immediate plans to modify the HOA sign. Chair Shearer disagreed, stating that there was open asphalt off of the roundabout. Chair Shearer inquired if there were plans to mitigate traffic backing up on Stafford while cars were attempting to access the park (citing his observations of cars entering the temporary dog park that had access almost in the same place). Mr. Farley replied that he was not aware that the access was in the same location or that traffic was backing up, explaining that access was being designed to address a more fluid entrance. Mr. Fransted relayed that he was able to view the existing splitter island on Atherton Road via Google street view. Chair Shearer requested confirmation that the new lights to be installed would be on the east side of Stafford Road and that they would not shine above. Mr. Fransted affirmed that the lights would be on the east side and that details would be reviewed at time of construction. Applicant Testimony Steven Tuttle, Landscape Architect with Mackenzie Inc., shared the history, purpose, and goals of the project. He shared several artistic renderings of the Site Plans. He explained that they would be building up berms as sound buffers along the Stafford Road side of the property, and as a design element for the skatepark. The playground was designed to be inclusive for children of all abilities. The picnic shelter will be a 25' by 40' open-air structure. The best trees along the borders of the property will be retained to preserve the natural character. Brian Varricchione, Planner with Mackenzie Inc. and representing the Lake Oswego Parks and Rec Department, explained that the lighting was relatively modest around the perimeter of the property and the sports field lighting will consist of 60' to 70' poles with cutoff fixtures and focused LED lights. This will help mitigate glare to the residential area and Stafford Road. They plan to infiltrate stormwater on site with two different rain gardens. He explained that the code required that access be placed on the lower class street when there were two abutting streets. The driveway will be situated to the far west and will provide adequate queuing and sightlines. The parking study considered possible uses, with 65 spaces being both the minimum and maximum required spaces found. The traffic study considered sight-lines, queuing, and expected increased use, with all City code being met. Development Review Commission Minutes July 6, 2022 Page 6 of 8 Questions of Applicant Commissioner Dewes asked if the athletic field uses were restricted to soccer or softball games organized by the City or if it could be used by individuals organizing a private game. Mr. Tuttle replied that the Parks and Rec Department would manage the overall schedule and if not in use, the athletic field would be open to the public. Commissioner Sangrey inquired whether a drain-capable sand subbase was considered for the artificial turf of the athletic field or whether any other alternatives were considered to mitigate excessive rainfall. Matt Butts, Civil Engineer with Mackenzie Inc., explained that the artificial turf field was pervious, but they did not account for any infiltration, given some of the results on the Geotech report, adding that what was not naturally infiltrated would be collected in the rain gardens, which would then spill over to the creek area after the water was mitigated for pollution. Vice Chair Arthur requested a description of the design elements and measures being taken to mitigate the lighting impacts from the athletic field and from the parking lot. Mr. Tuttle agreed that the lights were a concern for many and a reason that they shifted the field to the right and the parking lot to the left, adding that the tributary area trees were helpful in screening some of the light. Mr. Varricchione added that the lighting heights and material selection could make a significant difference, thus the reason for proposing that the shielded-type lighting be used. He further explained that the lighting levels were shown on the Site Plan. Chair Shearer inquired if there were drain lines underneath the field securing the stormwater. Mr. Tuttle affirmed, adding that there was a collector pipe on the right side of the field directing the water to the lower rain garden. Public Testimony In Opposition Randall Yamada, 3291 Childs Road, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, speaking on behalf of the Stafford/Tualatin Valley CPO, stated that they were not in opposition to the park as a whole, rather to certain elements (submitted several times during this process). He stated that one of the questions he raised was why this park required a Conditional Use permit when it was already zoned PNA. Mr. Fransted replied that this was a major park improvement and the code classified that as a Major Development, which required a Conditional Use permit. Mr. Yamada then asked for confirmation that it was also required because it was adjacent to a residential zone. Mr. Fransted replied in the negative. Ms. Numanoglu explained that there was a use table that listed all permitted and conditional uses in all zones and that a park, which is a major public facility, is listed as a conditional use in the PNA zone. Mr. Yamada argued that the Conditional Use was required because of compatibility with the different residential use, which required conditions for development that would be special in the case of parks adjacent to residential areas. He opined that there should be buffers, limitations on lighting, and timing of use, which should be incorporated into the actual permission granted to the developer; otherwise, the developer could have their own concept of how it should be used (differing from the concept of residences and other businesses). He stated that he believed that their ideas were either not listened to or were dismissed throughout the entire process because this project did not fit within the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. He shared that he felt other Commission members asked dismissive questions of the commenting residents, opining that this was not appropriate and that it quashed the community