Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2023-06-05 PM 503-635-0290 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Development Review Commission Minutes June 5, 2023 The Commissioners convened at 7:00 PM. Members Present: Chair Randy Arthur, Jeff Shearer, Bruce Poinsette, Dwight Sangrey, and Timothy Lyons Members Absent: Vice Chair Kirk Smith and John Dewes Staff Present: Johanna Hastay, Interim Planning Manager; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; Evan Fransted, Senior Planner; and Cristina Siquina, Administrative Support REPORT ON COUNCIL ACTIVITIES – Trudy Corrigan, City Councilor Councilor Corrigan updated members on the following recent City Council activities: a $4.8M contract approved for the Blue Heron II Trunk Sanitary Sewer project; a $524K contract approved for the Daniel Way Channel Stabilization project; staff's recommendations of projects to include in Metro's 2023 Regional Transportation Plan were endorsed; an update was received on the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan; and, a public hearing was held regarding stormwater mitigation and related City Code items for middle housing, with a tentative approval of Ordinance 2908. Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, added that the mitigation items also include those for all utility aspects of residential development (outlining more clear and objective criteria), and that homeowners may bring a Minor Development appeal to the DRC. MINUTES May 15, 2023: No corrections were noted. Commissioner Sangrey moved to approve the Minutes of May 15, 2023. Seconded by Commissioner Shearer and passed 4:0, with 1 abstention. FINDINGS LU 23-0007: A request for a minor and major alterations to the main house of an historic resource (Jantzen Estate) that includes the following:  South Façade (front): new window; replacement of existing garage doors, windows and vent; and restoration of existing windows. Development Review Commission Minutes June 5, 2023 Page 2 of 9  North Façade (lakeside, rear): new addition along the east portion; new screened porch with metal roof; new terrace with addition below; removal of railing/skylight and replacement with new roof; replacement of all existing windows; new windows and door openings; and new dormers. The applicant is also proposing removal of two trees for the construction of the alterations to the main house. This site is located at 1850 North Shore Road (Tax Reference 21E09AC01500). The Staff Coordinator is Evan Fransted, AICP, Senior Planner. Commissioner Sangrey moved to approve the Findings, Conclusion, and Order of LU 23-0007, as provided. Seconded by Commissioner Lyons and passed 4:0, with 1 abstention. PUBLIC HEARING LU 23-0005: A request for the following:  Modification of a Conditional Use Permit and Development Review Permit to construct a new middle school;  Major variances to bicycle parking and fence screening standards; and,  Removal of 52 trees for development activities. This site is located at 2500 Country Club Road (Tax Reference 21E0500600). The Staff Coordinator is Evan Fransted, AICP, Senior Planner. Mr. Boone gave an overview of the public hearing process, outlined the applicable criteria and procedures, and gave instructions for any verbal testimony given. Mr. Boone asked DRC members to declare any ex parte contacts (including site visits), biases, or financial conflicts. All DRC members present declared they were familiar with the site but have no ex parte contacts, conflicts of interest, and no bias, except as follows. Chair Arthur declared that the Seattle branch of his firm (Bullivant Houser Bailey), represented the Lake Oswego School District (LOSD) in a now-closed matter; KPFF was found to be a party adverse to his firm's clients in open matters; and, DKS was found to be a possible adverse party to his firm's clients in an open matter. He stated that this would not influence his analysis during the hearing, as he was of Counsel with the firm and had not worked on nor was familiar with any of those matters, nor did he receive any direct financial benefit from these firm matters. There were no challenges to the Commissioners’ rights to consider the application. Staff Report Evan Fransted, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. The Lake Oswego Middle School is located on a unified site with Uplands Elementary that has approximately 30.41 acres in size, with frontage on Country Club Road and additional vehicle Development Review Commission Minutes June 5, 2023 Page 3 of 9 access on Wembley Park Road. It is zoned Public Function (PF). To the north, properties across Country Club Road are zoned PF and include Lake Oswego High School. Abutting properties to the south and west include Springbrook Park (zoned Park and Natural Area (PNA)) and R-10 residential dwellings. Properties to the east include River West Church and other R-10 residential dwellings. The perimeter is lined with trees. The site slopes up from Country Club Road to a plateau near the center of the site, where the existing middle school is located. The existing middle school building, parking lot, and western multi-use sports facility removed and rebuilt as part of this project. No changes are proposed to Uplands Elementary School nor to the existing eastern softball field. A Resource Conservation (RC) District and a Resource Protection (RP) District bisects the campus between the two school sites. No development is proposed in these Sensitive Lands Districts. The proposed improvements to the site include the new building, parking lot, internal pathways, and athletic fields. The proposed building is located approximately 103.5 feet from the front lot line along Country Club Road. Required setback to the east and west lot lines is 27 feet. The closest portion of the proposed structure is approximately 385 feet from the east property line and 39.8 feet from the west property line. Preferred and alternate design plans, along with perspective drawings, were shown, and building materials were described. Maximum height