Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2013-10-07 Olg°111° LA C s� i. i CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO �r C Development Review Commission Minutes ©REG0, . October 7, 2013 CALL TO ORDER Chair Don Richards called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Members present: Chair Don Richards, Vice Chair Gregg Creighton, Brent Ahrend, Ann Johnson, Bob Needham, David Poulson and Frank Rossi. Staff present: Scot Siegel, Director, Planning and Building Services; Jessica Numanoglu, Senior Planner; Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Janice Reynolds, Administrative Support. MINUTES None. FINDINGS LU 13-0023: A request for approval of the following on a site designated historic landmark (The Jantzen Estate) at 1850 North Shore Rd. (Tax Lot 1500 of Tax Map 2 1E 09AC): • A Development Review Permit to construct several new structures, including a tram to the lake. • Exceptions to the side yard and Oswego Lake setbacks, the Side Yard Setback Plane and the maximum size of an accessory structure under the Residential Infill Design (RID) review standards. • Removal of one tree to accommodate the project. Mr. Creighton moved to approve LU 13-0023-1822 Findings, Conclusions and Order. Mr. Needham seconded the motion and it passed 6:0:1. Mr. Ahrend abstained. PUBLIC HEARING LU 12-0044: The applicant requested approval of the following in order to construct a 3.5 million gallon water reservoir and extend the Lake Oswego finished water pipeline through East Waluga Park to connect to the reservoir: • A Conditional Use Permit (CUP); • A Development Review Permit; • Determination of a Resource Conservation Protection Area (RCPA); • A Minor Variance to increase the maximum allowed grade of the driveway from 15% to 17%; • Removal of 195 trees. The site is located at: 4800 Carman Drive and 15505 Quarry Road, (Tax Lots 700, 790 and 3100 of Tax Map 21E 07AD). City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of October 7, 2013 Page 1 of 13 Chair Richards opened the hearing. Mr. Boone outlined the applicable procedure and criteria. The Commissioners each declared their business/occupation. Vice Chair Creighton and Chair Richards each reported a site visit. No one challenged any Commissioner's right to hear the application. Staff Report Ms. Numanoglu pointed out the applicant had submitted a revised RCPA plan and revised tree removal and mitigation plans in Exhibit F-19. The project was on three tax lots: the `reservoir site' was on two lots and the remaining lot was East Waluga Park, where the pipeline would be. The existing dwellings were to be demolished. She advised a major public facility was a conditional use in this R-7.5 zone; the water pipeline was a minor public facility and permitted outright; and resource enhancement projects were ministerial development decisions. Staff found the CUP criteria for public use was met. They found the criteria for conditional uses in general were met (including regarding zone limitations, physical ability to accommodate the proposed use, reasonable compatibility of functional characteristics of the use with uses in the vicinity, a noise study showing little to no noise beyond site boundaries, no new lighting, no new trips, and consideration of alternative locations to address visual impacts). She noted the applicant had made the reservoir footprint smaller to minimize impacts of tree removal and they tried to preserve buffering perimeter trees after they met with affected neighborhood associations and the City Council. The closest the structure came to residential homes was several hundred feet away from the west property line. Staff pointed out the existing RC District (tree grove) on the site had been delineated in 2010. The applicant was now required to preserve at least 50% of it in a RCPA. They proposed a 50.2% RCPA on the reservoir site but none on the park site because they would not remove any trees there. She outlined the criteria for locating an RCPA. In general, the concept was to connect it to other tree groves and other resource areas, protect steep slopes, maintain an ecologically viable plant community, and maintain scenic qualities. The proposed RCPA met all but two of the eight applicable criteria. It did not meet the criterion that trees greater than the median diameter (15 inches)were to be in the RCPA as there were 223 trees above 15 inches and 84 of them would not be in the RCPA. They did not meet the criterion calling for them to protect a contiguous canopy in a clustered configuration to prevent fragmentation of the RC District because the existing reservoir made it almost impossible to prevent bifurcation. However, staff found the proposed RCPA did maintain a wildlife corridor connection on the east side of the reservoir; the applicant was protecting contiguous canopies in large configurations; and what they proposed also maintained the scenic quality of the site. Staff recommended approval of the proposed RCPA because it appropriately balanced all of the criteria and protected the most environmentally significant portion of the RC District. She advised the pipeline through the RC District could be allowed if the functions and values of the resource could be maintained; drainage patterns would not be altered; and if there was one-to-one mitigation. Staff found the proposal did that because the applicant had routed the pipeline through areas of few trees, through parking, and along a gravel path. They had submitted a construction tree protection plan. The proposed mitigation plan included some off-site mitigation to buffer an area next to the residential area because doing on-site mitigation would not be very meaningful. Staff recommended conditions of approval related to plant spacing and a larger pot size so the plants would establish more quickly. Ms. Numanoglu reported that staff found the applicable criteria for the requested minor variance to driveway grade were met. The Fire Marshall agreed to it because the development was a concrete reservoir and the proposed driveway would meet emergency vehicle access. She advised that no public street or sidewalk improvements were required because there was no increase in trips to the site. However, street connectivity standards meant the applicant had to show a future pedestrian pathway could happen if it was required at some point in the future. Staff found the revised landscape plan adequately addressed the buffering and screening issue, so they recommended City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of October 7, 2013 Page 2 of 13 deleting the related condition of approval. She explained that the count of trees to be removed had been reduced from 195 to 177 trees because some trees previously counted were too small diameter to count as a `tree.' Significant perimeter trees would be maintained to keep the wooded character and maximize buffering for adjacent properties. 