Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2022-05-16 PM Development Review Commission Minutes May 16, 2022 Page 1 of 9 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Development Review Commission Minutes May 16 , 2022 The Commissioners convened at 7:00 PM at City Hall, in the Council Chamber, 380 A Avenue, Lake Oswego, OR 97034. Members present: Kirk Smith, Mark Silen, Craig Berardi, Bruce Poinsette, and Dwight Sangrey (via Zoom) Members absent: Chair Jeff Shearer and Vice Chair Randy Arthur Staff present: Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; Ellen Davis, Associate Planner; Evan Fransted, Senior Planner; and Kat Kluge, Administrative Support VOTE FOR PRESIDING OFFICER With both Chair Shearer and Vice Chair Arthur absent, Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, instructed members to appoint a Presiding Officer for this meeting (by way of a motion and a vote). Commissioner Berardi moved to appoint Commissioner Silen as Presiding Officer. Seconded by Commissioner Smith and passed 4:0, with 1 abstention. MINUTES April 4, 2022 Minutes - No corrections were noted. Commissioner Berardi moved to approve the Minutes for April 4, 2022, as written. Seconded by Commissioner Smith and passed 5:0. PUBLIC HEARING LU 22-0011: The applicant proposes to reconstruct Rivergrove Elementary School, requiring approval of the following: • A Development Review Permit for the new buildings; • A Conditional Use Permit modification to increase the size of the school building from approximately 67,600 sq. ft. to 84,000 sq. ft. and to increase the capacity of the school from 575 students to 600 students; • A request for a Major Variance to LOC 50.06.001.5.g.ii.(1), requiring buildings to have a public entrance within 30 feet of a public roadway; and • Removal of 17 trees to accommodate the project. (Additional trees will be removed under a separate Invasive tree removal permit). Development Review Commission Minutes May 16, 2022 Page 2 of 9 This site is located at 5850 McEwan Road (21E0419BA00300). The Staff Coordinator is Ellen Davis, Associate Planner. Mr. Boone 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. There were no challenges to the Commissioners’ rights to consider the application. Staff Report Ellen Davis, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. The site is located at 5850 McEwan Road and is approximately 9.5 acres in size. McEwan Road is a local road, and the site is zoned PF (Public Functions). Currently, the site is developed with the existing school building, a number of modular classrooms, outdoor recreation areas, and one surface parking lot (for all visitor and staff parking and for student loading and unloading for parents and school buses). There are stands of Douglas fir trees around the perimeter of the site, which are all proposed to remain. The proposed site plan will retain the existing fields in the southern half of the site and tree groves in the northeast, north, and northwest. The new school building will be 84,000 square feet in size. The proposed capacity will increase by 25 students, from 575 to 600 students. There will be two parking areas. To the north will be the visitor parking lot and the parent drop-off and pick-up area. To the west will be the staff parking lot and the school bus loading zone. This is proposed to increase student safety by separating the school bus and parental loading areas. There will be 3 accessory structures on the site (a covered play area and two covered outdoor learning areas). Renderings of the north and south elevations were shown. The main entrance will be in the center of the north elevation. The two-story classroom wing is on the west side of the building, while the gym and screened service area are on the east. The massing of the proposed structure is broken up by the variety of roof forms (gable ends, shed roofs, and flat roofs). The design style and building materials of the covered structures will complement the main structure. All dimensional and design standards will be met, except that a Major Variance is requested to locate the school farther than 30 feet from McEwan Road (a 74-foot setback). This is requested to preserve Douglas fir trees while still separating the parent drop-off/pick-up area from the school bus area. This grove of Douglas fir trees includes trees that are 9 inches to 45 inches in diameter at breast-height (DBH). These trees provide screening and contribute to the neighborhood character and streetscape. Staff recommends approval of the Major Variance. The request to rebuild the school and increase enrollment by 25 students is also a modification of the Conditional Use (CU) Permit that exists for the school. The CU criteria for approval are that: the requirements for the zone are met; special conditions related to schools requiring on-site circulation and safe loading areas are met (the existing pathway along McEwan Road will be improved by separating it from the street); the site is