Approved Minutes - 2020-06-15 PM CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
VAIR o Development Review Commission Minutes
June 15, 2020
GkEGo°
The Commissioners convened at 7:07 PM online, via "Zoom."
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;
Erica Rooney, City Engineer; Will Farley, Traffic Engineer; Evan Boone,
Deputy City Attorney; Angela Wieland, City Stormwater Consultant with
Brown and Caldwell; Jessica Christofferson, City Stormwater Consultant
with Brown and Caldwell; and Kat Kluge, Administrative Support
REPORT ON COUNCIL ACTIVITIES
Councilor Kohlhoff updated members on the following recent City Council activities: the City
Council has worked on emergency preparedness and planning from the start of the COVID-19
pandemic; the major issue now is over the police and they will hold a meeting on June 16, 2020
discussing equity, race, and the police; there are two Measures before the Council (dealing with
the DEI Task Force); and the Tryon Creek Wastewater Plant discussion will be upcoming.
MINUTES
October 21, 2019: Commissioner Arthur noted on page 3, the 3rd paragraph, and the 5th line
down, the word "transcribe" should be "transcribed."
February 3, 2020: Commissioner Arthur suggested that the Tree Memo, as finally approved, be
attached to the Minutes (for completeness).
February 19, 2020: No changes were suggested.
Vice Chair Poulson moved to approve all Minutes, with the noted modifications. Seconded by
Commissioner Frankel and passed 6:0, with one abstention.
PUBLIC HEARING
LU 19-0041, a request for the following:
• A lot line adjustment;
• RP District delineations;
• A Development Review Permit to construct a 160-unit multi-family housing project;
• Approval of a parking study for shared parking;
City of Lake Oswego Development Review
Commission Minutes of June 15, 2020 Page 1 of 12
• An unavoidable utility crossing for a stormwater facility;
• Minor variances to retaining wall standards; and,
• The removal of 112 trees.
This site is located at 5600 Meadows Road (21E07BA00900). The Staff Coordinator is Johanna
Hastay, AICP, Senior Planner.
Mr. Boone gave an overview of the public hearing process.
Mr. Boone asked DRC members to declare any ex parte contacts (including site visits), biases, or
financial conflicts of interest and their business/employment. All DRC members present declared
they have no ex parte contacts, conflicts of interests, and no biases. Chair Shearer noted that as
a retired contractor, he had worked on Shorenstein and GBD projects in the past. Vice Chair
Poulson made a site visit. Commissioner Arthur noted that GBD is an adverse party in an action
out of his firm's Seattle office, but he is not aware of this action nor is he involved in it. There
were no challenges to the Commissioners' rights to consider the application.
Staff Report
Johanna Hastay, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. She noted that the following exhibits
were added to the record: G-003, and G-213 to G-218.
There are three separate properties involved in the project, with the center property being the
one where most of the construction will occur. These properties were a part of a Master Plan for
the construction of four office buildings, approved by the County in 1999. The buildings were not
constructed when the properties were annexed to the City in 2004. Since then, three of the
buildings have been constructed. There are certain aspects of the current project that do not
need to be re-reviewed: right-of-way dedication, access onto Meadows Road, and certain
stormwater standards. The site is zoned Campus Research and Development
(CR&D). Properties to the north and east are also zoned CR&D. Properties to the northwest and
west are zoned Mixed Commerce (MC). Properties to the south are in unincorporated
Clackamas County and are developed with low-density Residential (R) zoning. The site contains
sensitive lands (two Resource Protection (RP) Districts and a tree grove Habitat Benefit Area).
The delineations comply with current methodologies. There is a 50-foot protected riparian area,
measured from the edge of the wetland area, from the top of the bank in the steep ravine area,
and from mid-stream where the ravine is not as steep.
CR&D Uses and Zone: multi-family is an allowed use; max lot coverage is 55% and 26.4% is
proposed; there is no floor area max; max height is 82 feet; and minimum setbacks are 15 feet
for the front and rear yards, with the building set back 16 feet at the front and approximately 100
feet at the rear.
Building Design: complementary with nearby commercial structures (using neutral colors in
wood, stone and metal); preserves natural land forms to extent possible; reduced noise impacts
with distance and landscaping; and pedestrian access is encouraged. Staff found that the
Building Design standards have been met.