255 mitigation trees were proposed which exceeded the minimum mitigation ratio. Staff found the tree removal criteria were met. Staff recommended approval of the request subject to the conditions listed in the September 27, 2013 Staff Report, with two changes: to delete Condition A-16 because the applicant had addressed landscaping around the stormwater facility in their latest submittal; and, to replace references to the old RCPA, tree removal and mitigation plans with the newest exhibit numbers. Questions of Staff During questioning, Ms. Numanoglu clarified that the driveway would be paved; that the access to the existing reservoir (WR1) was from the end of Parkhill Street; that WR1 was 22' tall but had a larger footprint because the applicant had chosen to have the new WR2 reservoir be taller, with a smaller footprint, in order to minimize tree removal. She confirmed the applicant was not taking out any regulated (5-inch or greater diameter) trees where the waterline went through the park. She acknowledged that people could easily go around the existing gate and go on the site now and they would likely continue to do that after the development. She agreed it could be a convenient short-cut to the new commercial development on Carman Drive for residents of Parkhill, but she questioned that it would save much time for others. She understood the access to the existing reservoir would remain and be gated, just as the access off Carman Drive would be gated. She clarified that major public facilities were conditional uses in every zone where they were allowed. She clarified that conditional use looked at long term impacts and did not address construction impacts, which were subject to code standards for temporary impacts. She clarified that the applicable criteria did not address any Homeland Security concerns related to the fact that people could easily go around the gates and the site. Chair Richards indicated it would be best if the City addressed the security concern now as this was an opportunity to do that. He related that the EPA had imposed related requirements on City of Portland reservoirs. Ms. Numanoglu clarified for Mr. Poulson that the Engineering Division had reviewed the rate of water discharge from the tank. Applicant Joel Komarek, Project Director, and Jane Heisler, Communications Director, Lake Oswego-Tigard Water Partnership, 4101 Kruse Way, Lake Oswego spoke for the applicant. Mr. Komarek advised that having reservoirs in neighborhoods was not unusual. Newer ones were in the Oak Creek, Mountain Park and McVey-South Shore neighborhoods. The City had purchased this site in 1992 for the purpose of having additional storage capacity. He explained that the proposed taller design would remedy an existing, long-term, water supply pressure problem in the Waluga/Quarry area. The proposed project implemented the City's 2001 Water Master Plan. Ms. Heisler described public engagement and neighborhood outreach efforts over 2.5 years. Initially they met with 25 neighborhoods and heard concerns about visual and construction impacts and reservoir safety. The applicant tried their best to address those. They had raised balloons to help neighbors visualize how tall the reservoir would be. Some neighbors asked the City Council to make the reservoir taller and skinnier and set it back further from abutting properties and the Council agreed. The applicant then modified the design. They developed a good neighbor plan with neighbors that outlined commitments and actions to help ensure the project was designed, built and operated in a way that would have minimal impacts on the neighbors' quality of life. They had analyzed the views from Parkhill, Hartford and Manchester in order to develop an appropriate, screening, landscape design. She noted the reservoir was over 160 feet from the residences on City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of October 7, 2013 Page 3 of 13 Parkhill and over 100 feet from the other streets and behind trees. The distance and perspective meant they would not see much of the reservoir even after some trees were removed. Ms. Heisler explained the applicant was seeking the variance because it would reduce ratepayer cost if they did not have to build expensive retaining walls and an expanded ring road around the site; and, they would not have to remove more trees and reduce their ability to create a cohesive RCPA district. She pointed out the record contained a letter from the Fire Marshall indicating that granting the variance would not impede the department's ability to fight a fire. She said the applicant agreed with the staff report and staff-recommended conditions of approval. Questions of Applicant During the questioning period, Ms. Heisler confirmed that land west of the proposed reservoir was in private ownership and could be developed at some point in the future. Sean Goris, Black &Veatch, 5885 Meadows Rd. Ste. 700 (97035), clarified that the existing and proposed reservoirs were at elevation 302 and Parkhill was at elevation 295. He confirmed the new reservoir was going to be located about where the driveway of the existing green house on the site was. He described the route and the components of the overflow system. It allowed 10 c.f.s. to come out because that was the carrying capacity of the downstream storm drain pipe. He advised they were required to design to the capability to discharge the absolute maximum projected pumping rate into the reservoir, which was 30 million gallons per day or 46 c.f.s. under normal conditions the pumping would be much lower than that. He confirmed the