Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2006-09-18 (02)  City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes September 18, 2006   CALL TO ORDER Chair Bill Tierney called the Development Review Commission meeting to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 380 “A” Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. ROLL CALL Commissioners present besides Chair Tierney were Vice Chair, Sheila Ostly and Commissioners Nan Binkley and Krytsyna Stadnik. Commissioners Bob Needham and Halliday Meisburger were excused. Staff present were Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager; Debra Andreades, Associate Planner; Paul Espe, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Janice Bader, Administrative Support III. MINUTES Ms. Ostly moved to approve the Minutes of February 9, 2006. Chair Tierney seconded the motion and it passed 2:0. Commissioners Binkley and Stadnik abstained. Ms. Binkley moved to approve the Minutes of February 22, 2006. Ms. Ostly seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER LU 06-0007, Ulloa Investments, LLC Ms. Ostly moved to deny the application, approving the findings as written. Ms. Binkley Seconded; passed with Chair Tierney, Ms. Ostly, Ms. Binkley and Ms. Stadnik voting yes. Commissioners Meisburger and Needham were not present. PUBLIC HEARING LU 05-0089 (formerly LU 99-0038), a formal review of Conditions of Approval A(4) and D(1) by LU 99-0038 Conditional Use Permit, which relates to the athletic field lighting at Lakeridge High School. The purpose of the review was to determine if the applicant had adequately met those conditions. Additionally, by referral of the City Manager pursuant to LOC 50.69.030, the public hearing shall include review of compliance with Condition D(2) imposed in LU 99-0038, relating to on-site parking and clean up of garbage and litter. The site is located at 1235 Overlook Drive, Tax Lot 100 of Tax Map 21E 15. Chair Tierney opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedure and time limits. He asked the Commissioners to report any ex parte contacts (including site visits), biases and conflicts of interest, and to identify any known present or anticipated future business relationships with the project or the applicant. None were reported. The Commissioners each reported their business or occupation as follows: Ostly (real estate appraiser); Stadnik (civil engineer); Binkley (architect) and Chair Tierney (utilities inspection business). No one present challenged any Commissioner’s right to hear the application. Debra Andreades, Associate Planner, presented the staff report (dated September 8, 2006). She pointed out that the School District had documented its efforts to comply with the Conditional Use Permit over the past ten months, and that the August 21, 2006, neighborhood meeting minutes indicated the neighbors felt positively about those efforts. She recommended that if the Commissioners found that the School District was in compliance with Condition D(2), they should add a staff-recommended condition that required the District to submit annual compliance reports to the City for eight years. Applicant Dorothy Cofield, 12725 SW Milliken Way, Beaverton, Oregon, 97005, attorney for the School District, pointed out the District had submitted Exhibit F-20 as evidence of their efforts to comply with the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit. She reported they had found that some parking on Cloverleaf was by residents of that street. She thanked staff for helping the District find more effective methods to ensure that field users only parked in school lots. She asked the Commissioners to modify Condition D(2) so the District only had to be responsible for directly monitoring street parking during school sporting events and not during non-school sporting events. She suggested they remove Condition D(2)(d), because it required a determination of what was a “major” school sporting event, and simply say in D(2) that the District was to ask all field users to sign and adhere to the policies. Bill Korach, Superintendent of Schools, 352 Livingood, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, reported the District and the neighbors were working together to resolve the problems without having to install a barrier fence on Cloverleaf Drive. He said they examined the schedule each week; they had moved some large events to Lake Oswego High School; and they had reduced the onsite parking fee. He said he had assigned two of his key staff members, including one who resided on Cloverleaf Drive, to compliance issues. He reported the City Manager had discussed the issues with the District and the neighbors and then arranged for the better signage and painted fire lane they requested. He said the Police Department had arranged to be present during unusual events. He reported that the District and the City had agreed to split the cost of installing speed bumps on Cloverleaf Drive if that become necessary. He said the District was being a “good neighbor.” Mike Lehman, Principal, Lakeridge High School, 1235 Overlook Drive, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, testified that enforcement was a top priority for the District. He said they regularly invited neighbors to come to discuss parking issues. He reported that the neighbors did not want a fence erected because they wanted unrestricted access to the school’s field and the track. He said the District emphasized the compliance policy at every coach and parent meeting and in emails, the website, and listserv. He said they informed other