Parking: parking study shows Kruse Oaks (KO) IV has a residential peak demand of 210 spaces
(with 149 surface and underground spaces provided), so parking capacity will be exceeded from
approximately 8:00 pm to 7:00 am; KO III has a commercial peak demand of 310 between 8:00
am to 2:00 pm; and the solution is to have 61 shared spaces in order to fulfill the residential
night-time demand. Staff found that the Parking study standards were met, with a condition of
City of Lake Oswego Development Review
Commission Minutes of June 15, 2020 Page 2 of 12
approval for all necessary signage be put in place, and a notice of development restriction to be
recorded to put future property owners on notice of the shared parking.
Landscaping and Open Space: a minimum of 40% required total (20% for each), adding up to a
total of 51,000 sq. ft. (Carter Creek sensitive lands are protected); there are layers of native trees
and shrubs; there are plantings at the perimeter and base of the structure; and it helps screen
dissimilar uses. Staff found that the Landscaping and Open Space standards have been met as
proposed.
Stormwater: approximately 66,000 sq. ft. of impervious area is vested per the Clackamas County
approval; upstream water will be detained in an enlarged pond at KO V. KO I-IV can then sheet
flow to Carter Creek and there is a balanced equation. The approximate 11,000 sq. ft. of
additional impervious area proposed will be treated on-site and detained in a holding tank and
will connect to the exiting outfall pipe (coming out above Carter Creek). There is an unavoidable
utility crossing through the RP District. The chosen route has minimal impact (no tree removal),
and full mitigation is proposed (more plantings at the outflow pipe).
Streets and Sidewalks Traffic: the prior County approval included right-of-way (ROW)
improvements to offset traffic impacts from the four office buildings; it is vested if KO IV is an
office building. A traffic study is required only if more than 250 daily trips or more than 25 peak
trips above the vested total are added with the proposed multi-family building. Only 118 daily
trips are added and fewer peak trips; the traffic study thresholds are not met. Staff found that no
traffic study would be required and no additional ROW improvements would be warranted,
excepting some curb improvements that need to be completed.
Type II Tree Removal: 122 trees are requested for removal to develop the project. The
applicant's arborist found there is no impact on the trees to remain. The tree removal was found
to have a significant negative impact to neighborhood aesthetics (staff found four of the five sub-
criteria were met as having a significant impact); however, alternatives were considered and staff
found that there were no other reasonable alternatives to preserve the trees and the Exception
"b" to Criterion 3 was met.
Type II Tree Mitigation: 122 trees proposed for removal (26 trees found to be significant,
requiring a 2:1 mitigation ratio) and 138 trees are required for mitigation. The mitigation trees will
be a mix of native evergreen and deciduous trees.
Staff recommends approval as conditioned in the staff report.
Questions of Staff
Commissioner Arthur inquired about the status for the master plan for the area (calling for office
buildings), and the effect on this deliberation. Ms. Hastay stated that the plan was approved prior
to annexation, but not constructed until later on. The City adopted a development agreement that
vested the County-approved plans, requiring only a building permit to construct if in accordance
with the approved plans. The subject lot is vacant and last year, the Applicant decided to change
the plan to multi-family use. Mr. Arthur then asked for clarification regarding the CR&D zoning
and the project not being an office building. Ms. Hastay stated that, with the change to multi-
family, the Applicant now has to comply with current standards for the portions of the project that
have changed from the County approval and which are not vested. Commissioner Arthur
inquired if the shared parking arrangement would run with the land. Ms. Hastay affirmed and
stated that it is a condition of approval (COA) to record the shared parking agreement with a
notice of development restriction; however, that does not lock them in forever to that
agreement. There are 149 on-site parking spaces and 61 spaces will be shared with KO
City of Lake Oswego Development Review
Commission Minutes of June 15, 2020 Page 3 of 12
III. Commissioner Arthur asked if there was any bus service to allow for modification of parking
requirements. Ms. Hastay responded that the Applicant is not allowed to reduce parking through
any transit offsets. Commissioner Arthur inquired whether the structure design was modified to
save some of the trees. Ms. Hastay affirmed, explaining that the riparian area was increased
from 25 feet to 50 feet, and the building footprint originally had parking down to the Carter Creek
boundary. This was changed to an L-shaped building with underground parking included and the
structure being lowered in height.
Commissioner Silen thanked Ms. Hastay for the nicely-prepared report. He asked her to describe
the pedestrian flow for a tenant who parks in the shared parking lot. Ms. Hastay indicated that
the commercial parking is a 2-deck parking structure and if the tenant is parked on the upper
deck, they would come down the stairs and then across the parking lot to the front of the building
(which faces KO Ill). The on-site parking lot complies with the City's lighting standards.