stormwater detention pond was there to deal with the increase in impermeable surface. He confirmed the applicant had discussed having a pond and a biological filter along the western side of the access drive with Engineering staff. Mr. Goris and Mr. Komarek related that the hatches on the reservoir were locked and had switches on them that would sound an alarm heard by water treatment plant operators if unauthorized persons opened them. They had conducted the required 2002 Homeland Security vulnerability assessments and determined that reservoirs in residential neighborhoods were generally not at risk of unauthorized intrusion. None-the-less they decided to retrofit them all with security switches. They had decided not to put barbed wire fencing around them, but instead enlist the assistance of the neighbors to keep an eye out so they would be considered an amenity to the neighborhood. When asked if an eco-roof like the one on the Mountain Park reservoir was a viable option for this reservoir design, they explained was not because of the domed roof and vents and other features. They confirmed that the access to Parkhill would be maintained. Workers generally parked a small maintenance vehicle at the gate and walked to inspect the reservoir, but periodically they brought in a little high-lift to get on the reservoir to clean it. They confirmed it would be painted green. They clarified that they were keeping their options open regarding whether to blast to excavate. Proponents None. Opponents Tamara Ko, 4932 Parkhill St. (97035), testified that none of the residents on Parkhill, Manchester or Harford wanted a second reservoir in their neighborhood. They accepted the existing reservoir, which had been in place when many of them purchased their properties. She held it was not consistent with other neighborhoods that had one reservoir to have two of them. She related that when the applicant placed the balloons residents were told it was a 'done deal' and they should start working on a good neighbor plan to get tiny concessions. She said they were concerned about children falling into overflow ponds. She said that the applicant wanted the residents to make City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of October 7, 2013 Page 4 of 13 concessions and let them start construction earlier than the Code allowed at 7:00 a.m. was unacceptable. Her husband worked different shifts including graveyard. Gerald Mock, 4920 SW Parkhill St. (97034), related that the Oregon Resiliency Plan and other experts predicted a 40% chance of a big Cascade Subduction Zone quake within the next 49 years. He said the existing reservoir was built in 1983 and had been lined in 1990 to repair weak places. He anticipated if the old or the new reservoir got damaged it would take the other one down with it. The flow would create problems for neighborhoods no matter which direction it went. He related that he had raised this issue when they met with the applicant a few of months ago. Amy Waterbury, 4933 Parkhill St. (97034), related she had attended and testified at countless meetings regarding the proposal. She took issue with the finding that the functional characteristic of the use was reasonably compatible with reasonable uses in the vicinity. She listed impacts of having the new storage tank: they were now going to have to shoulder the burden of having two; they had concerns regarding tank failure in an earthquake, construction noise and disruption, the 7:00 a.m. start time Monday through Saturday for about 18 months, the negative visual impact of an enormous concrete tank, removal of trees, decreased property appeal, concern about elicit activity around the new reservoir when there had historically been a problem around the first tank, and disruption of their quiet street where kids played. She clarified that neighbors had asked the applicant to make the reservoir smaller and farther away - they had not asked for it to be taller and skinnier. They questioned whether the project was needed; why the reservoir could not be smaller capacity; and why the second reservoir could not be sited elsewhere. She suggested that if the neighborhood was going to have to be serving as a dumping ground for the City because a second reservoir was being added there, the City could offset that by giving pathways through the site and connecting sidewalks, which would go to the Carman roundabout, new businesses on the Parsons Farm site, and Westlake; and also down Waluga to Royal Oaks. She said that would be convenient and safer for residents of Parkhill and communities south and west of Parkhill. It would create a less-concealed area if anyone was looking to do elicit activities. She indicated that what was being proposed would be a cut-through that dumped out on Carman, which was quite a dangerous place to walk. She asked the Commission to require the pathways and sidewalks to offset the negative impact of the new reservoir. Questions During the questioning period, Ms. Waterbury explained that this was not about nexus, but adding a neighborhood benefit to offset the burden of construction and the visual impact and loss of property appeal and value. She clarified that her property was the third house down Parkhill from the existing reservoir. She confirmed she was quite concerned about visibility. Neither for nor Against Cheryl Uchida, 15190 Quarry Rd. (97034), spoke for the Waluaa Neiahborhood Association board. She indicated they were split on the project. She had attended almost every project team meeting with neighbors. They wondered how much weight the good neighborhood plan carried during and after construction. They were saddened that almost one third of total trees were going to be removed. They were concerned about tree protection during construction because drip lines were not always accurate and if those trees were not protected correctly and watched by the arborist they would be lost as well. They were concerned about the testimony regarding the Cascade Subduction Zone. She had heard geotechnical engineers advise that if a big quake happened it was the existing reservoir that might go, not the new one, which they assumed would be built stronger. She asked the Commission not to dismiss Mr. Mock's testimony because it