physically capable of accommodating the proposed use; and the functional characteristics of the school can be made reasonably compatible with uses in the vicinity. Additional landscaping and screening are proposed to offer buffering and to protect children in the kindergarten play area. The photometric plans submitted by the Applicant shows that new outdoor lighting will meet the City's Performance Lighting Standard. The Applicant’s transportation evaluation estimates an increase of 57 daily car trips to the site. Development Review Commission Minutes May 16, 2022 Page 3 of 9 McEwan Road currently carries about 1,000 trips per day, so the estimated increase equals about 0.5%. Staff finds that the standards for the Conditional Use Permit modification are met. Several public comments opposing the removal of Tree #139 were received. All but Tree #139 (a 44-inch Douglas fir) are smaller in stature, including a Japanese maple, some ornamental cherry and plum trees, and sweet gum trees. Tree #139 is located well within the buildable envelope for the site and within the footprint of the new building. Staff finds that Tree #139 is not a significant tree (as defined in LOC Chapter 55) because it is not significant to the neighborhood due to size, species, or distinctive character. There are several other Douglas fir trees of similar or larger size on the site (including a 58-inch Douglas fir proposed to be retained). Tree #139 is located toward the center of the site, rather than in a prominent location (i.e., a street corner). The removal of this tree will not significantly alter the visible neighborhood skyline. It is also not a screening tree, street tree, nor part of a grove. Alternative site plans show that additional trees would need to be removed or the athletic fields would be lost by shifting the building in other directions. Recommended Conditions of Approval (COAs) require the planting of 17 mitigation trees, including one native species; however, the Applicant proposes planting 74 mitigation trees, including 33 native trees. Staff finds that all criteria are met and recommends approval, with the COAs listed in the staff report. Questions of Staff There were no questions of staff. Applicant Testimony Tony Vandenberg, Executive Director of Project Management, Lake Oswego School District, noted that the design process started quite a while ago, and they have met with hundreds of individuals who have provided input. He stated that he and his team worked to create a responsive and responsible design, to minimize the impact of the site, to retain and enhance the natural features of the site, and to serve students and community members by responding to ever- evolving educational programs. He shared the following “Big Ideas” that came out of the input received: No long hallways - having a connected school; Access to the outdoors is key for both learning and playing; The library should feel connected, but also a quiet refuge for students; The iLAB needs to be in the center and up front - showing the commitment to STEM learning; A multipurpose commons area will include places to dine, gather as a community, and celebrate the performing arts; and The students want more windows for light, more trees planted, and places to feel comfortable in the classrooms. Mr. Vandenberg then relayed that the final phase of the design was approximately 60% complete (permit approval in process, short-list of prequalified General Contractors in progress, site work to begin mid-June 2022, and bid the completed building design in early fall 2022); noting that they would create a "Path to Net Zero," install redundancy systems and a generator, and increase the seismic design level to maintain energy efficiency and resiliency. Rebecca Stuecker, Principal Architect at IBI Group, spoke to the following design solutions arrived at through community conversations: retaining the athletic fields, retaining as many trees as possible and planting additional mitigation trees and shrubs, separating the parent and bus loading zones, constructing a learning garden and additional movement and play areas for different age groups, increasing safety and security, creating a connected learning/gathering area, creating safe and efficient access for service vehicles, and creating accessibility for all through careful grading of the site. Development Review Commission Minutes May 16, 2022 Page 4 of 9 Questions of Applicant Commissioner Berardi suggested that volunteers gather to make a bench out of Tree #139, given the angst reported in some of the community comments received. Mr. Vandenburg replied that they were already making plans to have further conversations on how they might celebrate the tree and how to incorporate it into their learning courtyard. Commissioner Berardi then inquired whether the school had cooling capabilities, given that some students may need to extend their learning into the summer. Mr. Vandenberg stated that the school will have enhanced