Commissioner Silen asked about the capacity of stormwater tank. Ms. Hastay informed members
that its capacity is approximately 11,000 square-feet (having the capacity to contain the
stormwater over the allowed vested amount), and is located in the basement.
Commissioner Berardi requested an explanation for the parking calculation (1.3 per unit as
national measurement), as he gets to a much higher number of spaces needed, given the
number of two and three-bedroom units, in order to avoid on-street parking. Ms. Hastay indicated
that there was no on-street parking on Meadows Road and it is highly doubtful that tenants
would park on other area streets given the distance to the structure. Required on-site parking
can use the numerical method (adding the numbers for studio, one-bedroom, and more than
one-bedroom units) or it can use a parking study (looking at the trip manual, which is an industry-
wide analysis based on use). The Applicant used the latter method, arriving at 210 total spaces
required. Staff found that the Parking requirements were met by the parking study method.
Commissioner Berardi stated that he looked at it from the standpoint of occupancy and arrived at
approximately 250 spaces needed. He opined that traffic was an issue on Bryant Rd. turning
onto Boones Ferry Road and asked if any traffic study had been completed. Ms. Hastay stated a
new study was not required, as the study thresholds were not met and the Applicant already
completed traffic improvements for four office buildings to offset impacts. Commissioner Berardi
asked if there was a history of the pond overflowing and what impact there may be with any
release from the stormwater tank in regards to flooding. Ms. Hastay deferred this to the City
Stormwater consultants or the Applicant.
Commissioner Smith congratulated Ms. Hastay on the great report written (condensing it down
from 600 pages to 40 pages). He inquired about the variances to the retaining wall standards, as
the analysis showed a 3-foot to 15-foot retaining wall, foregoing an evergreen screening. Ms.
Hastay apologized for not including this in her presentation. She indicated that the maximum
height for a retaining wall is eight feet and the Applicant is proposing a varying-height wall
(maximum of 17 feet) along the west facade of the residential plaza. The second minor variance
is to the evergreen landscape screen (having a seating area in the plaza and the retaining wall is
not visible to anyone outside of that seating area, given the slope of the land). This would apply
just to that one wall, as the Applicant plans to install planters along the base of many other walls.
Commissioner Smith opined that the shared parking was a great idea, asking if the City had any
input on where the shared spaces would be placed as he felt sorry for the residents who would
have to park on the upper deck and wondered if there was a limit to the distance they would
have to walk. Ms. Hastay responded that the Applicant requested some flexibility on where the
shared spaces would be, but they would generally be on the drive-line from the Meadow Creek
access point and on the common boundary line between KO Ill and KO IV. The signage would
have to be approved by staff before the building permit is granted. Mr. Boone added that off-
street parking in a commercial zone requires that spaces in remote lots be within 500 feet of the
property line.
City of Lake Oswego Development Review
Commission Minutes of June 15, 2020 Page 4 of 12
Commissioner Frankel asked if the traffic circle on Carmen Drive/Meadows Road was taken into
consideration and what its rating was. Ms. Hastay deferred this question to Mr. Farley, adding
that a recent survey showed a LOS of"C." Mr. Boone added that traffic improvements were
made before the four office buildings were constructed and the City looks at what may or may
not be exceeded with the new development proposal.
Chair Shearer asked for clarification on the temporary parking and whether it would be in
perpetuity. Ms. Hastay stated that the shared parking at KO Ill is subject to a reciprocal parking
easement and access easement, and the 61 spaces are for residential use in perpetuity, until
that use changes. The Applicant would need to come back to do a new parking study if the use
changes (e.g., if KO Ill goes to a series of retail shops requiring a higher parking count). Mr.
Boone added that there is an obligation to maintain the parking on the other property in
perpetuity; however, a modification could always be done on the other side, but it would still
need to provide for required parking. Chair Shearer then asked about the unincorporated land
and if annexed, would the setback be different. Ms. Hastay responded in the positive, stating
that, if the abutting properties were annexed, there would be a height limitation of 60 feet if a
structure was within 120 feet of an R-7.5, R-10, or R-15 City-zoned property. Chair Shearer
inquired about the tree mitigation. Ms. Hastay responded that there is a COA to mitigate the 26
"significant" trees at a 2:1 ratio and the other 86 trees at a 1:1 ratio for a total of 138 mitigation
trees.