was real. She indicated the good neighbor plan had been created and they wanted to make sure that the project City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of October 7, 2013 Page 5 of 13 team and the construction team followed it exactly to make it less painful, especially during construction. Rebuttal Mr. Komarek recalled testimony that indicated this was a disproportional impact on this particular neighborhood and that no other neighborhoods had two reservoirs. He said that was not correct. Several neighborhoods had second reservoirs in the same neighborhood or in the same zone. The applicant would bind their contractors to the construction hours set by Code. There were occasions when it might be necessary to have construction outside of those hours, but it could only occur when they requested and received approval from the City Manager. He indicated he was concerned about a potential earthquake and they were designing the project to the best modern structural codes similar to those for hospital facilities with the knowledge that a quake could happen in the next 50 years and with the goal that the system would remain operable afterward. He recalled Ms. Waterbury had talked about a number of concerns. He noted the applicant had described their efforts to engage the neighbors. They had done everything they thought they could do and there might be things they could still do so they wanted to continue to engage and address concerns with the neighbors through construction. He said the applicant intended to comply with the condition requiring a future submittal of a plan for an accessway connecting Parkhill to Carman Drive. They had already discussed it with staff. He clarified that some aspects of the good neighbor plan might be a contractual requirements and other aspects were aspirational and goal-oriented. That was where continuing engagement with the neighborhood would bear fruit during the construction process. Questions of Applicant During the questioning period, Mr. Goris clarified that the applicant was going to install a six-foot high, chain-link, security fence with locked gates around both ponds so children could not get in. The larger of the two ponds would generally be dry. He was asked about and described seismic design and construction features. They were using factors that went above and beyond the design for a Cascadia event earthquake. The reservoirs were considered essential facilities, which increased their importance by a factor of 20% above the industry standard. He said there would be seismic-actuated valves on the new reservoir that would close and keep the reservoir from draining. He clarified for Mr. Poulson that there had been no catastrophic analysis of having 4 million gallons running a certain direction. He confirmed that the construction methods used to construct the new reservoir would be significantly better than for the existing reservoir because Code now required them to build a stronger structure. Vice Chair Creighton remarked on the big difference in heights and shapes of the two reservoirs. He said he was more concerned about the 55' height of the new one. He asked if that height and the footprint had been neighborhood driven. Mr. Komarek confirmed that the applicant had heard loud and clear that they wanted the applicant to minimize the footprint and therefore maximize setback from property lines. A taller reservoir also addressed a long-standing supply pressure problem in that area. City water pipes crossed properties they could not serve with water because of inadequate water pressure. Deliberations No one asked to keep the record open for submission of additional evidence. Chair Richards closed public testimony. The applicant waived their right to time to submit a final written argument. Chair Richards opened deliberations. Chair Richards offered general observations, including concern about what could happen during a catastrophic event. Current design standards addressed that issue. The City owned the property City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of October 7, 2013 Page 6 of 13 and had the ability to develop it as they had proposed. It appeared that the design had taken what would be the least amount of impact into consideration. He had some concern about adherence to the CUP requirements and making sure the good neighbor plan was implemented. He advised it would be important for an arborist to be on site during any sort of excavation work to ensure the roots of the trees to remain were not damaged. He cautioned about the mitigation plan, which called for several large, deciduous, native trees to be planted. He advised that large, native, trees often did not transplant well; they would be extremely difficult to find; and if they were all planted at the same time the area would not look natural. He suggested they consider allowing the applicant to use smaller trees to make sure that what they planted would actually live and thrive. He noted the closest property owner who would be most impacted was not at the hearing. Vice Chair Creighton advised the structure was round and a 'high frequency structure' to deal with seismic risk. The lower it was the better off they were, so he was concerned the height should be lower. The neighbors wanted to move it farther away from the property line but that was probably not the best thing to do from a risk standpoint. Mr. Boone advised construction hours were not a land use consideration. In regard to the request for a neighborhood offset benefit he observed the proposal created no traffic impact to be mitigated. He advised there needed to be nexus between the impact of the project and required mitigation and that any exaction had to be roughly proportional to the impacts. Mr. Poulson and Chair Richards indicated they were concerned about safety risks related to access to the site. Chair Richards noted that might be outside of the Commission purview. Mr. Needham indicated he thought the public outreach was great. He recalled that public works projects typically burdened some more than others. He supported the project because he would lean toward public works projects that were important to the public and where the need extended beyond the immediate neighborhood. Mr. Boone advised