Approved Minutes - 2020-02-03 PMCity of Lake Oswego Development Review
Commission Minutes of February 3, 2020
Page 1 of 6
14
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
Development Review Commission Minutes
Monday, February 3, 2020
The Commissioners convened at 7:00 PM in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 380 A Avenue.
Members present: Chair Jeff Shearer, Vice Chair David Poulson, Craig Berardi, Kirk Smith,
Jason Frankel, Mark Silen, and Randy Arthur
Members absent: None
Staff present: Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager; Johanna Hastay, Senior Planner;
Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Kat Kluge, Administrative Support
REPORT ON COUNCIL ACTIVITIES
Chair Shearer read the report emailed to him from Councilor Theresa Kohlhoff highlighting the
following citizens’ concerns: a new natural parks petition; partnership with the Chamber of
Commerce; and the location of a new swimming pool; and the following activities: funding and
bids for Woodmont Park will be accepted in April, 2020; staff will give the breakdown of costs for
the “2020” initiative; Councilors attended a goal -setting retreat with good results, not dissimilar to
those from the past; $450,000 was allocated for the Tryon Creek water treatment plant research;
and Councilor Kohlhoff was elected 2 nd-Chair of the Metro Policy Advisory Board for this year
and Chair for next year (they will be working on the theme of “Equitable Development”).
MINUTES
July 15, 2019
August 5, 2019
August 19, 2019
Chair Shearer asked if members had any changes or corrections to n ote. There were none.
Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, indicated that all Minutes could be accepted at once, unless
there was a motion to sever.
Commissioner Arthur moved to approve all minutes as a group. Seconded by Vice Chair
Poulson and passed 7:0.
PUBLIC HEARING
LU 19-0046, a request for the following:
A Conditional Use Permit modification to add field lights to the multi -purpose practice field
northwest of the school building;
A Development Review Permit to construct a hitting barn, along with other minor athletic
field improvements; and,
City of Lake Oswego Development Review
Commission Minutes of February 3, 2020
Page 2 of 6
14
The removal of one tree to accommodate the improvements.
This site is located at Lakeridge High School, 1235 Overlook Drive (21E16000100). T he Staff
Coordinator is Johanna Hastay, AICP, Senior Planner.
Mr. Boone explained the process of a public hearing and inquired of DRC members if they had
any ex-parte contacts, biases, or conflicts of interest, and to state their business and/or
employment. All Commissioners stated they had no ex parte contacts (other than those listed
below), biases, nor financial conflicts of interest. Commissioner Arthur stated that his company
had worked with Janet Turner of Geode Design, Inc., but he hadn’t personall y, and there were
no financial disqualifiers. Chair Shearer stated that he had site visits. Vice Chair Poul son
indicated that he had worked with Geode Design, Inc. in the past, and he was familiar with the
site. Commissioner Berardi stated he had been to t he site. There were no challenges to the
Commissioners' right to consider the application.
Staff Report
Johanna Hastay, Senior Planner, presented the staff report, informing members that Exhibits G -
200 (a letter in opposition), and F-13 (a letter from the Applicant regarding a utility plan
addendum) were recently received.
The site is zoned Public Function (PF) and is located in the Palisades Neighborhood Association
area. The proposed work is in the upper northwest corner of the site, where the softball and
practice fields exist. There are residential neighborhoods abutting the site to the west and
southeast, and adjacent to the site to the north and south. The City’s public golf course abuts to
the east. The practice field was constructed with the creat ion of Lakeridge High School in 1969.
Natural turf was replaced with artificial turf in 2006. There was an updated Condition of Approval
(COA) for all ball fields in 2008. The current proposal is for the construction of a hitting barn, and
for new lights to be installed on the practice field.
Zone and Development Standards: all PF zone standards have been exceeded; the hitting barn
design is complementary to other athletic improvements and to the school; there is no new
parking demand generated by this application; internal walkways provide adequate circulation
and there is no emergency access constraint; the lighting performance standards are met for the
new field lights; and based on Exhibit F-013, the Applicant has shown the existing stormwater
facilities have sufficient capacity.
Conditional Use Standards for the installation of the field lights: all PF zone requirements are
met; all use-specific standards are met; the site is physically capable of supporting the field
lights; and the lights will be reasonably compatible with nearb y uses, as they are directional and
there will be no spill-over onto adjacent properties. Staff found there were no conditions of
approval necessary; however, further analysis is needed regarding the possible extended hours
of use, as was noted in the oppo sition letter.
The previous COA was from the 2008 revie w to address impacts to the neighbors. Staff
recommended that the new lights should comply with all prior COA's. Ms. Hastay noted that
some of the items brought out in the opposition letter would not apply (for example, there is no
public address system associated with the practice field), and the other concerns could be
addressed by the existing COA's, with the Applicant reaffirming their commitment to those
conditions.