Vice Chair Poulson voiced his concern over the shared parking, given the different uses and the
parking times involved. He asked how this would be enforced. Ms. Hastay replied it would be up
to the Applicant to enforce, as it becomes a private property code enforcement issue. Negative
impacts from possible insufficient on-site parking would be people parking on nearby streets, but
the nearest on-street parking is far away; however, she feels that there is an adequate number of
spaces per the parking study submitted. Vice Chair Poulson stated that he had reservations over
accepting a parking study without any kind of peer review, so would have difficulty endorsing
this. Ms. Hastay indicated that the Applicant could address this in their presentation. Vice Chair
Poulson asked when the baseline traffic numbers were established. Ms. Hastay replied that it
would be close to 1999. Vice Chair Poulson pointed to significant commercial and residential
development done after that time, opining that the 1999 traffic study could not have predicted the
additional traffic stemming from those. Ms. Hastay responded that the County's study did include
the impacts from the four office buildings. Vice Chair Poulson stated that members were
concerned when the roundabout being discussed was constructed, and then asked about the
construction expiration date. Ms. Hastay stated that the Applicant is vested for the traffic. Mr.
Boone added that a land use application was submitted prior to the extended expiration date of
June 13, 2020. He stated that the City looks at each development on their own application for
traffic impact. Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager, informed Vice Chair Poulson that the
original Mercantile Development predated 1999, and when that site was redeveloped, the daily
trip counts for the new use did not exceed the original development at full capacity (the amount
that project was vested for). Vice Chair Poulson indicated that the full capacity of the Mercantile
Development was never achieved, believing, however, that the full capacity will be reached by
the new commercial/residential development. He then inquired whether the existing pond had
been tested for capacity to see if it would take the new impervious surface water generated by
this new development. Ms. Hastay deferred this question, adding that from the Applicant's
studies, the pond did not have the capacity to handle more impervious runoff as existing.
Applicant Testimony
Tim Johnson, Owner of Kruse Development, LLC (and with Shorenstein), introduced his team.
He informed members that Agustin Enriques, Architect with GBD Architects, would be leading
City of Lake Oswego Development Review
Commission Minutes of June 15, 2020 Page 5 of 12
most of this presentation. Mr. Johnson thanked City staff for their efforts in coordinating this
meeting.
Shorenstein has been involved with this land since 2007 (19 buildings and 2 empty parcels), and
they look at using the land with a holistic approach. The six primary community concerns are:
height and scaling of the building; impact on the stream corridor to the south; removal of existing
trees; exposure to southern-facing neighbors; noise; and traffic. Mr. Johnson acknowledged that
they were not able to address each concern to make every citizen happy, but were transparent
throughout this process. In response to the concerns, the following design changes were made:
reduced the building by two stories; remapped the RP boundary, moved the building 25 feet
further north and redesigned the stormwater holding; adjusted the plan to preserve the most
significant trees (notably two large fir trees); added additional trees and landscaping to screen
building and vehicle lights; shielded trash collection with the building envelope and moved the
generator inside; counter-cycle time and direction of traffic patterns to existing office use; and 56
fewer AM and 41 fewer PM trips than the vested development agreement.
Mr. Enriques outlined the project goals, as follows: engage the neighborhood to understand
concerns; provide a complimentary use to the neighborhood; provide a range of housing types
(50% are one-bedroom units, 40% are two-bedroom units, and the balance are studio and three-
bedroom units); and design with respect to neighboring buildings, but will look predominately
residential. There are a number of red-brick office buildings in the immediate vicinity, along with
varying building aesthetics, and they are choosing one that will fit well in the neighborhood. The
trees along Carter Creek straddle the property line to the north and south.
The existing site contains varying topography, with a difference in elevation of 40 feet from the
southwest corner to the high point. Shared parking stalls, with KO III, are roughly the same
distance from the building as from the outer edge of KO IV's surface parking stalls. The building
is "L-shaped," and will have a central main entrance for residents and guests. All nuisance areas
(service-related) have been moved to the interior to screen the sights and sounds away from the
neighbors to the south. The top floor includes a common tenant meeting/group room, but it is
also in the middle of the building to shield noise to the southerly neighbors.
Concrete and brick will be used on the ground floor. Stucco and composite will be used on the
second through fifth floors. Painted cement boards will be used as an accent. There is a change
in plane and material every 25 feet, due to the rising topography of the property. The quality of
materials used wraps around the entire building. They are not using cheaper materials on the
south side where it is out of view of the street. The northern view shows a five-story building that
is roughly 60 feet high. The southern view shows the lowest point of the building, and that is
where the total height of 82 feet is taken from. The building is functionally 20 feet lower in
elevation than KO III due to the change in topography.