standards are met. Uplands Elementary School is approximately 600 feet from the proposed new building and is visually separated from the middle school by a continuous row of trees. The only connectivity between the two schools is a pedestrian pathway. Staff finds that the new building establishes a distinct character and function from the accessory structures that will remain. Overall, staff finds that the Applicant's narrative, along with the proposed elevations and landscaping plans, adequately address how both building designs comply with the applicable building design criteria and are recommended for approval. The site contains 41% in open space and landscaping set-asides. The landscaping plan shows numerous existing trees to meet the street tree requirement. The parking lot includes a mix of trees and shrubs. Existing landscaping along the perimeter of the site and proposed landscaping provides screening between the new building, parking lots, sports fields, and surrounding uses. The landscaping mitigates the noise, lighting, and other impacts to the surrounding uses. The Applicant proposes to remove 46 trees for proposed construction activities. The Applicant's arborist's report states that the removal will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, adjacent trees, nor existing windbreaks. There are no slide areas where unstable soil would be affected by surface waters. Fifteen of the 46 trees proposed for removal need to be evaluated as "significant" trees. Staff finds that no feasible alternative exists for the removal of the significant trees. Staff concludes that removal of the 46 trees complies with the applicable criteria, with 48 mitigation trees being required (29 native species). The landscaping plan shows that 187 will be planted, including 100 native species. Staff finds that the Conditional Use criteria are met. Noise-generating equipment will be screened and located approximately 128 feet from the closest residential property to the west. The proposed on-site lighting will not create glare or spillover into adjacent residential properties. The school will provide on-site circulation with walkways, safe loading, and ingress/egress on and to the site. Access for vehicles and bicycles will be enhanced by a widened driveway to Country Club Development Review Commission Minutes June 5, 2023 Page 4 of 9 Road. The site plan shows separate bus and vehicle loops for student drop off and pick up. The building reconstruction will increase the student population by 50 students. A traffic analysis was performed. This found that the queuing inside of the parking lots would not affect to the public intersection onto Country Club Road. The project meets the required number of parking spaces. The additional AM/PM peak trips would maintain the operation of the City's performance level of service "E." The traffic analysis recommends providing a second northbound approach, with re- striping to provide a dedicated left turn lane. No safety concerns were raised at the intersection to Country Club Road, based on the crash analysis. Driveway sight lines are met. The school operates from 9:00 AM to 3:55 PM on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday, and from 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM on Thursday. The proposed increase to student capacity is not expected to create more noise that could be heard off-site than the current use. Staff finds that the Major Variances requested should be denied, as the criteria are not met. Compliance would not create an unnecessary hardship. The Applicant has amended the site plan to reconfigure the bicycle parking to comply, so this denial analysis will no longer be detailed. Regarding the modified screening allowance requested, staff finds that the evergreen hedge screening would not prevent breaks to access gates in the fencing. In conclusion, staff recommends approval of LU 23-0005, subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval (COAs) and to the denial of the requested Major Variances. Questions of Staff Commissioner Lyons requested to see the rendering of the fencing/hedge screening location again. He then asked which side of the fence the hedge screen would be planted on. Mr. Fransted replied that it would be on the west side, between the fire access lane and the fence. Chair Arthur asked for an explanation of how the plans had been revised to address the bicycle parking requirements. Mr. Fransted indicated that this would be addressed in the Applicant's presentation; adding that the bicycle parking would begin within 50 feet of the entrance covering. Regarding the fence screening variance, Chair Arthur noted concerns over campus security issues being raised; requesting the analysis of that topic being a relative factor or not. Mr. Boone explained that they looked at the physical circumstances of the property, the purpose language, special circumstances or conditions beyond the Applicant's control, or undue/unique hardship; adding that the Applicant made the position that security was necessary for their use, which equated to the use creating the need for the variance. Mr. Boone reminded members that the fence screening requirement applies to both residential and non-residential properties. Applicant Testimony Tony Vandenberg, LOSD Project Manager, thanked members for considering the application, and then shared a slide presentation (Exhibit F-009). He described the outreach and design processes employed to-date. He challenged the screening standard because of the notion of security, specifically; citing other schools in the district being allowed to build 8-foot fences that were specific for security purposes (to secure the outer courtyard and pathway, keeping students within school bounds). He explained that the additional hedge fencing would not be necessary, Development Review Commission Minutes June 5, 2023 Page 5 of 9 given the amount of landscaping vegetation planned in the courtyard area and the fire access lane that goes around the building. He cited the 2018 safety