Staff recommended approval.
City of Lake Oswego Development Review
Commission Minutes of February 3, 2020
Page 3 of 6
14
Questions of Staff
Commissioner Berardi asked about noise insulation for the hitting barn. Ms. Hastay noted that it
was a permitted use and met zone setbacks. She opined that because it was fully enclosed and
more than 100 feet from the nearest residence, any sound impacts would be fairly minimal, but
would let the Applicant speak to more specifics. Commissioner Berardi voiced his concerns
about there being additional parking on the street, given there being more athletic activities. He
asked if there was a master plan for the school to add an additional parking structure. Ms.
Hastay replied that staff looked at parking demand for the maximum student cap and if there was
no increase, it would not impact parking; adding that she knew of no proposed improvement to
parking on the site at this time. She stated that staff found that the park ing time may be
extended, but the capacity was not added to.
Commissioner Smith asked Ms. Hastay to address the tree. Ms. Hastay stated it was a 7-inch
cedar that was probably a mitigation tree for a previous proposal and it was proposed for
removal for the new javelin runway. She stated that there was a COA that the required mitigation
tree be a native species. Commissioner Smith then inquired about the COA for the lighting no t
being used past 9:30 p.m. on the practice field (citing Page 12 and 13 of 23), and the field curfew
of 10:00 p.m. Ms. Hastay indicated that all field lights had to be turned off by 9:30 p.m., with the
only exception being the varsity football field in th e northeast corner of the site, as they were
allowed to go later to finish a game or complete trash cleanup. Commissioner Smith pointed out
a typographical error on Condition (1)(A)(b), where it said "sued." Ms. Hastay stated that she did
see that and was going to bring it up; noting that there was no error on the signed copy at Exhibit
F-011 (it stated "used").
Applicant Testimony
Jason Giles, Project Manager with Cameron McCarthy Landscape Architecture and representing
the Lake Oswego School District, informed members that there were three key elements to the
project; being the new hitting barn and related walkway, the new athletic field lighting, and the
javelin runway replacement. The javelin runway will be moved to the other side of the field,
requiring the removal and mitigation of the tree. The hitting barn will complement other structure s
on-site and will be enclosed and insulated; however, there will be times the door would be open,
thus the reason for it facing toward the school building and away from neighboring residences.
Any sound generated would be minimal, and the school would not hold practices outside of the
restricted hours.
Mr. Giles showed a slide covering the lighting technology and explained how the spill -over could
be controlled. He stated that the tree to be removed was in the proposed javelin runway and the
mitigation tree would be placed to the north of it. The current proposal has the stormwater quality
covered by last year's approved improvements.
Steven Baumgartner, Senior Project Manager with the Lake Oswego School District, answered
the question regarding the sound for the hitting barn by saying that, currently, the team practiced
outside and hit into netting, so the hitting barn would improve that situation. He informed
members that moving forward with future parking would require a bond measure. Mr.
Baumgartner stated that they were not anticipating having the lighting used later into the night,
as the Parks and Recreations' soccer leagues (who have partial ownership of the fields) would
not be allowed to use the field for tournaments.
City of Lake Oswego Development Review
Commission Minutes of February 3, 2020
Page 4 of 6
14
Questions of Applicant
Commissioner Silen asked if there was a known safety distance between the end of the field and
the building structure, to keep a runner from colliding with the hitting barn. Mr. Giles stated the
building was about 22 feet from the end play-line of the football field, and that had a 15 -foot
minimum clear-zone, and it was set back further to address the existing waterline and utility
easement.
Chair Shearer inquired about the handicap access to the hitting barn. Mr. Giles replied that the
ADA route utilized the existing softball field ramp access and the retaining wall at the bullpen,
and the walkway was 40 inches wide. Chair Shearer then a sked if the lights were 70 feet high
and if they were at field height. Mr. Giles affirmed. Chair Shearer asked if the lights would be on
during the football season for public safety. Mr. Baumgartner replied that Chair Shearer was
correct. Chair Shearer stated that he was still confused about the hours the lights would be on,
as they were on a lot later than 9:30 p.m. during baseball season (pointing out that he lived in the
area). He asked how the school district would police that during the summer. Mr. Baumgartner
informed Chair Shearer that there were controls on-site and there was a hard-and-fast rule that
the coach was supposed to turn them off at 9:30 p.m. Mr. Giles explained that with the LED
lights, they could be turned on and off very quickly, as the y do not have the warm-up time that
the other ballast lights require. Ms. Hastay asked Chair Shearer if he was saying that the
baseball field lights (in the southwest corner) were on after 9:30 p.m. Chair Shearer affirmed that
they were on after 9:30 p.m. many times during the summer. Ms. Hastay stated that a condition
of approval was to have the lights on no later than 9:30 p.m. Chair Shearer voiced his concerns
over the school district being informed about things without there being follow -through.
