Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2021-11-15 PM Development Review Commission Minutes November 15, 2021 Page 1 of 5 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Development Review Commission Minutes November 15, 2021 The Commissioners convened at 7:01 PM at City Hall, in the Council Chamber, 380 A Avenue, Lake Oswego, OR 97034. Members present: Chair Jeff Shearer, Vice Chair Randy Arthur, Mark Silen, Craig Berardi, and Dwight Sangrey Members absent: Kirk Smith and Bruce Poinsette Staff present: Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; Johanna Hastay, Senior Planner; Will Farley, Traffic Engineer; and Kat Kluge, Administrative Support MINUTES November 1, 2021 Minutes There were no corrections noted. Vice Chair Arthur moved to approve the Minutes for November 1, 2021, as submitted. Seconded by Commissioner Silen and passed 5:0. PUBLIC HEARING LU 21-0042: A request for a Development Review Permit to add two new apartment buildings and an addition to a covered patio by the pool, and revisions to landscaping. This site is located at 4933 Parkview Drive (Tax Id: 21E06DD05600). The Staff Coordinator is Johanna Hastay, AICP, Senior Planner. Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, gave an overview of the public hearing process, outlined the applicable criteria and procedures, and gave instructions for any additional verbal testimony given. Mr. Boone asked DRC members to declare any ex parte contacts (including site visits), biases, or financial conflicts. All DRC members present declared they have no ex parte contacts, conflicts of interest, and no bias. Chair Shearer and Commissioner Sangrey noted that they had walked or driven by the site but had not made any specific site visits. There were no challenges to the Commissioners’ rights to consider the application. Staff Report Johanna Hastay, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Ms. Hastay noted that two new Exhibits had been added to the record (G-200 and G-201 - both letters in opposition). Development Review Commission Minutes November 15, 2021 Page 2 of 5 With this project, the Applicant intends to construct 2 new apartment buildings (36 new units) and an exercise building, implement various site upgrades to sidewalks and landscaping, and remove 16 trees. The site is located in the Lakewood Neighborhood Association and is zoned R-5, but is subject to the1980 approved Westlake Planned Unit Development (PUD). Property to the north is also zoned R-5 and developed with single-family residences. Property to the east is zoned R-10 and developed with a church. Property to the west is also zoned R-5 and developed with a multi-family residential complex. Property to the south is zoned Campus Research and Development (CR&D) and developed with a mix of retail and commercial uses. The only new structure visible from off site will be the 24-unit apartment building, which is located across from an open-space tract. The furthest angled corner of the new structure is approximately 100 feet from the closest single-family residence, 60 feet of which is Parkview Drive (containing street trees on each side). Dimensional Standards: This site was approved under DR 5-91 and there have been some modifications over the years. The maximum lot coverage allowed is 50% and this site is proposed at 29.8%. The proposed setbacks are 10-40 feet, as compared to the minimum allowed setback of 10 feet. The proposed maximum height is 42.5 feet, as compared to the allowed 45 feet. Staff found that the Dimensional standards are met. There were oppositional comments submitted in Exhibit G-201 alluding to the recent LO Initiative to build more duplexes and townhouses (HB- 2001); however, no Code Regulations have been adopted yet as part of HB-2001, so does not apply. Duplexes and townhouses are already allowed in the R-5 zone. Building Design: The proposed building is complementary in massing, style (inset decks, handrails), material (exterior cladding and colors), and roof forms (low-pitched hipped roofs) to similar structures of good design within the existing apartment complex, which does not include detached single-family structures. Staff found that the Building Design standards are met. Development Standards: Parking - 582 spaces required, with 693 existing spaces - there is no on- street parking allowed on Parkview Drive and the other area streets allow on-street parking on one or both sides (this spill-over parking is not regulated by the Code, as long as there is no blockage for fire or emergency vehicle access); Internal walkways connect to public sidewalks; Open Space/Landscaping - 40% required, with 42.5% provided; Feasible to manage stormwater on site; and Traffic Study - showed 196 daily trips, with an additional 13 a.m./16 p.m. peak trips, and minimal Right-of-Way (ROW) improvements are required (ADA ramps on driveway intersections and maintaining sightlines at those same intersections). Oppositional comments spoke to speeding and crashes on Parkview Drive. The traffic study found that there had been 2 crashes on that street in the last 5 years. Staff would recommend reaching out to the Police Department regarding speeding concerns. Park and Open Space: Slide depicted the areas set aside for these areas. Other oppositional comments spoke to losing the greenspace along Parkview Drive and referenced the LO Initiative protecting parks and natural areas. The proposed building site is a yard on private property, not a public park, sensitive land, nor an open-space tract. It is not open to public use. Tree Removal: 12 of the 16 trees are less than 15" DBH; Removal is necessary for construction and utilities; No significant negative impacts found; and 16 mitigation trees (mix of conifer and deciduous) are required. Staff recommends approval, as conditioned in the staff report. Development Review Commission Minutes November 15, 2021 Page 3 of 5 Questions of Staff Commissioner Berardi asked if overflow street parking was looked at or observed. Ms. Hastay replied that this was not looked at, as it is not an applicable criteria, as the minimum on-site parking requirements were met. Vice Chair Arthur asked how effective the Public Notice had to be before it was considered "not appropriate notice of the meeting," given that 15 trees were noted for removal, rather than the actual 16 trees being removed. Ms. Hastay noted that the Public Notice included a plan showing where all 16 trees for removal were marked. Mr. Boone asked