study, completed by True North, which concluded that concealment areas were a problem for schools and should be removed, in some cases (leading to clear lines of sight). He relayed that the School District proposed to move the hedge screening to the west side of the fire access lane and to the east of the existing fence, as an alternate solution. Mr. Vandenberg then described that they would add additional bicycle parking that would meet the 50-foot distance requirement. Questions of Applicant Commissioner Sangrey asked for confirmation that the existing fence was a property line fence, and that the hedge screening would be moved 25 feet to the west, away from the 8-foot security fence. Mr. Vandenberg affirmed both. Commissioner Lyons requested additional visuals depicting the location of the hedge screening and the proposed mesh fence, to better understand the security aspects of the fencing. Mr. Vandenberg noted that the ornamental picket-style fence would secure the courtyard and buildings during school hours; adding that there would be free access to exit, but a badge or keys would be needed to enter. Commissioner Lyons then asked staff if this was an acceptable alternative solution. Mr. Fransted explained that this standard was always applied requiring that the screening be adjacent to/in close proximity to the installed fence. Chair Arthur inquired whether the fire lane access width change from 20- to 12 feet changed staff's analysis. Mr. Fransted responded that it would not change that analysis. Chair Arthur then asked if the hardship criterion was not met, would members be constrained to approve the application without the fence. Mr. Boone pointed to there being two questions; the first being whether an evergreen hedge, which was 12 feet from a fence, screened the fence (clear and objective evidence); and if not, they would then return to look at the variance question (design and usage). Commissioner Lyons asked Mr. Vandenberg whether the hedge would be an evergreen. Mr. Replied that it would be a western red cedar hedge. Commissioner Lyons then asked staff of that was a commonly-used species for hedge screening. Johanna Hastay, Interim Planning Manager, replied that it was, as long as it was planted close together, maintained as a hedge, and topped regularly; pointing to Applicant’s screening proposal as incorporating not only a physical separation but also a use separation with the 12-foot fire access lane. Commissioner Shearer requested the Applicant's analysis of the code. Mr. Vandenberg stated that they did review the code in detail but saw differences there, specifically, students being the occupants and from what they were screening. He then added that they could have designed the building in a completely different configuration; yet, they would have gone against design standards that evolved since the last school that was built. He opined that they did the best they could with the design, given the buildable space available to them. Commissioner Sangrey inquired after the source of the criterion regarding the necessity for the security fence to be 8 feet tall, and whether that was broadly accepted by the City as necessary to Development Review Commission Minutes June 5, 2023 Page 6 of 9 secure a school environment. Mr. Vandenberg acknowledged that the perimeter fencing, at the schools in the LOSD, was typically 6 feet in height; however, when closer to the building, they utilized 8-foot fencing to create a secure area, as recommended by their security consultant, True North, because 6-foot fencing was easy for middle-schoolers to climb. Commissioner Shearer inquired whether the existing fence was owned by the School District or the property owner. Mr. Vandenberg answered that some sections were owned by the residential properties and others were owned by the District; adding that discussions were in process regarding the replacement of sections of fencing in need of replacing. Commissioner Shearer asked staff to discuss the lack of a stated required distance between the fence and the hedge. Mr. Fransted acknowledged that there was no set distance written in the code but argued that if 12 to 20 feet were allowed, what about more (a single lay-away was not given here). Mr. Boone reiterated the point of there being two questions in this instance -- screening versus design and usage; adding that the staff report indicated that staff was sympathetic with the concerns of the Applicant and that they think that a code amendment was necessary (two suggestions outlined: modify the Minor Variance classification for fence variances or an amendment to add distance or use requirements, to be implemented by the City Council). Commissioner Lyons requested confirmation that the Applicant felt that the mesh fence would be screened from view by the 6-foot hedge. Mr. Vandenberg answered that it would be screened by existing trees and shrubs, and that they would plant another row of evergreen screening. Commissioner Sangrey questioned how the view would be screened for those looking from the inside out. Mr. Boone relayed that the legislative history would support the interpretation that screening was from the outside of the property line viewer, and that the purpose of the land use standard was not to tell a property owner how to internally manager their property for their own purposes, rather, it was to deal with the off-site impacts; adding that staff applied this looking for a clear and objective interpretation of what "screening" means (e.g., the further away, the more factually ambiguous the question of whether someone can see around the corner or down a view angle). Staff agreed that they have applied "close proximity" to mean within 5 feet of the fence. Mr. Boone detailed the three applicable Major Variance criteria; explaining that the first (unnecessary hardship) had four considerations, and that the second (injurious to the neighborhood) had three considerations. He then noted that not all considerations must be met for a Major Variance to be approved. Chair Arthur requested