need was not the question, it was the impacts. Mr. Poulson indicated he was concerned that kids would climb over the detention pond fence. He wondered if they could deal with water quality another way than a pond. Vice Chair Creighton noted the fence was six feet high. He questioned what more they could do and recalled the pond would be empty most of the time. Mr. Poulson advised that the applicant should have done scenario planning. Mr. Ahrend said he found the application complied with the Code. In regard to the questions about whether this was needed and if it was the right site, this was the site they proposed to use and they had met the criteria in his mind. They were complying with standards for design for seismic events. Chair Richards indicated he would like the Commission to modify the conditions of approval to allow the landscape plan to show variances in the sizes of deciduous mitigation trees in a range from 1.5" up to 2.5"; and to add a condition of approval calling for a two-year annual review to ensure compliance with the CUP and implementation of resource conservation activities. They could ask about the good neighbor plan at that time as well. Ms. Numanoglu advised that the Code specified minimum caliper 2" deciduous trees for mitigation purposes and the applicant proposed 2.5" caliper, so there was an opportunity to reduce the size to 2". The applicant was mitigating beyond the Code requirements. They were removing 177 trees so the Commission could require 177 trees to be 2" caliper minimum and beyond that the trees could be different sizes, including less than 2". Chair Richards suggested they could be 2" diameter or 6' high or taller evergreens. Mr. Boone advised the Commission to talk about what the annual CUP review process should entail and the extent of notification. Chair Richards clarified the review would be a CUP review and to make sure resource conservation activities were implemented. It could be the same process as was used for the Lakeridge CUP compliance review. Ms. Numanoglu mentioned the good neighbor City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of October 7, 2013 Page 7 of 13 plan. She agreed to craft the conditions of approval Chair Richards suggested. He clarified for Mr. Ahrend that he would require the applicant to plant different-sized trees as a condition of approval. Mr. Needham moved to approve LU 12-0044 with the conditions as amended by the Commission during deliberations. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion and it passed 7:0. Mr. Boone announced the vote on the findings would be on October 21, 2013. Chair Richards recessed the Commission for a few minutes and then reconvened them for the next hearing. LU 13-0044: The applicant requested approval of a minor land partition to divide the 7.34-acre site into three parcels. Two trees are proposed for removal to accommodate the project. The site is located at: 12800 SW Goodall Road, (Tax Lot 500 of Tax Map 2 1E 04 BA). Chair Richards opened the hearing. Mr. Boone outlined the applicable procedure and criteria. Each Commissioner declared his/her business/employment. Vice Chair Creighton and Chair Richards each declared making a site visit. Vice Chair Creighton declared that he knew Mr. Smith and was working on a couple of projects with 3J Consulting but he could make a decision based solely on the evidence presented. No one challenged any Commissioner's right to consider the application. Staff Report Ms. Andreades reported that the applicant proposed a 3-parcel partition. It was configured in a way they could make subsequent sets of partitions in the future and eventually net a total of 17 lots on the site. She showed the 17 lot/street pattern concept plan. She advised the 3-parcel partition complied with the applicable criteria. She advised that the impact of the proposed partition was enough to require a street light at the intersection of Goodall and Knaus Roads. However, it did not generate enough impacts to meet the Dolan rough proportionality test for any road improvement at this time, so the City was not requiring street and sidewalk improvements. The applicant was voluntarily dedicating five feet of right of way on Goodall and 10 feet on Knaus to construct those facilities. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions as listed in the staff report. Questions of Staff During the questioning period, Ms. Andreades related that sewer line route, which would require removal of two trees, was the most direct route it could be while conforming to Engineering standards. She explained the applicant was working with the neighborhood and was going to do serial partitioning over two or three years in order to have 17 lots but not a subdivision. If they had proposed a subdivision the minimum density standard would require them to create 27 or 28 lots. She clarified that a variance from the density requirement was not available. Applicant Michael Robinson, Perkins Coie, LLP, 1120 NW Couch St., Tenth Floor, Portland, Oregon 97209; and Andrew Tull, 3J Consulting Inc. represented the applicant. Mr. Robinson said the applicant agreed with the staff report and the recommended conditions of approval. He advised because they were doing a partition the minimum density requirement did not apply. They were doing a partition because the neighbors were concerned about the number of lots. The applicant wanted to have fewer than the required 27 or 28 minimum density subdivision lots, so they were doing serial partitions over the next three years in order to have fewer lots. He advised that the proposal met the zone's dimensional standards. He discussed two issues that had come up at the neighborhood meetings on August 5 and August 21. One issue was traffic. He indicated that three dwellings would generate about 30 ADT and fewer than five of them would be during PM Peak hour. The City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of October 7, 2013 Page 8 of 13 applicant's right-of-way dedications would address the traffic impacts in terms of nexus and rough proportionality. The second issue related to stormwater. The applicant had submitted the September 3 stormwater report which Engineering staff found to be acceptable. The system was designed to accommodate a 25-year storm event as required by the Code. The applicant agreed with the condition of approval regarding implementation of acceptable stormwater improvements. Mr. Robinson addressed written comments to the Commission from Brian Gurgen and Mr. and Ms. Willinganz. Mr. Gurgen asked that there be no construction or Street of Dreams parking on Adrian Court, which was in the City of Portland. Mr. Robinson advised that was outside of the scope of this review, but the applicant wanted to work with Mr. Gurgen and other neighbors on Adrian Court. They were happy to come up with a construction parking plan and talk with the neighbors about Street of Dreams parking, if the event happened. The applicant's civil engineer, Brian Feeney. 