Commissioner Berardi opined that this was becoming more like a park; asking if there were
restrooms in the area, and if the ones from the grandstand would be open. Mr. Giles stated there
were two port-a-potties located on the edge of the parking lot and those w ere open during the
hours of use, and otherwise, the athletes utilized the ones in the gymnasium.
Chair Shearer asked if there would be lights between the hitting facility and the hitting barn;
voicing his concern about girls not walking on the path in the dark. Mr. Baumgartner stated they
would be adding lighting to the walkway.
Public Testimony
Neither For nor Against
Armando Gonzalez, 1515 Cloverleaf Road, Lake Oswego, 97034 , stated that he also had
concerns over the timing of the lights (agreeing with Chair Shearer that they were on after 9:30
p.m.), and asked about the "berth" of the lighting, and if the new lights would shine directly on the
homes. He then stated that many parents and children park ed on Cloverleaf Road, causing a
congestion hazard, and with the new batting cage being open later in the evening, it would be a
concern. His wife opined that the fire lanes needed to be repainted, as they were not very red
anymore.
Applicant Rebuttal
Mr. Baumgartner responded to Mr. Gonzales concern over the lighting; stating that the lights
would be directed down and were shrouded, without having any spillover and the photo-metrics
showed a zero-foot-candle leaving the site.
City of Lake Oswego Development Review
Commission Minutes of February 3, 2020
Page 5 of 6
14
Mr. Boone asked if there was a request to continue the public hearing, in order to provide further
evidence, and if the Applicant would like to submit a final written argument. Mr. Boone indicated
there were head shakes in the negative for both questions. Mr. Boone stated that the
Commission may move to deliberation.
Deliberation
Commissioner Silen opined that this was an excellent proposition, so long as there was a means
to enforce the already-agreed-upon neighborhood rules regarding parking, as there seemed to
be a breakdown in communication between the public and the School District; thus, needing
improvement.
Commissioner Silen moved to approve the project, subject to enforcement of the existing
COAs. Commissioner Silen asked Mr. Boone for proper wording. Mr. Boone responded that if
members found that the enforce ment of conditions and communication with the neighborhood
was necessary to ensure that the characteristics were reasonably compatible with the
neighborhood, then they would impose that as a condition of approval; adding that they would
need actual direction on what the Commission means by "improving the lines of communication"
because that would be the standard judging whether the Applicant meets that.
Commissioner Silen rephrased the motion to say "to take action on the enforcement of elements
of the already existing agreement." Vice Chair Poulson opined that Commissioner Silen was
asking the City to do the enforcement that they were already required to do, and that would be a
code enforcement issue.
Commissioner Silen moved to approve the project. Seconded by Commissioner Smith. Vice-
Chair Poulson added "as conditioned." Chair Shearer asked if Commissioner Silen's proposal
was to accept the project, as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Silen affirmed.
Commissioner Berardi voiced his concern over the location of the bathrooms when there was no
one at the stand, opining that those needed to be moved to the center.
Mr. Boone indicated that the role of the Commission was to apply the standards, and not to run
the school, and the concern would be whether that affects the functional characteristic for
reasonable compatibility of the neighborhood versus trying to run the school.
Commissioner Frankel pointed to the condition of making sure the ADA path was lit, as it was the
only thing discussed and not in the proposal. He opined that members all agreed on this and it
was stated it would done, but this condition needed to be added.
Chair Shearer asked Ms. Hastay whether there was a code that the pathway had to be lit. Ms.
Hastay affirmed that in the PF zone standards, an ADA pathway would have to comply with the
performance or prescriptive lighting option, and she would add that in the conditions under
"(A)(1)(a)". Commissioner Frankel agreed that sounded sufficient.
Decision
Chair Shearer asked Commissioner Silen if adding that to his motion was acceptable.
Commissioner Silen affirmed. Commissioner Smith stated that was fine for his "Second."
Mr. Boone asked the Applicant if they had any comment regarding the additional condition of
approval. They responded in the negative.
City of Lake Oswego Development Review
Commission Minutes of February 3, 2020
Page 6 of 6
14
The motion passed 7:0.
Deputy Attorney Boone asked that the tentative decision and written findings be brought back to
the Commission on February 19, 2020, as February 17, 2020 was a holiday. He indicated that
Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager, would like to discuss the meeting’s start time.
Ms. Numanoglu polled members on the time of the meeting, as there was nothing else
scheduled for that date, so it could be 6:00 PM in the Council Work Room. Members all agreed
to meet at 6:00 PM and Commissioner Smith would appear via telephone.
SCHEDULE REVIEW AND MANAGEMENT UPDATE
Review draft tree memo from the DRC to the City Council
Commissioner Arthur suggested changing the first sentence of the last paragraph (where it said
"The recommendations do not involve any code changes.") to say "...are not intended to trigger
any code changes.", as he was not certain what some future evaluation may provide.