more detail regarding the four trees that would be removed to increase the pathway. Mr. Vandenberg stated that the utilities going into the driveway and pathway required the removal of the trees. He added that this type of pathway had never been available to students in the past. Chair Arthur then asked if there was only one student entry. Mr. Vandenberg replied that there were two entries, and that the main student entry would lock down at the ring of the bell, while the secure visitor entry would remain open. Chair Arthur inquired when the construction would begin and end for this project. Mr. Vandenberg outlined the expected timeline (bidding in the fall, construction to begin June 2024, and completion two years later), with money being the factor in the decision regarding the final design. In response to Chair Arthur's next question, Mr. Vandenberg noted that the Uplands Elementary School will Development Review Commission Minutes June 5, 2023 Page 7 of 9 continue to be used as a "swing" school, housing other schools' students during remodels/rebuilds, for the near future. Commissioner Lyons asked if peak trips were considered in the design of the drop off/pick up loops (where buses were shown to loop around). Mr. Vandenberg explained that the buses loop around staff parking only, and that there was enough queue space to accommodate the parents in their automobiles; adding that they were continuing to educate parents on the single-entry point to correct some behavior. Mr. Vandenberg pointed to COA B.10.a, regarding plant sizes; requesting that the language be modified to say, "...a minimum 1-gallon size..." because of the difficulty maintaining the larger shrubs (as was their experience at Lakeridge Middle School). He then remarked that if they were required to do the fence screening, they would; agreeing that a change to the code should be proposed. Public Testimony In Opposition Mr. Boone explained that there would be five minutes allowed for testimony. Nancy Osborne, 1217 Laurel Street, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, expressed her appreciation for the building and lighting design. She stated that she was dismayed to see a yellow ribbon around a beautiful Copper beech tree (#6566), which sat on a knoll near the campus accessibility pathway. She shared that she had admired the tree for many years, as she passed it on her daily walks with her dog. She disagreed with staff's analysis that this shade tree needed to be removed to install a meandering pathway with stone benches, given that the students would then be sitting on the benches in the hot sun. She requested that the pathway direction be adjusted to meander near and underneath the beech tree, in order to save it. Ms. Osborne then pointed to the arborist report which misstated that there was more than one beech tree on the property. Applicant Rebuttal Cami Culbertson, Principal and Landscape Architect at Range Studio, LLC, expressed that she, also, wanted to keep the beautiful beech tree; explaining that due to the gradients needed to build an ADA accessible path to the entrance, they designed the pathway to remove the fewest trees possible and to give the most direct route (other designs would remove more trees). She then explained that there was 27 degrees of grade change between Country Club Road and the visitor parking lot. Deliberations Mr. Boone asked if anyone wished to submit additional new testimony or if the Applicant wished to submit a final written argument. No such requests were made. Mr. Boone instructed Chair Arthur to proceed to deliberations. Development Review Commission Minutes June 5, 2023 Page 8 of 9 Commissioner Sangrey asked staff if the request to modify COA B.10.a was acceptable. Mr. Fransted agreed that the size of the shrub could be modified to 1-gallon containers, as long as the density was maintained, and that Planning staff held the final approval of the landscaping plan. Commissioner Lyons shared that he found the fence screening requirement bothersome in this instance, but did not think that the Applicant met their burden to show that staff should grant a Major Variance, as the hardship existed but was created by the use. He indicated that he could not vote in favor of granting the Major Variance. Commissioner Shearer agreed with the prior recommendation that the District work with the City to propose a code amendment to the screening requirement over the next two years. Chair Arthur stated that he was in favor of the application, that he agreed that the requirements for the Major Variance on the hedge had not been met, and that the DRC could not, on its own initiative, waive the standards and requirements. Commissioner Shearer moved to approve LU 23-0005; excepting COA B.10.a (this will be adjusted to a 1-gallon plant size, upon staff review and approval of the final landscaping plan) and denying both Major Variance requests. Seconded by Commissioner Sangrey and passed 5:0. Mr. Boone instructed staff to return the Written Findings, Conclusion, and Order on Wednesday, June 21, 2023, at 7:00 PM. SCHEDULE REVIEW AND MANAGEMENT UPDATE Ms. Hastay updated DRC members on upcoming meetings: June 21, 2023 (Wednesday, due to the City holiday) has tonight’s Findings, the Habitat for Humanity townhome DR Permit, work sessions regarding administrative issues, and the Celebration for departing Commissioners. July 3, 2023 has the findings from the Habitat for Humanity CUP hearing. Ms. Hastay confirmed that Commissioners Shearer and Smith were leaving at the end of their terms, and that staff is still planning a Celebration of Service. Ms. Hastay relayed that staff admin Kat Kluge wished to pass along her own gratitude to the departing Commissioners. Interviews for two new Commissioners were in process. Ms. Hastay requested that members email their availability to her for the July 3, 2023 meeting. ADJOURNMENT Chair Arthur adjourned the meeting at 8:50 PM. Respectfully submitted, Development Review Commission Minutes June 5, 2023 Page 9 of 9 /s/ Kat Kluge, Administrative Support