They will add thick landscaping between Meadows Road and the surface parking area and the
building. There will be many layers of landscaping on the south side from Carter Creek through
the RP area, and to the base of the building. There will be an improved mulch walkway to take
you to the pond on KO V. They are asking for a minor variance for the planned stone-clad fern
retaining wall. It will start at three feet in height and go much higher. The end experience is to
have a woodland feel all the way around the building. All of the trees are native and the ground
cover are both native and drought-resistant in order to have foliage year-round.
Questions of Applicant
Commissioners Arthur, Silen, and Smith had no additional questions.
City of Lake Oswego Development Review
Commission Minutes of June 15, 2020 Page 6 of 12
Commissioner Berardi asked if vehicle lights may shine above the retaining wall to the south cars
are driving to the parking garage. Mr. Enriques believed that the lights would be blocked by both
the retaining wall and the shrubs in the built-in planter, and the car would be turning immediately
into the garage.
Commissioner Frankel inquired what the goal for the rents and demographics may be. Mr.
Johnson stated that it provides a variety of options and moderately priced for the quality given.
Chair Shearer inquired what kind of concrete will be used. Mr. Enriques replied that it would be
snap-tied for the parking structure. Monte Ypma, Architect with GBD Architects, added that they
will use poured-form concrete in the areas that are more visible to the public (e.g., steps and
retaining walls). Mr. Enriques stated they hoped to avoid sacking and the goal is to have the
quality of concrete that would not require that.
Vice Chair Poulson asked Jeff Shoemaker, Civil Engineer with DOWL Engineering, how the
modeling was done on the existing pond (checking for possible additional capacity). Mr.
Shoemaker stated that they worked from the previous studies done for KO I to KO IV. At that
time, additional capacity was not provided. Given that the area is designated as a wetland, it
would require a joint-fill permit, coordinating with the Core of Engineers and DSL. They did not
feel that they could meet the criteria to avoid this, as they knew there was a site they could retain
the water on. Vice Chair Poulson points to the under-basement detention pond and a network of
pipes to drain the stormwater; opining this would not be desirable, given the number of bends in
the piping. He added that the grading had the appearance of having no overland escape route,
with the potential for flooding under the building and noting this would be a concern during a
peak event. If the drainage could be moved to directly into the creek and making the pond
contain more, that would be a solution. Vice Chair Poulson observed that a high spot would be in
the middle of the parking lot and the topography would take the runoff to the north on Meadows
Road, but with the basins, it is cross-running to the south. Mr. Shoemaker responded that they
are unable to capture all the water runoff coming from the north from a gravity-perspective. The
City will not allow that if there is another option, so it was crossed off the list. Draining into the
creek was explored; however, that had a higher impact to the resource protection area and did
not want to create a new discharge area to the creek. He acknowledged Vice Chair Poulson's
point about the pipes going through the building. There would be accessibility to the clean-out
areas through the underground parking area. Vice Chair Poulson inquired if the stormwater
planters were just picking up roof water. Mr. Shoemaker affirmed. He then asked what sort of
water quality treatment was proposed for the parking lot. Mr. Shoemaker noted that it would be a
manhole with storm chambers and filters.
Dana Krawczuk, Legal Counsel for the Applicant, with Stoel Rives, LLP, asked Chair Shearer if
there were any questions for their Traffic Engineer, as she did not hear any prior. Chair Shearer
indicated that members would have asked questions if there were any.
Public Testimony
In Opposition
Jim Solberg ceded his time to his wife.
Marcia Solberg, 5711 Bonita Road Lake Oswego 97035, stated that they built their home in Lake
Oswego in 1993. She thanked Mr. Johnson and Ms. Hastay for spending numerous hours
answering questions over her concerns regarding the property. She noted that the prior
approved office building had a footprint of approximately 17,000 square feet and would have
been located 200 feet from Carter Creek. KO III was built in 2008 by Shorenstein after they
City of Lake Oswego Development Review
Commission Minutes of June 15, 2020 Page 7 of 12
purchased the property in 2007. There are four residences that abut the property and none of
them objected to the development agreement extensions, as they believed they knew what
would be built on the empty lot. She stated that the multi-family building has a footprint that is
almost double that of the office building, with 45 south-facing windows, and is now only 100 feet
from Carter Creek. Mrs. Solberg noted that a total of 127 trees were to be removed under two
different permits; pointing to "3-e" of the Tree Code (over 50% of a grove may not be removed,
and the skyline may not be affected). She showed several photographs of the existing skyline,
explaining how most of the trees seen would be removed under this application. Shorenstein's
arborist did not include those significant trees that were considered "fair" (as per the City Code).