mechanical systems to cool the direct outside-air supply. Mr. Boone reminded Commission members and the audience that the question was whether or not the application complied with the criteria, and it was not the Commission's job to run the building. He added that they looked at how the building and its use would impact the surrounding properties. Public Testimony In Support Courtney Clements, 5560 Kilchurn Avenue, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, stated that she wrote a letter in support of the application from the perspective of being the Chair of the 2021 Bond campaign, noting that the bond passed by 57% of the vote, which showed support for this project. Speaking as a parent, she opined that Rivergrove Elementary was woefully inadequate as an educational space but having the potential of being a much more effective and efficient structure set in a landscape that will be educationally functional, aesthetically pleasing, and environmentally responsible. She informed members that she participated in the long-range planning, Bond development, and design process of the new Lakeridge Middle School. She encouraged members to approve the design, then thanked members for their time. In Opposition Peter Klaebe, 5438 Tree Street, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, Chair of the Rosewood Neighborhood Association (RNA), relayed that the RNA agreed with the newest design proposal submitted by the School District; however, they requested that the DRC require one additional COA, that the building footprint be moved to preserve Tree #139 (which RNA considers to be a significant tree according to LOC 55.02.030). He informed members that Tree #139 was the 8th largest out of 148 trees surveyed on the property, and was rated healthier than four other trees larger than itself. He rebutted Ms. Davis’ presentation by saying that the tree was in a prominent location and was visible from the road. He noted that students were aware of the wildlife living in the tree. Mr. Klaebe voiced the RNA’s concern over the school being built for 600 students when an estimated 360 students were anticipated for fall enrollment (being a 50% over-build for what was needed). He opined that only 16 classrooms would be needed for 360 students and 20 classrooms needed to support 500 students (not the 24 classrooms proposed), and he suggested additional options on how to lay out the building footprint. He then opined that the School District did not consider any ways to preserve Tree #139 in their initial site analysis or designs. He noted that the RNA believed it was not too late to amend the design plans. Neither For nor Against Colleen Allen-Schublin, 5775 SW McEwan Road, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, asked if there were plans to install new sidewalks on both the north and south sides of McEwan Road, and if so, were there also plans to install retaining walls for the properties who had a sloping grade, as she was concerned about the root integrity of the old Douglas firs on her property. Development Review Commission Minutes May 16, 2022 Page 5 of 9 Mr. Boone indicated that this was a time for testimony, and the Applicant may wish to address that during their rebuttal period. Applicant Rebuttal Mr. Vandenberg stated that his team did not agree with the comments made by Mr. Klaebe, as they put in a significant amount of effort to create a thoughtful design, with significant input from community, staff, and others. He noted that they did look at alternative designs, that they provided a site plan that strove to retain as many natural features on the site as possible and one that provided significant enhancements to the site. Responding to the question regarding the sidewalk on McEwan Road, Mr. Vandenberg relayed that this would be included as part of a separate Public Works Permit application, with a conversation to be held between the City of Lake Oswego and any neighbors that may be affected, at a future time. Deliberations Mr. Boone asked if anyone wished to request 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 Presiding Officer Silen to proceed to deliberations. Presiding Officer Silen closed the Public Hearing and opened Commission deliberations. Commissioner Smith noted that he used to be District Council for a large school district and that he was impressed by what this School District had done, as his priority was student safety. He added that he appreciated that there was a separate parent drop-off area and that there was a cohesive learning center. He opined that there were many difficulties in building a school. He then stated that he supported this application, as presented. Commissioner Berardi acknowledged Mr. Boone's directive to look at criteria meeting City Code, agreeing with staff's recommendation that the criteria had been met. He stated that he was in favor of the project. Commissioner Poinsette stated that he was interested in the elimination of conflict between