Loading...
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