She proposed that a total of 10 apartments be removed from the north end, giving 28 feet that
the structure could be moved away from the creek and that the deck be recessed to achieve the
35 feet needed to save more of the trees. Mrs. Solberg quoted City Council's "Property Rights
Policy"from September 5, 2017. She asked the DRC to look closely at the staff report that deals
with Section 3 of the Tree Removal Code, as the current application is in violation of the code
and there is an alternative plan with a smaller building footprint. She opined that the current plan
adversely affects their homeowner's use, the enjoyment of their properties, protection of the
property values, and the health of the Carter Creek ecosystem.
Vice Chair Poulson asked Mrs. Solberg whether she was concerned over any privacy issues
(e.g., someone from a fifth-floor apartment looking down into her backyard or house). Mrs.
Solberg stated that the trees to be retained against Carter Creek stand at 185 feet tall and the
building will be at an elevation of 277 feet, so they will not even be screened from the first-floor
apartments with the removal of the significant trees she noted. Her home does not have any
natural buffers (no trees on the property and it sits rather low).
Kimberly Poppert ceded her time to her husband.
Claris "Clay" Poppert II- 5980 Bonita Road Lake Oswego, OR 97035, thanked staff for their
thorough review of the application. He stated that he arrived at a couple of different conclusions
than staff did. Mr. Poppert pointed to City Code 50.04.001.04.c.ii, where a building, within 120-
foot of an R-7.5 or an R-10 zone, is limited to 60 feet in height. He stated that his property is
within 100 feet of this project. He opined that City staff seems to disenfranchise homeowners to
the south because they are unincorporated Clackamas County. He does not believe that this
removes their legal standing as they have a Lake Oswego address and pay Lake Oswego
school taxes and pay Tualatin Valley fire taxes. Mr. Poppert believes that at 82 feet, the structure
does not comply with the code. He acknowledged that there was a commercial development
zone in place; however, the Code supersedes this in favor of the property rights of the
residents. On a bigger scale, if the City is trying to encourage annexation, they must be a "good
neighbor" to the people they are trying to entice into annexing.
Moving to LOC 50.06.004.1.b.5 (1), this requires screening between dissimilar uses (high-density
multi-family versus low-density single-family residences). He opined that staff incorrectly asserts
that the resource protection area trees are being retained by the development, adding that the
trees in the riparian area are low in height (in the 30-foot to 40-foot range), and there are huge
gaps in that resource zone. Mr. Poppert stated that there is a reasonable alternative. They are
asking that the significant trees on the southern portion of the property be retained. By moving
the building north 28 feet, at least 7 significant trees would be saved, and moving it an additional
7 feet would save 12 additional significant trees. This would be a no-cost option for Shorenstein
and would provide that the required screening be retained. Removing 10 apartments would be a
reasonable 6% concession. Mr. Poppert noted that their residence is a similar R-8.5 zone and
should be covered by City Code.
Vice Chair Poulson asked Mr. Enriques if they had considered the alternative of moving the
City of Lake Oswego Development Review
Commission Minutes of June 15, 2020 Page 8 of 12
structure back 35 feet and adding 4 feet in height to make up for the lost units. Mr. Enriques
stated that he had not, acknowledging that it would be an option.
Laurel Mahar, 5165 SW Carman Drive, Lake Oswego OR 97035, stated she has lived in Lake
Grove since 1955, and in their house since it was built in 1978. She understood when building
her home that there would be commercial office buildings along that stretch of Meadows Road
and that high-rise apartments would not be her backyard neighbors. She has serious concerns
over the traffic impacts on Carman Drive. Mrs. Mahar will focus on exterior lighting of the
proposed building and parking lots. She pointed to the Design Code B.vii.1 (a) & (c), where
screening and buffering was required between dissimilar uses, opining that there was a
difference between a multi-story apartment building and single-family residences. She requested
that maximum screening be required, as the extreme elevation changes would produce window
glare and intrusion of lighting. Staff set as a COA (page 28 of the staff report) the requirement for
the Applicant to submit a revised lighting and photometric plan She requested a continuance of
this meeting until the Applicant has submitted the final lighting plan in order for the neighborhood
to respond to any unforeseen issues.