Commissioner Berardi opined that the first paragraph felt somewhat strong (where it said
"...providing testimony at public hearings, asking the DRC to require development to be
substantially redesigned.") and it should say "...to consider development to be redesigned.”
Chair Shearer stated that they looked at projects as being within the realms of the tree code, per
staff, but then they listened to public testimony about how they want to protect several or one
tree, adding that he liked that layout, as he felt that was how the tenor of those meetings had
been, and that it then set up the last part (where it said "...consider implementing incentives or
other tools to encourage builders to work around the trees."). He added that they wanted to push
City Council a bit on this issue. Ms. Numanoglu informed members that she used the word
"substantially" because little alterations were easy to do, but where staff struggled was where
there was no good solution and where the public was asking for a redesign of the application.
Commissioner Berardi acknowledged that made sense.
Commissioner Frankel moved to accept the letter, as amended by Commissioner
Arthur. Seconded by Commissioner Arthur and passed 7:0.
Ms. Numanoglu informed members that when she forwarded the letter to the City Council, she
planned to include a cover letter from staff to discuss potential fiscal impacts since meetings with
planning staff were requested. Vice Chair Poulson opined that that may save the City money
over time due to the lack of contentiousness that may result from this.
Ms. Numanoglu informed members that there was nothing else on the immediate horizon, but
that she would update them at the next meeting on February 19, 2020.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Shearer adjourned the meeting at 8:07 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Kat Kluge
Administrative Support
TO: Mayor Kent Studebaker
Members of the City Council
CC: Martha Bennett, City Manager
FROM: Development Review Commission
SUBJECT: Recommendations to Encourage Tree Preservation During Building and
Development
DATE: TBD
As you know, the Development Review Commission (DRC) reviews land use applications, which
may include requests for tree removal. Additionally, the DRC is also the review body for appeals
of tentative staff decisions on Type II tree removal applications separate from land use
applications. Increasingly, members of the public are providing testimony at public hearings
asking the DRC to require development to be substantially re-designed or reduced in size to
preserve more trees. This testimony is being presented regardless whether removal of the
tree(s) would actually have a “significant negative impact on the character or aesthetics of the
neighborhood” by qualifying as having one of the five qualities / effects per LOC 55.02.080(3).
If the removal of the requested tree(s) would not have a “significant negative impact on the
character or aesthetics of the neighborhood,” an applicant is not required to consider
reasonable alternatives to removing the tree(s). Even if the removal of the tree(s) would have a
“significant negative impact,” as stated and affirmed in the recent Renaissance Custom Homes
(AP 19-07) decision, the “reasonable alternative” Exception b to LOC 55.02.080(3) does not
permit reduction in the footprint or size of development allowed by the zone to avoid removal.
(A re-design may be a reasonable alternative; it is the applicant’s burden to show why a re-
design would not be a reasonable alternative.)
While the DRC recognizes that it is not always possible to preserve every tree that neighbors
would like to preserve and still allow and/or incentivize development as permitted by the zone,
we believe that better information, education, and opportunities for creative solutions early in
the development process could increase the likelihood that more trees are preserved in
development projects. The DRC discussed options at its October 21, 2019 meeting and has the
following recommendations for the Council: DRAFT
Page 2 of 2
• Create a handbook or handout containing guidelines for tree preservation during
development and for identifying which tree removals on a site would result in a
“significant negative impact” per the Type II tree removal criteria. This handbook or
handout should be provided to applicants at all pre-application conferences and
distributed to potential applicants as early in the development process as possible (e.g.,
counter visits, included with tree and building application forms, and posted online)
when a pre-app conference is not required;
• Continue to cover the information as provided in the handout or handbook, above, at
the annual tree workshops given to the public by staff;
• Provide an option for builders or developers to request a meeting with Planning staff on
site during the conceptual phase of projects in order to help identify which tree
removals on a site may result in (or potentially be perceived as having) a “significant
negative impact” and discuss tree preservation options. This would require more staff
time, but may offset some staff time if an appeal is avoided; and
• Staff has offered to review and update the Type II application forms as necessary to get
more complete information from applicants.
The DRC also recommends the Council consider implementing incentives or other tools to
encourage builders and developers to preserve trees. Such incentives could include an
expedited land use process or reduction in development review fees, for example; however, a
full range of potential incentive options is best generated by a focus group of developers and
builders.
The above recommendations are relatively easy to implement and do not involve any code
changes. The focus is on education and early intervention in the development process rather
than staff or the DRC trying to tweak development to preserve trees, where the criteria
permits, late in the process when a significant investment in time and money have already been
made on the planning and design of a project. Some recommendations would have a fiscal
impact, so the issue is whether the community at-large would benefit from the changes. We
think it would.
DRAFT