people and vehicles, and that he was in full favor of the application because the design addressed this issue. Commissioner Sangrey informed members that he was very much in favor of this project, in the way that the design professionals and the community had planned it. He noted that, as a Board Member of the Oswego Lake Watershed Council, where the preservation of trees was their number one priority, he felt that this team did a marvelous job reducing the impact on trees, agreeing that he was sad to see Tree #139's removal. Presiding Officer Silen relayed that he was brought back to his school years in the State of California (being in buildings structured after Rivergrove Elementary’s current design) and that he became increasingly jealous of the kind of experience these children will have at this new school in the very near future. Commissioner Smith moved to approve LU 22-0011, as submitted, without modification. Seconded by Commissioner Berardi and passed 5:0. Mr. Boone instructed staff to return the Written Findings, Conclusion, and Order on Monday, June 6, 2022, at 7:00 PM. Development Review Commission Minutes May 16, 2022 Page 6 of 9 LU 22-0003: A request for Development Review Permit for three new mixed-use (office and residential) buildings in the West Lake Grove Design District and removal of three trees. This site is located at 16494, 16524, 16552, and 16556 Boones Ferry Road (21E07DD02300, 21E07DD02500). The Staff Coordinator is Evan Fransted, Senior Planner. Mr. Boone 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. There were no challenges to the Commissioners’ rights to consider the application. Staff Report Evan Fransted, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Fransted noted that two letters (G- 200 & G-201) were received after the staff report was published. The site consists of three Tax Lots (2300, 2400, and 2500) and is approximately 2.09 acres in size, with frontage on Boones Ferry Road. The site is zoned West Lake Grove Residential Mixed Use (WLG RMU) and is located in the West Lake Grove Design District (WLGDD). Properties to the north at 16555 and 16577 Boones Ferry Road are zoned WLG RMU and developed with a commercial building (Bank of the West) and a parking lot, while 16667 and 16607 Boones Ferry Road are located in Clackamas County's R-8.5 zone and developed with single-family dwellings. To the south, properties are located in Lake Oswego's R-7.5 zone or Clackamas County's R-8.5 zone and are developed with single-family dwellings. The property to the east is located in the GC (General Commercial) zone and Lake Gove Village Center Overlay and developed with a commercial building (US Bank) and a parking lot. The western property is currently vacant and zoned WLG RMU. Tax Lot 2300 is vacant. Tax Lot 2400 is developed with an existing building and parking lot, which were approved in Clackamas County and then annexed into the City. The building has commercial use on the ground floor and two residential units on the second floor. Tax Lot 2500 includes two existing buildings and a parking lot that will be demolished as part of this project. The proposed site plan shows three mixed use buildings (office and residential at R-5 density or greater). The proposal meets the minimum/maximum density requirements with four residential units on Tax Lot 2300 and seven residential units on Tax Lot 2500. The proposed buildings are set back at least six feet from the sidewalks on Boones Ferry Road and are not in located in a special street setback, thereby, complying with the required setbacks. The site will have access to Boones Ferry Road via an existing signalized shared access opposite of Madrona Street. The project complies with on-site circulation standards using the existing network of sidewalks on the site and adding new pathways connecting to the front entrances of the proposed buildings. The project is required to have a total of 45 parking spaces and 56 parking spaces are provided. The project requires a total of six bicycle parking spaces. The Applicant is proposing four bicycle parking spaces located under the awnings of Buildings A-1 and A. A Condition of Approval (COA) requires a revised site plan that shows a total of six bicycle parking spaces, three of which must be covered. The utility plan shows proposed connections to water, sanitary sewer, and private utilities. Stormwater will be treated on site. Based on the preliminary stormwater design submitted, staff finds that the preliminary stormwater design is feasible as submitted. Development Review Commission Minutes May 16, 2022 Page 7 of 9 Renderings were shown of the proposed building plans. The WLGDD requires that the buildings reflect either English Country or Cottage style, and borrow from the Arts and Crafts, English Tudor, and American Rustic styles (complex massing, asymmetrical composition, use of masonry and wood-textured visually engaging facades, a pedestrian-friendly scale, and lush landscaping border plantings). The proposed buildings are similar in quality and design to the existing building on Tax Lot 2400. The proposed building design is in the English Country style and borrows from the Arts and Crafts architectural style, with asymmetrical massing, cedar shake shingles, board and batten siding, and rustic stone as primary cladding, multi-paned windows, and gabled and hipped rooves. The buildings include porches, canopies, and overhanging balconies that provide pedestrian scale. Overall, staff finds that the proposed building design meets the WLGDD standards. Floor plans and landscaping plans were shown, and the types of plants to be used was described. A minimum of 20% of the net developable area must be comprised of open space, in addition to the 20% landscaping required. The Applicant proposes providing 40.31% of open space and landscaping on Tax Lot 2300 and 40.11% on Tax Lot 2500. A few areas on the Landscaping Plan do not show any landscaping features. Staff recommends COA A(8), which requires an amended Landscaping Plan that shows planters, benches, and other similar landscape features under the awnings and in the concrete areas without landscape features. The Applicant is proposing to remove three trees on Tax Lot 2300 in order to construct the site improvements. They are all bigleaf maple trees ranging in size from 16 to 34 inches in diameter, and all are considered to be healthy. The proposed tree removal will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, or surface waters because on-site runoff will be managed with an Erosion Control Permit and stormwater management system. No nearby trees will experience windthrow impacts because the trees on the property to the west will continue to provide a windbreak from the southwest. The Applicant's arborist report states that removal of the trees will not result in alterations to the distinctive features or continuity of the neighborhood skyline because of the remaining grove of trees to the southwest. Staff concurs with this report. The abutting properties to the south are zoned low-density residential, and the trees proposed for removal are located near the west lot line, where the property is zoned WLG RMU. The three trees proposed for removal do not serve as a screen between dissimilar residential uses to the south. These three trees are considered the only remaining trees on the property; therefore, an exception to Criterion 3 is required (alternatives to tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone). The Applicant's arborist report states that the trees are located within the grading and paving area and alternatives to removal were considered but reducing the width of the driveway was not a viable option. Staff finds that the only other feasible alternative would be to locate Building A closer to the east lot line and further away from the trees, but this would result in insufficient distance between Building A and the existing building on Tax Lot 2400. Staff finds that there is no reasonable alternative to the removal of these trees in order to construct the proposed development, which is allowed by the zone. Staff concludes that the removal of all three trees complies with the applicable criteria. Six mitigation trees are required, all of which must be native. The tree removal plan shows that 11 native Douglas fir trees and 13 Western Red cedar trees will be planted as mitigation trees. COA A-9 requires that the Applicant submit a final mitigation plan in compliance with the mitigation standards. In conclusion, staff recommends approval of LU 22-0003, with conditions. Questions of Staff There were no questions of staff. Development Review Commission Minutes May 16, 2022 Page 8 of 9 Applicant Testimony Mark Fitkin, Property Owner, stated that the development will be a continuation of what was started in 2006. He opined that they maintained the character of the existing building during its latest remodel and that they will continue that character in the design and architectural elements of the next three buildings. Mike Towle, Engineer with DOWL Engineering, thanked members for allowing him to appear via Zoom and thanked Mr. Fransted for the assistance given on the project. He suggested including the following independent statement to incorporate into the staff report’s COAs: "Demolition of existing buildings and associated lot clearing/grading shall be permitted prior to the issuance of approved grading or building plans for the new development subject to demo permit and grading/erosion control permit approvals" (associated with COAs A-1 to A-10). Mr. Towle agreed that additional landscaping will be included in the concrete hardscape areas, adding that the landscaping areas will be complementary to surrounding buildings. He noted that there was a late change with the placement of Building B in that it was shifted north to move it further away from Building A and will now include an additional landscape area. Questions of Applicant