Kathy Whitman, 5665 Bonita Road, Lake Oswego OR 97035, stated that her property
(purchased in 2004, with an existing home that was built in 1930) abuts approximately 20% of
the new proposed building property and the rest of her property abuts KO III. She would like to
speak to the traffic problems, sharing the daily trip counts on Bangy Road, Meadows Road,
Kruse Way, and A Avenue. Ms. Whitman noted that it can take four traffic lights to get across
Bonita Road at Bangy Road due to the traffic coming from I-5. At lunch time, you can't turn left
on Meadows Road coming out of the existing office buildings in KO. Traffic in this area is already
way over the top and she experiences this nightmare already. She requested that some sort of
mitigation be put in place.
Tal Kennedy, 5575 Bonita Road, Lake Oswego OR 97035, stated that he has lived in his home
for 35 years and has watched all of the development in the area. He showed photographs of
what the creek looks like normally and after a heavy rainfall. The flooding, seen in the latter
picture, all heads to the west, toward the proposed new building. It washes out and changes the
vegetation due to the erosion every year. He asked that members walk along the creek to see
what has been done to the properties on the other side of the creek.
James Newcomer, PhD, 4282 Country Woods Court. Lake Osweao OR 97035. Secretary of the
Waluaa Neighborhood Association, read the letter, he submitted to the City on June 12, 2020,
regarding the traffic issues at Quarry Road and Carman Drive.
Neither For Nor Against
Sarah McCarthy, 5871 Bonita Road, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, stated that her property backs up
to Carter Creek, just southwest of the pond at KO V. They were stunned to learn about the new
residential plans at 5600 Meadows Road, as it was a major change from the office building plans
that had been put forward for nearly 20 years. The impacts to the neighborhood and to the creek
concerned her and her husband. Mrs. McCarthy pointed to the letter she submitted to City staff
voicing her concerns over Ordinance 2687 in 2015, and arguing that the RP zone along the
creek should be extended from 25 feet to 50feet, to reflect the City-wide standards. She opined
that the change in the footprint from a commercial structure to a residential structure negated the
sensitive lands allowances that had been vested. Mrs. McCarthy thanked Ms. Hastay for the time
spent answering her questions and stated that Ms. Hastay acknowledged that a map correction
was needed following a meeting they had at City Hall. She thanked Mr. Johnson for his
responsiveness and professionalism. Her on-going concerns relate to Lake Oswego Codes
50.05.010 and 50.06.006.3, and Chapter 38 (the impact on the creek from increased stormwater
City of Lake Oswego Development Review
Commission Minutes of June 15, 2020 Page 9 of 12
runoff). She asked if the proposed facilities were designed for the entire amount of flow or just
the non-vested portion and whether they will fail and flood. She would like to know how this will
be managed for the entire property.
Brian McCarthy, 5871 Bonita Road, Lake Osweao, OR 97035, added his concerns over the City
Codes addressed by his wife. He thanked Ms. Hastay, staff, and Mr. Johnson. Mr. McCarthy
opined that Carter Creek was a vital green-space area and excess stormwater runoff would
impact it. He showed pictures of the wildlife seen in this area. Mr. McCarthy voiced his concern
that the wildlife will not remain in the area with the additional residential activity. He asked that
the DRC work with Shorenstein to work within and meet the letter and spirit of the law.
Commissioner Berardi asked if Shorenstein was asked about moving the building back, and their
response. Mr. McCarthy replied that he believed so, but he was not part of that conversation.
Pat Perett, 5763 Kimball Court, Lake Oswego OR 97035, opined that the project will affect the
traffic in the neighborhoods in the vicinity of Bonita Road. They now have to plan their days to be
home by 3:00 pm, otherwise, they will be stuck in traffic (citing a 30-minute wait to drive one-third
of a mile, leaving Kruse Way to get onto Bangy Road, and the inability to turn left on Carman
Drive). Ms. Perett believes that the numbers are much higher than noted on the traffic study. Her
biggest concern is over the inability for emergency vehicles to travel along those roads
mentioned. She hopes that a new traffic study can be done soon.
Gabe Sheoships, 10015 SW 401 Avenue, Portland OR 97219. Fish Bioloaist and University
Professor, stated that he was familiar with Carter Creek in his capacity as a Biologist studying
the lamprey fish (an ancient fish, older than the dinosaurs)found there and in Johnson Creek.
Mr. Boone asked if he was a consultant for any of the residents. Mr. Sheoships replied he was
here on his own behalf and had not been paid to appear. He noted that lamprey are an
ecological indicator for the good stewardship in the area (due to the lack of people). Removing a
number of trees will increase the temperature of the creek and construction can impact the
lamprey's habitat. He opined that it was rare to see a habitat in an urban area that supported the
lamprey.