schools in their league. He concluded that the District had a systematic and sustainable way to ensure they were in compliance with the Conditional Use Permit and could continue to have a safe and lighted field for practice and games. During the questioning period, Superintendent Korach clarified that the District scheduled all field events and was ultimately, legally responsible for seeing that users complied with the Permit. Ms. Cofield and Mr. Boone both explained the District was as responsible as a “landlord” would be to assure compliance. Ms. Cofield suggested Option 4: to strike Condition D(2)(d) and let the District direct non-school users to provide their own parking control staffing. She agreed that as “landlord” the District was still ultimately responsible for ensuring compliance. She reported that the District had a physical presence to control parking during major school events, but it required the City, and other non-school users, to provide the staffing for their events. She noted “major” was not defined, and the City Attorney had suggested striking Condition D(2)(d) and fashioning language in D(2) that the District was to ensure that all field users adhered to the “No Parking” restriction in any fashion they saw fit. She and Superintendent Korach said it was reasonable for the Commission to allow the District to make that determination. She pointed out that the District had submitted “Parking Interventions” that listed specific actions the District had taken to enforce the policy each month. Mr. Lehman explained that the District would schedule a few meetings a year with the neighbors. Proponents Rich Robbins, 1560 Cherry Crest Drive, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, testified he had previously served as President of Lakeridge Youth Football and was currently the facilitator of the Lakeridge Lacrosse winter training program. He said a “culture change” was taking place at the school and the District emphasized compliance. He said the Lacrosse program asked parents and players to sign an agreement that they would not use neighborhood parking, and players who came to the field from the neighborhood side were directed to re-park. Chuck Savane, 10325 Riveredge Lane, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, questioned why a small group of homeowners could affect a school’s typical activities and cost the community so much. Chair Tierney advised that the field use was a “conditional” land use that was allowed under certain conditions, including a good relationship with the neighbors. Bruce Plato, Principal, Lake Oswego High School, testified he and Mr. Lehman worked together on scheduling events and staffing to monitor them. They also made sure coaches understood the policy. He said many events have been moved from Lakeridge High to Lake Oswego High School. Larry Lapardo, 48 Hillshire Drive, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, testified that the District had been successful in its effort to ban parking on Cloverleaf Drive. He said he was present at two major events as a parent and as a soccer club official and observed that no one had parked in the restricted area on Cloverleaf. He said the school principal stressed the policy when he spoke to field users and he submitted a copy of the District field use website to show the District emphasized it there too. John Bartel, 17754 Treetop Lane, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, testified that his property was adjacent to the school and that boundary was fenced. He confirmed the District had established good communication and instructed drivers where they could and could not park. He said it was up to the Police Department to police rule-breakers and he said that when parking occasionally spilled over onto Treetop Lane, it was no different than when a neighbor had a party. Dan Dutton, 18406 Old River Landing, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, President of Lakeridge Youth Football, described how the District regularly and proactively emphasized the policies regarding parking and trash to non-school field users. He said he was confident the District was reasonably compliant with those policies during the significant events he had been part of. He recalled that an emergency vehicle had no problem accessing the field from Cloverleaf Drive when a player was injured, and the City had stationed police on Cloverleaf that day. Mark Olin, 4860 Hastings Drive, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, testified on behalf of the Lake Oswego Soccer Club. He said they working hard to be 100% compliant with the policies and they paid a large amount of money for field fees each year. He said they scheduled consecutive games in a manner that allowed time for participants to leave and arrive and minimize the impact. He said they communicated the policies to users in many ways. Duane Artel, 2045 Vail Ct., Lake Oswego, OR 97035, past president of the Pacer Athletic Club, testified that his calendar showed that the District had held over 24 meetings during an 18-month period when they specifically addressed the policies. Jason Dodson, 17879 Columbine Ct., Lake Oswego, OR 97035, a player on the Lakeridge Senior Varsity Soccer Team, testified the school announced the “No Parking” policy before every varsity game and the principal was a visible presence at most varsity games. Gary DeStefano, 3434 Lakeview Blvd., Lake Oswego, OR 97035, held that installing a fence between the residences on Cloverleaf Drive and the school property was the correct solution to the problem. He observed that