for confirmation that both the Agenda and the Public Notice stated 15 trees. Ms. Hastay stated that she believed so and that she just noticed the discrepancy that afternoon. Mr. Boone asked that the tree removal plan be shown. He noted that the issue would be whether there was a procedural irregularity that affected the substantial prejudice of the parties, and that he would lean toward finding that there was not substantial prejudice because of the additional evidence in the record (the tree removal plan). Applicant Testimony Kurt Schultz, Principal at SERA Architects in Portland, OR, noted that the owners, Property Reserve, Inc., were good caretakers of the existing Kruse Way Commons building, and were wanting to invest more in this project in order to upgrade it. Kruse Way Commons was originally built around 1995, on 22 acres, with 29 apartment buildings (with 252 units and 693 parking spaces currently). The last development of the property was in 2017, with the pool expansion. The empty parking spaces led the owners to consider this expansion. There are existing 2-story and 3-story buildings on the property. The current parking ratio is 1.96 stalls per unit, which will drop to 1.78 stalls per unit with the addition of the 36 new apartment units (1.5 stalls per unit is the minimum requirement). The existing structures are craftsman cottage in design and feel. There is significant landscaping on-site. The Parkview Drive structure will face the sensitive land open space tract across the street. The grade falls from left to right and the structure was broken up to follow that line. The upper story exterior will be lighter in color. The north building will be approximately 130' by 75', while the south building will be approximately 80' by 75'. The eaves are about 30' above grade with both buildings. The final new building is a single-story fitness center, with an elevated clear-story roof to allow natural light into the building. They believe that 3 new buildings will be an enhancement to the Kruse Way Commons community, will fit in with the current architectural scale and character of the setting, and will add 36 new residential units for the citizens of Lake Oswego. Questions of Applicant Chair Shearer asked for confirmation that the existing stormwater system was working. Mr. Schultz affirmed that it was, and that if there were specific questions, Christian McCombs, with Humber Design Group, could answer them. Chair Shearer noted that he wanted to make sure it was not overburdened. Ms. McCombs stated that it was oversized. Chair Shearer then asked if the tenants had to pay extra to park. Mr. Schultz showed the site plan, noting there was both free open parking and reserved covered parking. Commissioner Silen requested a description of the covered carwash/bike repair area. Mr. Schultz replied that it was an open carport area where residents could use the wash machine and vacuum, and some tools were stored for bike repair (an existing carport will be repurposed). Development Review Commission Minutes November 15, 2021 Page 4 of 5 Public Testimony In Opposition Radhika Shah, 4765 Parkview Drive, Apt O, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, informed members that she was a student at Lewis & Clark School, and a member of the Kruse Way Commons community since August, 2020. She stated that, since moving in, she had seen her neighborhood transform from a vibrant, closely knit group to one that was fractured and unfamiliar. She opined that the owners operated under a false persona of an entity that cared about their tenants. She stated that the tenants only received a link to the City's website, Zoom information, and the date and time of the hearing; however, they did not receive any of the attachments (including the Application or details about tree removal). She informed members that many of the residents were not comfortable paying the extra $35 per month for the covered parking spaces, wondering how many there were of the 693 total existing parking spaces. She then stated that she would be worried about the additional utilities cost for the carwash area, as water usage was currently conglomerated. She opined that the additional fitness structure would not have much of an impact on the residents, as there was already an existing fitness center on-site. She then opined that the construction would have a further negative impact on the residents, as they currently have a long wait for simple maintenance painting requests. She requested that members prioritize diversity by voting "no" on this proposal. Chair Shearer closed the Public Testimony portion of the hearing. Applicant Rebuttal Mr. Schultz had no rebuttal. Deliberations Mr. Boone asked if anyone wished that the record be left open to submit additional evidence or if the Applicant wished to submit final written argument. There were no such requests, nor did the Applicant wish to submit final written argument. Mr. Boone instructed Chair Shearer to conduct deliberations. Commissioner Berardi stated that he was surprised that there was no rebuttal, given the accusations that were conflicting on the upkeep. He acknowledged that this was not the Commission's role, as their role was to make sure that the City was managing the project within the current Codes. Vice Chair Arthur noted that he appreciated Mr. Boone's comments regarding the adequacy of the Public Notice. He expressed his general concern over a 3-story apartment building juxtaposed against single-family residential homes. He then stated that he accepted staff's explanation that this complied with Code, in terms of the building being complementary to nearby structures of good design and similar nature. He noted that he would be voting in favor of the application. Commissioner Berardi moved to approve LU 21-0042, per City staff’s findings. Seconded by Commissioner Silen and passed 5:0. Mr. Boone instructed staff to return the Written Findings, Conclusion, and Order on Monday, December 6, 2021, at 6:00 PM, via Zoom. Development Review Commission Minutes November 15, 2021 Page 5 of 5 SCHEDULE REVIEW AND MANAGEMENT UPDATE Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager, updated DRC members on upcoming meetings: December 6, 2021, has the Findings from this meeting. There are no other items on the calendar for the month of December. ADJOURNMENT Chair Shearer adjourned the meeting at 7:55 PM. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Kat Kluge, Administrative Support