Presiding Officer Silen asked to see the additional verbiage requested again. Mr. Towle noted that they previously discussed with staff pulling a Demolition Permit or Grading Permit in order to get some work done this summer. Presiding Officer Silen asked Mr. Boone if it was within the Commission's purview to revise the language, and if so, what would be the process. Mr. Boone asked Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager, to discuss the rationale on the timing of the Grading and Building Permits. Ms. Numanoglu replied that the Planning Department did not typically allow a Grading or Building Permit to be issued prior to the COAs being completed because there was normally tree removal needed for the grading and their removal was not allowed prior to the Building Permit being issued (as a policy). She noted that, in this case, the subject trees were located on the western-most part of the site and the grading could be completed without removing the trees (they would need to be protected), adding that a Demolition Permit could be applied for at any time (as the COAs did not prevent this action). She opined that the Applicant could be issued both a Demolition and Grading Permit, as long as the trees were protected. Mr. Boone relayed that the Commission had the authority to impose conditions that were related to eliminating or mitigating negative impacts on natural features, and as trees were natural features, they would have the authority to prevent the removal of trees without development occurring. Public Testimony Neither For nor Against Donald Conklin, 4575 Upper Drive, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, noted that he had lived in that location for 34 years. He opined that his written testimony stated clearly what he was interested in, agreeing that this project was primarily following the rules. He stated he had issues with the lack of buffering (good-neighbor fencing was not sufficient), which was a broad issue with the commercial/residential interface. He acknowledged that he liked the look of the buildings architecturally; however, he felt that the City had dropped the ball with regard to noise and sanitation impacts on the adjacent residents (dumpster collection primarily - location and collection time). He requested that this be looked at, and that the issues be identified and taken care of. He also requested that the City look at the how these were the last three large trees to be removed from the site. He agreed that the commercial businesses added value to residential quality of life. Development Review Commission Minutes May 16, 2022 Page 9 of 9 Commissioner Berardi asked if he had discussed the buffer issue with the applicant in order to find a solution. Mr. Conklin replied that he had not, as he lived a few doors down from this site (behind the current location of Zupan's Market). Applicant Rebuttal Mr. Fitkin stated that he had no control over the timing of trash pick-up; however, they created a trash collection area that was above required standards. He acknowledged that they may be able to look at the design again and create something that might be enclosed. In regard to the trees, he noted that he had owned the property since 2006 and since that time, there were trees that split and fell halfway into the parking lot, were found to be infected or rotten, had two tops (considered to be highly dangerous), or were invasive species, requiring removal. 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 Presiding Officer Silen to proceed to deliberations. Presiding Officer Silen closed the Public Hearing and opened Commission deliberations. Commissioner Sangrey opined that this application, with its conditions, was something that he would support because the recommendations were important to improve the project, as well as to ensure compliance with the applicable regulations. Mr. Boone asked staff for their recommendation regarding the proposed amendment in wording. Ms. Numanoglu stated that staff had no objection to changing Condition A to "Prior to the issuance of any building permit..." while specifying that the trees may not be removed, adding that staff wood formulate the wording to include in the Findings. Commissioner Berardi moved to approve LU 22-0003, as written, with the COAs as adjusted by staff. Seconded by Commissioner Poinsette and passed 5:0. Mr. Boone instructed staff to return with Written Findings, Conclusion, and Order on Monday, June 6, 2022, at 7:00 PM. SCHEDULE REVIEW AND MANAGEMENT UPDATE Ms. Numanoglu, updated DRC members on upcoming meetings: June 6, 2022 has the Findings from this meeting and two other items. June 20, 2022 has nothing scheduled at this time, but there was a possibility of a continuance. July 6, 2022, Wednesday, has one item scheduled. July 18, 2022 has one item scheduled. ADJOURNMENT Presiding Officer Silen adjourned the meeting at 8:57 PM. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Kat Kluge, Administrative Support