the Municipal Golf Course was also next to homes, but there was a fence between the two uses and they had no problems that facility was responsible for solving. He did not favor the strategy of reducing use of the field by moving events to Lake Oswego High School because the purpose of the Lakeridge Property was and always had been a “school.” Karen DeStephano, 3434 Lakeview Blvd., Lake Oswego, OR 97035, said she served on the Lakeridge Field Committee. She held that the City should manage the street; Lakeridge High School should be treated the same as Lake Oswego High School and allowed to improve and grow their facility; and Lakeridge students should be able to practice, play and compete at their own school. Bob Barman, 1445 Oak Terrace, Lake Oswego, OR 97035., said he agreed with the DeStephano’s testimony. He said six households should not dictate what was to happen at the school, and he recalled that it was not unusual to park in a neighborhood to attend events at other schools. He suggested the solution was to erect a fence. He also suggested that the City mandate that the school was to purchase Cloverleaf homes as they came up for sale, and resell them on condition that the new buyer agreed that there would be kids and lights at the school. Joe Hawley, 1560 Brie Ct., Lake Oswego, OR 97035, said he was a youth coach and frequently received reminders about the restrictions on parking on Cloverleaf. He said the school was part of the community and programs should not be moved away because of a parking problem. He said all the schools he was familiar with had sports facilities with lights and visitors parked in the neighborhood. Luke Saporito, 1454 Greentree Circle, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, questioned how a few households could wield so much influence over school activities. He said it was better to provide lighted fields and supervised activities for young persons than risk the pitfalls of unsupervised activities. He indicated he believed that meetings should not be moved from Lakeridge because it should function as a high school. Jim Sowers, 1886 Palisades Terrace, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, said the school emphasized that there was to be no parking on Cloverleaf. He said school officials should not have to be responsible for policing a city street, and the facility should be used as a “school.” People who bought houses next to a school should expect that. School events should be held in the school’s own facilities. Phil Rogers, 17543 Lakehaven Drive, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, President of the Lakeridge High School freshman class and a football player, testified that the parking situation had improved and that it was unfortunate they had to play their home games at their rival’s stadium. Max Henniger, 4850 Centerwood St., Lake Oswego, OR 97035, Captain of the Lakeridge High School freshman football team, said the school was doing a good job preventing illegal parking, and it would be an unnecessary and extreme action to take away the lights. Westin Cooper, 19562 Riverrun Drive, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, testified that his family had parked along Cloverleaf to attend events for years, but after they learned that was not allowed, they quit parking there. He said to shorten the lighting time at Lakeridge would also affect playing opportunities for Waluga Junior High School. He was optimistic that common ground could be found that would allow the school to meet the conditions and address the concerns of the neighbors. Avery Harold, 2451 Overlook Drive, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, testified the students got the message they were not to park anywhere except in the school parking lot. He said there was more than ample parking in the lot now, and the administration and coaches were emphasizing the parking restriction. He said the Lakeridge soccer and Lacrosse teams played under the lights at Lakeridge, but it was not large enough stadium for lit football games. He said it would be a shame not to allow them to do that just because of the selfishness of the neighbors. Staff clarified for the Commissioners that the DRC had determined a year prior that the District met conditions related to the hours of lighting. Susan Terry, 855 Palisades Terrace, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, testified that although she had helped set up a solid waste recycling program at the school, players and coaches no longer followed it and school custodians were throwing everything into the garbage. She stressed they needed to follow the plan for solid waste and recycling on the fields and in the school. Paul Ostroff, 17766 Treetop Lane, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, Chair of the Palisades Neighborhood Association, explained that it was not just the residents along Cloverleaf Drive, but hundreds of neighborhood residents did not want a fence constructed there because it would impede access to the fields. He asked the DRC to include in their findings that the neighborhood opposed a fence and the District was taking many mitigating measures to achieve compliance with the Conditional Use Permit. Mark Bunster, 5253 Timber Grove, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, testified that after a recent youth football game an “army” of parents cleaned the field and the nearby grass and Cloverleaf Drive. He recalled that although there were separate cans for trash and recycling, mixed garbage was put into both types of containers. Steve Atinosi, 1801 Cloverleaf Rd., Lake Oswego, OR 97035, said the neighbors agreed that school administrators were enforcing the regulations. Ann Powers, 1840 SW Cloverleaf Rd., Lake Oswego, OR 97035, stressed neighbors were concerned about the safety of narrow Cloverleaf Road. She said a fire truck would not be able to pass through if cars were parked along the roadway. She said neighbors were not selfish people. Opponents None Neither For Nor Against None Rebuttal Ms. Cofield said the record demonstrated the “No Parking” restriction had been complied with and there was no reason to revoke the Permit. She said the District would like Condition D(2)(d) either revised so it applied only to major school events, or eliminated, so the District would be responsible for events when City staff or non-school staff were to monitor the street. She said the District believed that if a fence had been in place since the beginning, there would not be an issue now. However, the program the District had in place now was working and there was a good relationship between the District and the neighbors. She said the District could agree to a condition requiring it to file an annual written report for eight years to show its efforts to prevent the problems from getting out of control. Mr. Lehman observed general agreement that a lighted field was important. He said the District had done a reasonably good job of meeting the Conditional Use Permit requirements. Deliberations Chair Tierney closed the public hearing. Ms. Ostly said the evidence showed District efforts were having a positive result and she believed they had met the requirements. She indicated she agreed with the District’s written request (Option 4 in their letter of September 18, 2006) to amend the conditions so the District would be required to see that someone addressed traffic when that was necessary. She recalled testimony was that parking violations were now infrequent. Ms. Stadnik commended all parties who had testified for their contribution to the hearing. Ms. Binkley agreed with testimony that the “neighborhood” was larger than just the houses on Cloverleaf; she recalled many parties had testified about their concern for safety; and she recalled testimony that neighbors wanted open access to the school grounds. She commended the District for working toward resolution with the neighbors, even though that took time and money. Chair Tierney recalled the City granted the Conditional Use Permit in 1999 and said the District could have a lighted field at Lakeridge High School under certain conditions. The previous November, the Commissioners heard testimony that the District was not abiding by them. However, since that time District efforts had been exemplary, even though it had not yet been a full year. He said he concurred with Ms. Ostly that the Commission should adopt the District’s suggested Option 4 and delete Condition D(2)(d), and insert staff-suggested language that the District was to “agree to adhere” to the requirements. Ms. Ostly moved to approve LU 05-0089, modified to remove Condition D(2)(d) (as requested by the School District) and to add Condition D. Miscellaneous (as recommended in the staff report). Ms. Binkley seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. Chair Tierney announced the final vote would be held on October 2, 2006. He announced a five-minute break in the meeting and then reconvened it. ================================================================ LU 06-0005, an appeal of the Community Development Director’s approval of the following requests by Horizon Management, LLC: To partition an approximately 74,084 square feet (1.7 acre) lot into three parcels, as follows: Parcel 1 is proposed to be 15,273 (gross) square feet; 13,511 (net) square feet (excluding the access easement). Parcel 2 is proposed to be 13,679 (gross) square feet; 11,384 (net) square feet, (excluding access easement). Parcel 3 is proposed to be 45,132 square feet. A Resource Conservation (RC) District Boundary Delineation A RC Protection Area determination, per [LOC 50.16.50.16.050] Removal of one (1) tree as a part of this application. The site is located at 14064 Goodall Road, Tax Lot 2300 of Tax Map 21E 04CA. Chair Tierney opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedure and time limits. He asked the Commissioners to report any ex parte contacts (including site visits), biases and conflicts of interest, and to identify any known present or anticipated future business relationships with the project or the applicant. The only declarations were that each of the Commissioners present indicated they were generally familiar with the vicinity of the site. They each declared their business or occupation as follows: Binkley (architect); Ostly (real estate appraiser); Stadnik (civil engineer); and Chair Tierney (utilities inspection business). No one present challenged any commissioner’s right to hear the application. Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, advised the Commissioners that it was a de novo hearing and open for testimony related to all criteria. Paul Espe, Associate Planner, presented the staff report (dated September 9, 2006). He reported that the appellant was appealing the City Manager’s decision related to requirements for street lighting and pathway material. The appellant wanted the pathway to be gravel, and he wanted lower-level lighting fixtures than the standard PGE street light fixture. Staff had advised that the pathway was to be gravel, and its route would be mapped after trees to be protected were identified. Mr. Espe and Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, pointed out that the Engineering staff had justified their recommendation to the City Manager in the staff report. They said Goodall Road was a Collector Street, the area was redeveloping, and staff had imposed lighting requirements that would improve safety and which were consistent with national street lighting guidelines for Collector Streets. Mr. Boone acknowledged that the City was considering possible future changes in City lighting standards; however, he advised the application had to be decided based on standards in place at the time of the application. He said the current Code allowed the applicant to opt to post a bond to ensure that the lighting would be installed at a future date, but otherwise the Code required all public infrastructure to be installed prior to filing of the final partition plat. He advised that the DRC had no authority to disallow the applicant that option. He noted staff recommended that the fixture be required to be installed at the time of the final building inspection. He advised the Commissioners to determine whether the applicant had met the burden of proving the proposal complied with what the City Manager required. He noted staff had found the application complied and they recommended approval. During the questioning period, staff confirmed that a past Skylands development had installed the required streetlights. They confirmed pathway lighting along Goodall Road would be in the public right-of-way. They explained the applicant’s burden was to show the application met the criteria, and interested parties could challenge that had been met. Applicant Ken Sandblast, 7160 SW Fir Loop, Ste 201, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, testified on behalf of the applicant. He held the application met currently applicable criteria and he related that the applicant intended to agree to post a bond related to installation of the streetlight, and if the City Council adopted standards that retroactively affected it, the applicant would agree to install it according to the new standards. In return, they asked Mr. Robinson to withdraw his appeal. Appellant Chris Robinson, 14000 Goodall Road, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, testified the proposed standard PGE pole was not in character with the rural nature of Goodall Road. He submitted letters from eight neighbors who opposed the Engineering staff’s recommendation. He contended the City was not being consistent because they had not asked for street lights in connection with some previously approved minor partitions in the vicinity, including a Hazel Road partition. He stressed that the City was considering new standards for street lighting that might be more appropriate for the “rural” area than the standard “industrial” PGE fixture. He said he believed the applicant would have preferred not to have that kind of light. He said he wanted to see low-impact pathway material that looked more appropriate than asphalt and reflected the character of the neighborhood. He asked that the decision be postponed to allow the parties to come to agreement. He said the lighting requirement would set a bad precedent for the neighborhood. He asked the DRC to re-examine the Engineering staff’s recommendation, which he saw as a discretionary one, and consider aesthetics and the wishes of the neighbors. During the questioning period, Mr. Boone pointed out that the basis for the Engineering recommendation was discussed on page 5 of the staff report. He reasoned that Goodall Road was a Collector Street and should be lit at least to residential street standards. He related that the Engineering staff had found lighting would not be a problem to install without delay at the applicant’s site. Mr. Pishvaie advised that an intersection light served the Hazel Street minor partition. Proponents None Opponents Amy Veretta, 14081 Goodall Road, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, supported the appellant’s position. She said the proposed lighting was not in keeping with aesthetics of the area. Beverly Muller, 14073 Goodall Road, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, testified Goodall Road had a “rural” feeling, and some other type of lighting would be more appropriate. She said the pathway should not be asphalt. Mary Schoenberg, 12833 Adrian Ct., Lake Oswego, OR 97034, related that a high wattage light on Adrian Ct. glared into her windows. She worried that installing one on Goodall Road would encourage more use that would turn that “country road” into a “major street.” Neither For Nor Against None Rebuttal Mr. Sandblast said the applicant could agree to approval without a condition related to street lighting; or with a condition that applied the current standard as the Engineering staff interpreted it; or with a condition that the lighting was to be installed in the future to meet a future adopted City standard. Mr. Robinson requested that the record be held open for seven calendar days to allow submission of additional written evidence or testimony. Chair Tierney observed that the appellant would have until September 25, 2006, to submit that material, and the applicant would have until September 27, 2006, to submit a written rebuttal. Ms. Ostly moved to continue LU 06-0005 to October 26, 2006. Ms. Binkley seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. GENERAL PLANNING & OTHER BUSINESS (None) ADJOURNMENT There being not further business Chair Tierney adjourned the meeting at 10:15 pm. Respectfully submitted, Janice Bader Administrative Support III L\drc\minutes\09-18-06.doc