Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2022-07-18 PM Development Review Commission Minutes July 18, 2022 Page 1 of 10 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Development Review Commission Minutes July 18, 2022 The Commissioners convened at 7:01 PM at City Hall, in the Council Chamber, 380 A Avenue, Lake Oswego, OR 97034. Members Present: Chair Randy Arthur, Vice Chair Kirk Smith, Jeff Shearer, Bruce Poinsette, Timothy Lyons, and John Dewes Members Absent: Dwight Sangrey Staff Present: Jessica Numanoglu, Deputy Community Development Director; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; Evan Fransted, Senior Planner; Will Farley, City Traffic Engineer; and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Support Prior to beginning with agenda items, Chair Arthur thanked former Chair Shearer for his excellent leadership of the Development Review Commission (DRC). He then welcomed the new Vice Chair, Kirk Smith, acknowledging his judgement and insight. MINUTES June 20, 2022 Minutes - No corrections were noted. July 6, 2022 Minutes - No corrections were noted. Commissioner Shearer moved to approve the Minutes for June 20, 2022, as submitted. Seconded by Vice Chair Smith and passed 6:0. Commissioner Shearer moved to approve the Minutes for July 6, 2022, as submitted. Seconded by Vice Chair Smith and passed 6:0. PUBLIC HEARING LU 21-0078: A request for approval of the following for a new park (Rassekh):  Major Development: Conditional Use permit – athletic field, skatepark and lighting; 65 space parking lot;  Minor Development:  Construction of maintenance building, picnic shelter, restroom, dugouts, play area and associated site improvements, including utilities and walkways/pathway; and  Removal of 28 trees This site is located at 18011 Stafford Road (21E16D01100). The Staff Coordinator is Evan Fransted, AICP, Senior Planner. Development Review Commission Minutes July 18, 2022 Page 2 of 10 This hearing was continued from July 6, 2022 to allow additional written testimony only. Any person may submit new written testimony no later than 3:00 PM on July 13th, and written rebuttal to any new testimony received by July 13th was due by 3:00 PM on July 15th. No new testimony or evidence may be submitted during the rebuttal period. No oral testimony will be taken. Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney inquired of Vice Chair Smith (absent at the last meeting) whether he had reviewed the public hearing record. Vice Chair Smith affirmed that he had reviewed the record. Mr. Boone asked DRC members to declare any ex parte contacts (including site visits), biases, or financial conflicts, since the last hearing. There were no declarations made by any member. Mr. