Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 1999-12-06 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES December 6, 1999 CALL TO ORDER The Development Review Commission meeting of December 6, 1999 was called to order in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon, by Chair Julie Morales at 7:10 PM. II. ROLL CALL Commission members present included Chair Morales and Commissioners Doug Cushing, Douglas Kiersey and Sheila Ostly. Commissioners Nan Binkley and Bruce Miller were excused. Staff present were Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager; Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Janice Bader, Senior Secretary. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Kiersey moved for approval of the Minutes of November 1. 1999. Ms. Ostly seconded the motion, and it passed with Mr. Cushing, Mr. Kiersey and Ms. Ostly voting yes. Ms. Morales abstained. Ms. Binkley and Mr. Miller were not present. Mr. Cushing moved for approval of the Minutes of November 15. 1999. Mr. Kiersey seconded the motion, and it passed with Ms. Morales, Mr. Cushing, Mr. Kiersey and Ms. Ostly voting yes. Ms. Binkley and Mr. Miller were not present. IV. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER None. V. PUBLIC HEARING LU 99-0038. a request by Lake Oswego School District for approval of Conditional Use and Development Review permits to install lighting and permanent seating for the existing athletic field at Lakeridge High School. The athletic field seating is proposed to accommodate the high school student body (approximately 1,200 seats). The installation of lighting will permit evening use of the athletic field. The site is located at 1235 Overlook Drive, Tax Lot 100 of Tax Map 21E 16. Staff coordinator is Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner. Continued from September 8th and September 20, 1999, hearings. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 1 of 10 Minutes of December 6, 1999 Ms. Morales opened the public hearing and explained the procedures and time limits to be followed. She recalled that the Commission was ready to begin deliberations regarding the application. She asked Commission members to report any ex parte contacts, site visits, biases or conflicts of interest. Ms. Morales, Mr. Cushing, Mr. Kiersey and Ms. Ostly reported they had read an editorial pertaining to the application in the Lake Oswego Review dated Thursday,November 25, 1999 (Exhibit 228). Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, advised the Commission to provide an opportunity for testimony to parties who desired to rebut any evidence or argument in the newspaper editorial, which he recalled had argued in favor of the application. Ms. Morales opened the public hearing to those parties. Rebuttal Jeff Kleinman, Citizens for Neighborhood Comnatibilitv, 1207 SW 6th Avenue, Portland, OR, 97201, stated that he represented neighborhood residents opposed to the application. He indicated the residents had been disappointed with the newspaper editorial and they believed the public sector applicant was not following the same rules as ordinary citizens were expected to follow. He said the residents had expected maximum energy and good faith from the applicant, instead of the applicant's proposal to deny rights to various users if they did not abide with the letter of the "No Parking"rules and rules requiring users to leave the field on time. He related that the residents did not expect that users would actually abide by those conditions. Pat Dulin,Lake Oswego, OR 97034, opined that the eight houses across the street from the field were worth more than the applicant's $800,000 investment in the field. Ms. Morales closed the public hearing and opened deliberations. Deliberation Ms. Ostly observed that the issues of noise and lighting were both related to the issue of timing of use of the field. She recalled testimony from the soccer association that they needed to use the field every evening. She noted that meant the residents would feel the impact of noise and lights every evening. She recalled testimony that the level of lighting had to be at least as good as what the Commission had been shown by the applicant. She suggested that recommended conditions of approval regarding the location of seating and an additional wall could help mitigate the impact of noise. Mr. Cushing pointed out the applicant had determined that they needed lighting at the field late in the process of improving it. He noted the DRC could impose lighting standards as a condition of approval. He opined that installation of a berm would have been a good idea at the time of the original application, but it was not a good option today. He suggested that the evening use of the field be expanded to allow lighting until 10:00 PM on several nights per week and that the applicant plan games according to that schedule. He asked how many evenings per week the Lake Oswego High School field was lighted. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of 10 Minutes of December 6, 1999 Ms. Morales noted the applicant had already reduced use of the field on Sunday evenings. Mr. Cushing noted the applicant's field was to be controlled by the City and he could recall no testimony to the effect that system would not provide effective control of use of the field. He commented that in the event the applicant did not abide by conditions of approval the application could be reconsidered by the DRC. He also recalled the District had indicated it would abide by a condition that no benches be located on the Cloverleaf side of the field. Mr. Kiersey held that traffic was the predominant issue related to the application. He observed it was the responsibility of the City to enforce parking regulations in the area of the field. He said he did not favor installation of a fence along Cloverleaf Road because it would act as a deterrent to people who desired to walk across the field to school, or elsewhere, and the gates would most likely not be monitored at critical times. He indicated that he preferred to impose a condition regarding times when the lights were to be turned off over recommended Condition C(1)(a) that specified the latest times that games could begin. Ms. Morales commented that she had been surprised the lights had not been installed at the time of the original application. The Commissioners discussed changing recommended condition C(3) to specify that no permanent or temporary spectator seating was to be allowed along Cloverleaf Road. The ensuing discussion centered on whether allowing team benches there would serve to entice spectators to that side. Mr. Cushing urged the Commission not to allow a condition that would tend to encourage people to move to that side of the field. Mr. Cushing moved to approve LU 99-0038 with conditions as drafted by the staff, modified as follows: A(1): To indicate that the type of lighting to be installed is to be to the standards of Exhibit 193. A(5): To clarify that the poles were to be painted brown or constructed of a dark brown material. A(6): To specify that the type of tree is to be a rapid-growing species. C(1)(a): To be deleted. C(1)(b): Becomes (a) and is to include the language that "use of lights shall be prohibited after 9:30 PM." C(1)(c): Delete the first half of the sentence up to "5:00 PM" and include the language "Use of the lights shall be prohibited after 7:00 PM on Saturdays." C(a)(d): Delete item and replace with "Use of the lights shall be prohibited after 6:00 PM on Sunday. Mr. Kiersey seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Morales, Mr. Cushing, Mr. Kiersey and Ms. Ostly voting yes. Ms. Binkley and Mr. Miller were not present. There were no votes against. Ms. Morales announced the decision would not be final until adoption of the written findings on December 20, 1999. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of 10 Minutes of December 6, 1999 LU 99-0042, a request by Venture Properties to modify DR 27-97 in order to modify the existing site plan by increasing the length of the three most westerly parking spaces from 18 feet to 28 feet. This modification will require the redesign of the storm water quality facility and landscaping will be reduced from 38.7% to 37.8%. The site is located at 4230 Galewood Street, Tax Lot 2000 of Tax Map 21E 8BC. Staff coordinator is Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner. Ms. Morales opened the public hearing and explained the procedures and time limits to be followed. She requested Commission members to report any ex parte contacts, site visits, biases or conflicts of interest related to the application. Ms. Morales, Mr. Cushing, Mr. Kiersey and Ms. Ostly all reported they had viewed the site. No one challenged any Commissioner's right to hear the application. Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner presented the staff report. She noted the DRC was hearing the application for the third time and she recalled its history: Original approval - 1997: The DRC had approved the application for a 9,600 square foot office building at the site and a building permit (DR 27-97) had been issued December 8, 1998. Two weeks after approval: A new property owner requested approval of modified plans to change the building facade and make related changes to the landscaping and grading plans. April, 1999: After discussions between the architect and the staff, the staff found they could not support his request to extend three spaces 17' beyond their original location in order to accommodate a construction trailer. Staff believed the modification would intensely change the storm water detention pond and other physical features in the area and impact existing trees. June 1999: The property owner submitted the application. August 1999: The property owner received a temporary occupancy permit with the understanding that all outstanding issues related to the site were to be resolved by October 15, 1999. The building was then occupied. Final Inspection: Staff noted significant discrepancies in the storm water detention pond design, elevations and grading. The owner and staff resolved the issues and the final occupancy permit was issued. Ms. Jacob advised the current proposal was a compromise to the City's storm water facility design standards, but it been accepted in order to save two areas of trees on the site. She noted the applicant had constructed a short retaining wall to protect the trees (see page 6 of the November 24, 1999 staff report). Ms. Jacob advised the DRC to review the entire proposal for compliance with the Zoning Code and Development Standards. She explained that lot coverage and setbacks had been addressed at the time of the first modification. She advised that West End Land Use Policies of the Comprehensive Plan required commercial development to minimize impacts City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 10 Minutes of December 6, 1999 on residential areas and the original proposal had complied with those policies. She explained that after construction began the owner had modified his plans and had made the building crawl space into a full basement. She advised that after the basement area was included in the calculation of required parking spaces, the 38 spaces currently on the site exactly met the parking requirement. She noted it was not possible to elongate three of the spaces and meet the requirement because there was no room on the site to relocate displaced spaces. Mr. Jacob related that the proposal would not significantly modify the landscaping requirements. She recalled that inappropriate landscaping in the bottom of the pond had been rectified to the satisfaction of the staff. She related that while the proposal would require removal of some trees and landscaping, the applicant proposed to replant around the pond and other areas and add three more trees, resulting in no net loss of vegetation at the site. Ms. Jacob advised the DRC that the proposal would degrade the aesthetics of the area. She pointed out where retaining walls were to be constructed on the pond in a manner similar to a bathtub, with one wall to be at least 5-feet high. She further advised that access to the pollution control manholes was necessary for maintenance purposes. She advised the proposal did not meet the Design Standards for drainage, as provided for in the Surface Water Management Design Manual. She said the proposed retaining wall created an inappropriate visual impact on adjacent properties and was not consistent with the scale of the one-story building. She recalled recent DRC approvals that had not allowed similar types of retaining walls around a detention pond. She said the elongation of the three parking spaces would create additional and unnecessary impervious surface and were not necessary to meet the Parking Standard or to improve safety for tenants or clients of the development. She related that staff had found the proposal presented a potential for onsite circulation problems when long vehicles tried to maneuver out of the parking lot. She recommended the application be denied. She clarified for Mr. Kiersey that the City had approved the existing pond in order to save trees. She also advised him that"hardship"was a criterion to be considered in hearing variance requests, but no variance was associated with the application. She clarified for Mr. Cushing that staff had allowed a 2-foot high wall on the pond in order to allow a pond design that would result in the saving of a Douglas fir tree (see September 22, 1999, letter from the staff). She explained that the applicant's proposal for a higher wall had triggered the issue of the impact of all of the walls. Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager, referred to photographs on page 9 of the November 24, 1999, staff report. He pointed out two 2-foot walls on the north and south sides of the pond and a pathway from the parking area to the basement access door. He said the issue to be decided by the Commission was whether to allow the construction of an additional 5' wall topped by a handrail on the parking lot side. Both staff members clarified for Ms. Morales that the elongated parking spaces were to accommodate vehicles driven by the staff of the building's tenant at such times as when they held their own staff meetings at the site. Mark Schoening, City Engineer, recalled the City had required detention of surface water since the early 1980s and water quality facilities since the early 1990s. He advised that plans for such facilities were to address aesthetics, landscaping and safety and the City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 5 of 10 Minutes of December 6, 1999 applicant's original proposal had accomplished that. He recalled the applicant had subsequently determined that he could not build according to the original plan and needed two retaining walls on the north and south sides of the facility. Mr. Schoening explained the current proposal was to add an additional 5-foot high retaining wall on the east side. He said the resulting design would make the facility look like a "bathtub" and complicate maintenance activities there because most of the control facilities were on the opposite end of the pond. He advised the higher wall would present a hazard to the public and the maintenance staff, reduce some landscaped areas, and reduce water quality and aesthetics in the area. He advised the design was not consistent with the City's design standards for water quality facilities. He acknowledged that installation of a railing would be beneficial there. He also acknowledged that "bathtub" appearing facilities were in evidence in the City, but the City had been attempting over time to limit the number of walls and the height of newly approved facilities. He could not recall any problems with the detention facility at the site during the Thanksgiving weather. Applicant Dorothy Cofield, 4248 Galewood Street, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, stated she represented Venture Properties. She clarified that her offices were not in the applicant's building, but in a building next to the site. She held the proposal was a modest one, and would allow contractors to park their vehicles at the site to attend a weekly Monday morning meeting. She said the vehicles would be similar in size to a 21-foot-long Suburban, with a trailer attached to it. She said that the trailers were necessary to move furniture for model homes to and from the site. She explained that the contractors currently unhooked their trailers and used two parking spaces at the site. She advised that use was a permitted use of the parking lot. She said the requested modification would actually improve the aesthetics of the site. She explained that the 5-foot retaining wall, with a planting strip on top for trees and shrubs, would mitigate the impact of vehicle headlights on the neighbors. She stressed the site was located in a General Commercial Zone, and not a Neighborhood Commercial Zone, and all commercial uses for goods and services were allowed there. She held that Comprehensive Plan policies were general goals and did not constitute approval criteria or apply to the application. She stated that buffering and the impact on the neighborhood were not approval criteria, although she contended the design was sensitive and would buffer the neighborhood from the development. She stated that the applicant had alternative plans either to use grass surface or pavement, depending upon what the DRC desired them to use. She calculated that if the area was paved there would be less than 1% change in runoff. She said the capacity of the detention pond had been increased from approximately 680 cubic feet to 800 cubic feet. She recalled the Code required parking spaces to be a minimum of 18.6 feet long, but provided for no maximum length. She said that expansion of the parking spaces would not impact the scale of the site or the building. She held it would present a better appearance than a situation where trucks extended past the current parking spaces. She said the site currently included twice as much landscaping as required. She noted the applicant was required to have 15% landscaping and after the proposal was implemented there would be 37.8% landscaping. She noted the water detention standards provided that retaining walls were to be avoided, but it did not prohibit them. She added that the new standards (Exhibit 17) did not apply to a minor modification. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 6 of 10 Minutes of December 6, 1999 She explained the two existing retaining walls were designed to protect a grove of maple trees and a fir tree, and were not for any other purpose. She introduced the applicant's development team of Renee Cannon, supervisor of the application; Scot Newcombe, Project Manager; Chis Beatty, Engineer; Dan Edmonds, Landscape Designer; and Jack Chris, Architect. Renee Cannon, Executive Vice President, Don Morrisette Homes, explained the applicant had requested previous continuances of the hearing in order to work with staff and resolve the issues associated with the application. She recalled Mr. Morrisette had requested the original design be changed in order to save a cluster of maple trees at the site. She said the applicant had completed all work within the 60-day period prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. She said they had been trying to be very good neighbors and had tried to comply with any reasonable request. She said that many people who came to the applicant's office needed space in which to park their maintenance and utility trailers. Scott Newcombe, Proiect Manager, 4230 Galewood Street, Lake Oswego. 97035, also recalled the modification of the pond design was due to Mr. Morrisette's request to save the maple trees. He explained that because the change resulted in pond capacity being short by approximately 80 cubic feet, the facility was redesigned. He provided photographs of his vehicle (an Expedition) and trailer combination while it was parked in one of the spaces at the site. He explained he moved furniture for model homes in and out of the building. He said the applicant was willing to either install a pervious grasscrete surface or pave the elongated spaces. He pointed out a manhole in the photographs and explained that an overflow device shown on page 24 of the water facility design booklet was within the manhole. He said that even with the newly elongated spaces a maintenance truck would be able to drive right up to the manhole. Chris Beatty, Hainer, Hoff, Regallis, 14245 SW Yearling Way, Beaverton, OR, 97008. explained he was the project design engineer. He clarified the originally approved plans had included one retaining wall on the south side of the pond. He explained how the facility had been reconfigured in order to save trees, and that capacity considerations had subsequently required the construction of a wall on the north side. He said the proposed third wall would vary from zero to 5.3 feet in height, and its highest point would be approximately at its center. He explained the flow-control manhole featured a chain that could be pulled and would drain the pond in the event of an emergency. He contended that access to the manhole was sufficient. He stated the current treatment capacity of the pond was 800 cubic feet. He said the addition of the new wall would not affect the capacity of the pond because it would be above the treatment surface elevation. He noted that after the additional impervious surface was added the pond would still meet the required capacity requirement of 700 cubic feet. He clarified for Mr. Cushing that the areas of wall connections would create a "stair-step" effect, or the effect could be made to resemble a "wrap-around" wall. He also acknowledged that soil and vegetation could be placed atop more walls. Ms. Morales estimated that the overhang from the large vehicles would reduce the planting strip's remaining width to 6 inches, or less. Mr. Beatty confirmed for Ms. Ostly that there was a stairway to the basement that was accessed via the parking lot. Ms. Jacob noted that City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 7 of 10 Minutes of December 6, 1999 Mr. Beatty's slides were to be designated as Exhibit 27, and the landscape plan was Exhibit 28. Mr. Beatty clarified for Ms. Morales that he had not observed the facility during a heavy rain. He said the facility would continue to function under the current proposal as the existing design functioned. He acknowledged that access to the pond would be a little more limited by the modification; however, it was better not to provide easy access to a pond with water up to two feet deep. Dan Edmonds, Prograss. 29570 S. Kinsman Road, Wilsonville. OR, stated he was the landscape designer for the project. He said the landscape plan addressed the impact of lights on the neighbors. He said the two-foot planter between the proposed wall and the parking spaces would contain a dwarf arborvitae hedge that would block headlights and noise from the adjacent backyards. He stated that the applicant proposed to add three western red cedar trees on the south side of the wall around the maple cluster to alleviate neighbors' concerns about intrusive lights. He explained a knickknick ground cover would be planted in a manner that would cause it to cascade down the wall as it grew and soften the keystone look of the wall. Ms. Morales observed that if wheel stops were installed it might be necessary to change the length of the parking spaces after taking vehicle overhang into consideration. Mr. Cushing observed that the applicant's drawing showed a planting strip that was two feet wide and accommodated the arborvitae and knickknick. Mr. Edmonds explained that was a sufficient width for those plantings, and he also explained the knickknick would tend to grow downward and away from the arborvitae. Mr. Kiersey observed the arborvitae would hide the handrail, but not the wall. Mr. Edmonds explained that willows and red dogwoods planted in front of the wall would also hide the wall, and the arborvitae was proposed to buffer headlights. He noted the willows were already three feet tall. Mr. Newcombe recalled that he observed water at the overflow pipe on the Friday morning after Thanksgiving and the facility was working appropriately at that time. He explained that the applicant had not realized the parking spaces in their original plan were too short because they were used to utilizing double parking spaces at their previous location. Opponents Bruce Goldson. 4260 Country Woods Court. Lake Oswego. OR 97035. testified that he resided directly west of the site. He noted his letter had been included in the staff report. He worried that the applicant had established a pattern of incrementally requesting changes to the site, including the basement and additional parking. He expressed his concern that no additional neighborhood meetings had been held to discuss the modifications. He opined the water detention facility did not function appropriately, even in its current design. He testified that the applicant lit the back of the site at all times, for no apparent reason, and the building lights had been on for weeks. He pointed out on Exhibit 14 that the arborvitae hedge was to be planted over drain rock and would not thrive. He pointed out in Exhibit 12 that the height of the parking stall was 244-foot elevation and the ground line was 237 City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 8 of 10 Minutes of December 6, 1999 elevation at the highest point at the west end of the site. He said that was six feet above the natural ground contour at that point and was a visual impact to the neighborhood. He said wheel stops would not solve the problem and would prevent a trailer from being backed up as far as possible. He contended pickups and cars would back over the hedge. Ron Hall, Chair, Waluga Neighborhood Association, 15194 Ouarry Road, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, recalled the neighborhood had been involved in the application process. He stated that the Association unanimously opposed the modification of the application. He explained they had not expected the site would be used for construction vehicles and trailers. He suggested the applicant park long vehicles a block away in the larger Mercantile Village lot. He questioned whether the water facility would function appropriately and indicated the Association was concerned about its appearance. He said they were also concerned about the tree canopy. He noted the Association was in the process of developing its neighborhood plan and its relationships with the commercial uses in the area. He said the applicant had violated the neighborhood's trust. He recalled that the Association had supported the original application but they were now worried about what modification the applicant was going to propose next. He said they had not anticipated the applicant's vehicles would park at the site and that their headlights would shine into residents' back yards. He recalled the Association had been told a fence would be constructed and adequate buffering trees and landscaping would be planted. He pointed out that the photographs presented by the applicant showed vehicles pointing directly over the top of the fence and into a resident's back yard. He related that when he parked his Expedition and trailer it extended three to four feet beyond a wheel stop. He reiterated the Association opposed the application and supported the staff report. Franz Junger, 4319 Harvey Way. Lake Oswego, OR 97035, stated he resided directly southwest of the site. He testified he was opposed to the application because he felt the neighbors' privacy was being invaded for the applicant's convenience in parking vehicles. He clarified that his work schedule meant that he was not usually at home when vehicles were leaving the parking lot. He explained that lights from vehicles projected over the wall and the trees in that area were lower than wall height. Mr. Boone advised that the application was a minor development and the criteria under LOC 49.23.215(1)(b) required it to meet development standards applicable to minor developments. However, he also advised that LOC 49.23.214(2) provided that, for purposes of applying development standards pursuant to (1)(b), it was to be considered a major development. He further advised that drainage criteria for major developments under LODS 11.035 provided that all drainage management measures were to meet City standards and specifications and be approved by the City Engineer. He noted the staff report said the City Engineer did not find the proposal was acceptable under design criteria in the City's Surface Water Management Design Manual (Exhibit 17). He advised the DRC that the standard described in the manual was not a criterion that it was empowered to modify. He advised that the procedure in LODS 11.035 meant that the design was to be first approved by the City Engineer and then the DRC was to review its land use impact. He acknowledged the DRC could review the land use impact of the application and condition its order upon the applicant obtaining the City Engineer's approval pursuant to LODS 11.035. He explained City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 9 of 10 Minutes of December 6, 1999 that an appeal of the City Engineer's decision would not be heard by the DRC, because it was not a land use matter. Mr. Pishvaie advised that testimony that Comprehensive Plan policies were not regulatory standards and were not standards for approval was incorrect. He advised the policies were connected to the City's commercial and industrial zoning districts by specific reference in the Zoning Code. Rebuttal Ms. Cofield requested that the record be held open for seven days to allow the applicant to address the jurisdictional issue and other issues brought up in testimony. She clarified that 16 inches of topsoil was to be placed atop the wall and would be sufficient to plant arborvitae. She acknowledged that the impact of vehicle headlights would exist whether or not the application was approved. She added that the applicant would agree to waive the 120-day rule. Mr. Cushing moved to continue LU 99-0042 to January 3, 2000, with the applicant to provide new written testimony by 5:00 PM December 13, 1999, and the opponents to provide their written testimony by December 20, 1999. Mr. Kiersey seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Morales, Mr. Cushing, Mr. Kiersey and Ms. Ostly voting yes. Ms. Binkley and Mr. Miller were not present. There were no votes against. VI. GENERAL PLANNING & OTHER BUSINESS - Findings, Conclusions and Order None. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Development Review Commission, Chair Morales adjourned the meeting at 9:05 PM. Respectfully submitted, Iris Treinen for Janice Bader Senior Secretary 1:\dre\minutes\12-6-99.doc City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 10 of 10 Minutes of December 6, 1999