interaction that should be happening. Mr. Yamada indicated that he wished to cede the rest of his time to Rick Cook (an introduction was given). Mr. Boone explained that organization representatives were not allowed to cede their time (this being granted only to individuals), nor could a portion of time be ceded. Development Review Commission Minutes July 6, 2022 Page 7 of 8 Rick Cook, 18451 Stafford Road, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, speaking on behalf of the Stafford Hamlet, shared highlights from their submitted written testimony: parking (120 spaces provided at Hazelia Park cited for comparison), utilities (no evidence provided that the wet well was deep enough to accommodate gravity flow), wildlife (terrestrial wildlife movement not accounted for), traffic (the driveway should be moved to the northern section of the property or onto Stafford Road, given the probability that driveways for the LORAC project will be on Stafford Road), and potable drinking water (all properties to the south of Atherton Drive are on wells). He requested that he be given an opportunity to request the record be left open on this application. Anni Miller, 16902 Crestview Drive, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, representing the PNA, stated that she had lived in Lake Oswego for 46 years. She asked for the date the traffic study was completed. Mr. Fransted replied that it was April 7, 2022. She opined that the study was askew because most people were still at home, adding that she saw much more traffic personally. She also opined that the PNA Comprehensive Plan (which she helped draft) was not being diligently looked at. She stated that their vision for the future was to promote continuity of the character of the Palisades neighborhood, with future development preserving biological diversity and natural ecosystems. She encouraged members to visit Pecan Creek to view all of the wildlife living there. They recommended using non-turf fields to allow for water drainage. She pointed to the City Council adopting a sustainability plan and climate action plan earlier that year, countering that the design elements for this project did not meet this plan. She opined that the Carter House was a potential death-trap. She relayed that the PNA's goals included preserving the natural resources of Lake Oswego. She stated that with the toll road being implemented in the near future, traffic will divert through the local streets, clogging the Stafford/Atherton roundabout. She requested that members look at the code in order to preserve Pecan Creek. She agreed that 65 parking spaces would not be sufficient. She stated that she observed the lights staying on at Hazelia Field and at the high school until after 10:00 p.m. from July 2, 2022 to July 4, 2022. Vice Chair Arthur asked if there were specific elements of the PNA Plan, relating to traffic, that she felt was not being properly addressed in this application. She answered that Mr. Cook pointed to the double standard of access from Stafford Road, and that there were areas in PNA that were posted as "no skate" zones. She also noted that many residents have called the police out to view all of the cars parked along the side streets. Applicant Rebuttal Mr. Varricchione relayed that the Applicant submitted some fairly significant analysis of the PNA Plan in their narrative demonstrating how the proposal was consistent with the PNA Plan's adopted goals and policies, and that staff found that the PNA's policies were not regulatory. He stated that a pump station could be installed, if needed, to get the sanitary water to the larger pump station. He explained that the rain gardens were designed to not only infiltrate the water, but to clean the water before it entered the soil, and that water quality standards were met. He noted that the parking standards were based on the worst-case scenario of the time between the end and start of a new game on a Saturday, accounting for other park users, as well. Mr. Tuttle acknowledged that the objections raised were important considerations that were a challenge for the project to address, given the multiple use demands on the proposed site. Chair Shearer requested to see the Site Plan rendering that showed the rain garden area. He expressed his concerns over the traffic issues raised and how there will most likely be congestion when parents are dropping kids off at the entrance. Mr. Tuttle pointed to the pull-out area next to the driveway where parents would be able to drop off their children, adding that the parking lot was designed in a loop. Mr. Varricchione added that the pull-out area could not be expanded further due to the vegetation they were trying to save. Chair Shearer then asked about the gravity Development Review Commission Minutes July 6, 2022 Page 8 of 8 sewer area. Mr. Varricchione described the boring areas utilized to avoid additional environmental impacts. Deliberations Mr. Boone asked if anyone wished that the record be left open to submit additional evidence or if the Applicant wished to submit final written argument. Mr. Cook requested a continuance to submit additional evidence. Mr. Boone explained the available options. Vice Chair Arthur moved to accept additional new written evidence only until 3:00 PM on July 13, 2022, with written rebuttal only accepted until 3:00 PM on July 15, 2022. Seconded by Commissioner Poinsette and passed 6:0. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR Commissioner Sangrey moved to appoint Randy Arthur as Chair. Seconded by Commissioner Poinsette and passed 5:0, with 1 abstention. Chair Shearer moved to appoint Kirk Smith as Vice-Chair. Seconded by Commissioner Poinsette and passed 6:0. SCHEDULE REVIEW AND MANAGEMENT UPDATE Ms. Numanoglu, updated DRC members on upcoming meetings: July 18, 2022 has the Golf Course application and the continued hearing from this night. August 1, 2022 has nothing scheduled at this time but will most likely have one item. August 15, 2022 has the LORAC application. ADJOURNMENT Chair Shearer adjourned the meeting at 9:06 PM. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Kat Kluge, Administrative Support