Applicant Rebuttal
Ms. Krawczuk stated that she heard a request to leave the record open, and assumed that would
be done. Mr. Boone responded that he heard that the record would be open for the Applicant to
submit further evidence, not that it was a request for Citizens to submit anything further, and this
would be addressed after their rebuttal time.
Ms. Krawczuk stated that she felt all concerns raised were covered in the detailed staff report
(regarding tree removal, alternatives, and screening). She would be happy to address any
specific questions members may have, but will turn this time over to Mr. Enriques.
Mr. Enriques stated that they have worked with Ms. Hastay to ensure compliance of the zoning
codes and they have made changes to get there. He pointed to the COA of additional mitigation
trees, and they are willing to do this. Another COA dealt with lighting for the surface parking lot to
provide additional information, and they are willing to do this also. Regarding the concern over
screening, there will be 22 trees planted on the south end of the construction; however, he
acknowledged they would be young trees at the beginning.
Mr. Boone asked if any concerned person requests a continuance to submit further written
evidence. Mrs. Solberg asked Mr. Boone about gaining more information about the Tree
Removal Code and why the staff report was allowing over the 50% removal, and should she
City of Lake Oswego Development Review
Commission Minutes of June 15, 2020 Page 10 of 12
speak to an attorney. Mr. Boone replied that staff will not have a dialog with citizens who
comment; however, now would be the time to request a continuance to submit additional written
evidence. The record is normally left open for seven days. Mrs. Solberg requested a continuance
in order to contact legal counsel.
Mr. Boone asked the DRC members if they choose to accept written evidence only for the
continued hearing, and if so, how long they would accept that evidence. Chair Shearer asked for
a straw poll of members. Commissioner Smith moved to receive only written
evidence. Seconded by Commissioner Frankel. Mr. Boone asked members to establish a
timeline for rebuttal evidence. Chair Shearer stated that evidence would be received for seven
days. Ms. Hastay indicated that two to four days to compile the final memo would be preferable.
Ms. Numanoglu reminded members that any person may submit rebuttal evidence. Mr. Boone
informed members that the Applicant may request time to file written rebuttal at the next meeting
on July 6, 2020, and this can be done concurrently with Ms. Hastay's memo. Chair Shearer
requested that all evidence be submitted by June 25, 2020, and staff's memo be submitted by
June 30, 2020.
Mr. Boone suggested the following motion: move to continue the hearing for receipt of written
testimony only. New evidence may be submitted through June 22, 2020 at 5:00 pm. Rebuttal
evidence, to that new evidence, must be submitted by June 25, 2020 at 5:00 pm. The public
hearing would be continued to July 6, 2020. Vice Chair Poulson so moved. Seconded by Chair
Shearer and passed 7:0.
Chair Shearer closed this portion of the public hearing.
OTHER BUSINESS
Schedule Review and Management Update
Ms. Numanoglu updated DRC members on upcoming meetings:
July 6, 2020 has one new public hearing regarding a subdivision off of Waluga Drive and then
the continuation of this hearing.
Chair Shearer asked Mr. Boone and Ms. Numanoglu whether it would be prudent for the DRC to
write a letter to the City Council regarding all of the development seen in the Lake Grove area
and requesting that traffic concerns be looked at for this area. Mr. Boone replied that the DRC
may comment on anything it thinks relevant to the consideration of applications. Chair Shearer
stated that Vice Chair Poulson touched on this, where the applications deal with just their little
area of impact and not the overall traffic impact. Mr. Boone suggested that members consider
writing the letter after this case is decided. Ms. Numanoglu added that the Planning Commission
(PC) had also wanted to discuss this issue. There was a proposal to look at the traffic
management code requirements in this area, but she was unsure of the status. Mr. Boone stated
that the PC was looking at the p.m. peak times for the Code, but this application does not deal
with this issue. Chair Shearer stated that he was not looking just at this application.
Mr. Boone informed participants that the next meeting on July 6, 2020, will take place on a
different platform ("Webex" versus "Zoom").
Vice Chair Poulson added that traffic impact fees are collected in order to fix traffic problems that
occur incrementally. This proposal may have a small percentage impact, but it would not be
commensurate to ask the Applicant to engage in a large area-wide study or to improve some
distant intersection. He opined that these were two different things.
City of Lake Oswego Development Review
Commission Minutes of June 15, 2020 Page 11 of 12
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Shearer adjourned the meeting at 10:53 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Kat Kluge
Administrative Support
<Z
City of Lake Oswego Development Review
Commission Minutes of June 15, 2020 Page 12 of 12