3J Consulting Inc., had submitted a letter that day to address the concerns Mr. and Ms. Willganz had about stormwater. It explained how they met the stormwater requirements, which essentially required them to maintain predevelopment flow. Mr. Robinson held the Commission could find the applicant had met the approval criteria for the 3-parcel partition. Mr. Robinson then talked about future partitions. The applicant had told the neighbors they planned to address neighbors' concern about the number of lots by doing a series of partitions over several years in order to avoid having to create a 27 - 28 lot subdivision. In order to do that they would partition three or fewer parcels in each calendar year through 2015 to get to 17 lots, which would actually be 50% fewer lots than minimum density for a subdivision. He indicated that the applicant planned to do the same thing as had been approved by the City in 2007 or 2008, when another applicant had proposed an initial partition, a development agreement, and a master plan for 18 lots. That development agreement had expired. However, the bottom line was that the applicant currently proposed a 3-parcel partition and the future partitions were not before the Commission now. Parcel 2 was an odd shape because it was to be further partitioned in the future. He said the applicant was open to doing a development agreement and a master plan again with the same terms as the one that had expired. He cautioned that the applicant had heard a number of things from the neighbors that were not related to approval criteria related to the design of future street lights, covenants that required architectural review, and a cap on the number of lots after they got to the maximum number. He related the applicant had drafted a set of CC&Rs that included all of those things. He concluded that the applicant had tried to address both code-based and non-code- based concerns, but at the end of the day this was a 3-parcel partition. They recognized that they had not satisfied everyone in the neighborhood but they had satisfied the approval criteria. Questions of Applicant During the questioning period, Mr. Tull and Mr. Robinson clarified that the applicant did not propose to build any storm drainage facilities as part of this 3-parcel partition. Stormwater management facilities would be proposed during the second phase of partitioning. They would meet Condition A(7) by providing a bond as a financial guaranty that they would make those improvements. They would meet Condition C and submit plans that showed they would do what they were required to do on each parcel in regard to drainage. They explained they did not have specifics now, but they were not going to build anything on the three parcels without taking care of stormwater. Ultimately, when all of the lots were there, they would have a fully functioning stormwater system based on the stormwater report the applicant had prepared and the City Engineering staff had reviewed. Chair Richards noticed a discrepancy in that the arborist's report called a tree in the vicinity of the future sewer line a 'cedar' and Sheet C1.2 called the same tree a `spruce.' City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of October 7, 2013 Page 9 of 13 The applicant's representatives described how each of the three parcels would be further partitioned over time until the applicant reached a total of 17 lots. They would do that by doing another set of partitions each year, creating three lots or fewer each year to avoid being categorized as a subdivision. They explained that Lot 2 was oddly shaped to accommodate future streets. They explained the applicant wanted to develop the western part of the site first. They clarified they were not going to build any houses until after the second set of partitions. At that time they would submit full site construction documents showing stormwater improvements and public streets and pathways. Mr. Robinson said the applicant was willing to go through the exact same process that a prior applicant and the neighborhood had gone through and the City Council had approved five years ago. He observed that a master plan would provide certainty to all parties. The applicant would be happy to come back with an agreement and a master plan. They did not have one now because they needed to have more discussion about it. They proposed the 3-parcel partition now because they could not wait if they wanted to be able to do anything in 2013. He assured the Commission that they were not going to leave it as just three parcels. Mr. Boone reminded the Commissioners what was before them was a 3-parcel partition and the staff report was that Lot 2 complied with the code requirements. What might happen in the future in regard to a development agreement was up to the City Council, not the Commission. Mr. Robinson explained the applicant wanted to tell the Commission up front what the applicant planned to do in the future. He assured the Commission that when the applicant was all done with the process it would look like a subdivision, but it would take them three years to do it. They had met the applicable criteria for a three parcel partition. If the application was approved, they could, but they would not, build three homes right away. They would wait until they had accomplished the second set of partitions in 2014. Proponents Bryan Geraen, 12730 Adrian Ct., stated there were ten homes on Adrian Court and he spoke for the seven people he had talked to recently about the construction impact of the applicant's project. They wanted the Commission to impose a condition of approval that no construction parking —or any other function such a parking vehicles, trailers or staging - was allowed on Adrian Court. He asked if that was possible. Mr. Boone advised that the criteria for development of land did not address construction parking and impacts of that nature. Mr. Gurgen indicated the neighbors would appreciate having a conversation with the applicant about it. Opponents Barry Waterfield, 13060 Knaus Rd. (97034), indicated that his property was lower than the surrounding properties and water already flowed through his property, so the possibility of even a little bit more water concerned him because more water could put him in a serious situation. He indicated he was also concerned about density and traffic. During the questioning period, he clarified he believed the water under his house was from underground seepage and he was concerned the holding pond the applicant would locate up the hill would create more seepage and saturate the hillside. Mr. Waterfield indicated that he could appreciate it if the City looked at properties in the area to see if there was anything the City could do. Chair Richards and Mr. Poulson encouraged him to talk to the Engineering Division about it. Kevin Mead, 13730 SW Cameo Ct. (97034), stated he was speaking for himself although he served on the neighborhood association board. He testified the community was concerned about things like noise, safety, traffic calming, and runoff. They were particularly concerned about direct, overland, runoff and the adequacy of infiltration collection. He indicated that a lack of transparency was one reason they were hesitant about the proposal. The applicant needed to manage runoff in areas of impervious soil. The large scale of the development was of concern, but they preferred City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of October 7, 2013 Page 10 of 13 partitioning over a subdivision. He advised that Forest Highlands was not a typical Lake Oswego community as they had very large parcels, so 17 homes might impact community character. The Comprehensive Plan called for giving the neighborhood special consideration. He indicated he would welcome the opportunity to have more dialogue with the applicant so they could better understand the proposal and its impact. They needed more transparency in regard to the design, and quality of the homes. For those reasons he was currently opposed, but he might not necessarily be in the future. Chris Robinson, 14000 Goodall Rd. (97034), Chair of the Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association, and their attorney, Jeff Kleinman, 1207 SW 6th, (97204), requested that the hearing be continued to allow submission of additional evidence. Mr. Kleinman anticipated there could be productive discussions between the neighborhood and the applicant. He held this was not a simple, 3-parcel partition and the Commission had a serial partition plan in front of them. Exhibits E-10 and E-13 provided the final partition plan. The staff report referred to a possible development agreement or master plan. He advised if the application was approved as it was it was essentially an approval of that whole, 17-lot plan without the criteria being met. If the partition was approved the neighborhood would lose all leverage and the applicant had no incentive to negotiate with the neighborhood on the provisions of either of those documents. There were major feasibility issues to be addressed now, particularly with respect to stormwater. He noted the site sloped downward and there was a lot of clay soil. Mr. C. Robinson testified that the neighborhood was characterized by large parcels. Unfortunately they had a zoning designation upon annexation that was not compatible with the character of the neighborhood so they constantly had to fight this battle. They were not anti-development, they just wanted to protect the interior core of the neighborhood by accommodating more intense development on the perimeter. They had a lot of unanswered questions that were not necessarily related to criteria for approval of a 3-parcel minor partition, but this was the time for them to try to iron things out. He recalled that Kent Meyers, who lived on Goodall Road, had explained to the applicant at a neighborhood meeting that he had lost two large, old, Douglas fir trees because water saturation had overwhelmed their roots. The neighborhood was concerned about runoff, the impact of the scale of the development on the Tryon Creek Watershed, making sure the aesthetics and build quality was right and very high, and ensuring that the builders who were involved were high quality builders who would build a very high quality project. They were concerned about preserving and enhancing values in the neighborhood and not having a development that would destroy market values. In regard to the previous agreement six years ago the board's job was to reflect the concerns of current residents. Residents had expressed concerns about density, infrastructure, water runoff, traffic impact, light pollution, aesthetics, and build quality. He indicated he hoped they could resolve the issues. Mr. Kleinman indicated that the applicant had taken key issues off the table when they talked about arranging meetings. He confirmed for Mr. Poulson that the neighborhood would choose the partitioning approach if they had to choose between partitioning and a minimum density subdivision because the partitioning approach allowed less density. However, if the Commission approved the application with Exhibits like E-10 and E-11 in the staff report it could be construed in the future as approval of the entire serial partition up to 17 lots, so feasibility issues were important. Chair Richards and Mr. Kleinman each interpreted the footnote on Exhibit E-10 differently: The purpose of this partition plan is to show the proposed lot dimensions for planning purposes. his is not an official plat and it is not to be used for survey purposes.'Chair Richards thought it indicated this was not the final plan. Mr. Kleinman interpreted it to mean that that surveying would be done later. Mr. Needham observed that the applicant could sell of the three lots now or sell off lots after the next set of partitions and the Commission might never see a development plan. Mr. Boone City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of October 7, 2013 Page 11 of 13 clarified that the question for the Commission was whether or not the current application met the applicable criteria. The Commission would look at the impacts of each future set of partitions when applicant applied for them. He clarified the Code did not address serial partitions. Mr. Kleinman confirmed for Ms. Johnson that the neighborhood had a problem with 17 lots because they viewed 17 lots as high density. Mr. Boone pointed out recommended Condition 5.b called for `Any future parcelization of Parcels 1-3 shall conform to the Parcelization and Connectivity Plan attached as Exhibit B (Exhibit E-13 of LU 13-0044).'Ms. Andreades explained that the street connectivity standard required an applicant for any partition to submit a future parcelization plan to show how large lots could be further divided in the future. It could be modified again during a future partitioning application. The requirement assured that there would be a way to extend infrastructure and make street system connections in a logical way in the future. She was asked if 17 lots on 7.5 acres was low, median, or high density. She calculated it was similar to low density R-15 zone. Mr. Needham observed that was pretty dense for that part of town. Gary Willinaanz, 13068 Knaus Rd. (97034), indicated his home was in the area of natural runoff from the property. He was concerned about the lack of information and details about runoff and absorption rate and what was going to be across and uphill form his property. He had many questions about many aspects of stormwater management facilities, including the numbers, types, absorption rates, the final product, where a 3,000 s.f. area of increased impervious surface was, and what the missing information that was supposed to be in the 3J Consulting report was. He found the information he had received confusing. He indicated on final build out the project should have some kind of retention pond at each home as each of the other homes in the neighborhood had their own retention pond. The documentation did not offer such details. He wanted to know of the proposed retention pond would change existing underground flow. He wanted a complete assessment of runoff and absorption as his property was in the path of the storm runoff. Neither for nor Against Karen Inaels, 12831 SW Alto Park Rd. (97034), indicated the zoning of their neighborhood did not seem to work. She indicated she appreciated that developers used serial partitioning to get around "maximum" density, but she know of a situation where it had not worked well because a driveway could not be repositioned to save a magnificent cedar tree. She indicated she would like to give developers more flexibly. Rebuttal Mr. M. Robinson related that the applicant wanted to have more discussion and reach agreement. He detailed how the applicant had waited for a response from the neighborhood board for 47 days after the second neighborhood meeting. They had drafted a development agreement and sent it to them. They were concerned that all the board wanted to talk about was reducing the number of lots to 10 or 12 because Mr. C. Robinson had indicated that was what they wanted in an email. Mr. M. Robinson explained that was not possible. He said the applicant was willing to do a similar development agreement as the previous applicant. He noted the applicant had already said they would have the trails, the lighting, the architectural controls the neighborhood wanted and they would not re-divide the lots after 17. They would talk about anything else like that. He clarified for the record there was no serial partition and no 17-lot approval before the Commission; they asked the Commission to approve a 3-parcel partition; they expected to come back in subsequent years for subsequent partitions; they would come back with the understanding that the Commission had not preapproved them; with each application the applicant would be required to meet the burden of proof and they would do that. The applicant had been required to provide the street connectivity map to show how they might subdivide the proposed parcels in the future. They had been forthright City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of October 7, 2013 Page 12 of 13 about what they wanted to do. This was no different than if they had presented a master plan to the Commission. He recalled there were a lot of complaints about the zoning designation, but the reality was it was what the zoning was. He advised that state statutes required that an application be approved based on the criteria in effect when it was submitted. He noted the applicant was doing less than the zone required in regard to density. They were willing to meet with the neighborhood association. They were willing to hold themselves to standards that the Code did not require them to. He indicated that he did not think it was fair to hold the applicant hostage by delay in order to have them to reduce the density. He said the applicant would provide an additional stormwater report. He prematurely waived keeping the record open for a final written argument. Mr. Ahrend moved to continue LU 13-0044 to October 21, 2013 and keep the record open for additional written testimony to 5:00 p.m. October 14, 2013; and for written rebuttal to 5:00 p.m. October 16, 2013. Mr. Creighton seconded the motion and it passed 7:0. GENERAL PLANNING AND OTHER BUSINESS At staff's request, Mr. Needham moved to hold a special meeting on October 28, 2013. Mr. Rossi seconded the motion and it passed 7:0. Mr. Ahrend confirmed he planned to apply for reappointment to the Commission. Chair Richards' term was expiring. Staff asked him if he would agree to continue to serve as long as his position was unfilled and he agreed. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business Chair Richards adjourned the meeting at approximately 11:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Janice Reynolds /s/ Janice Reynolds Administrative Support City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of October 7, 2013 Page 13 of 13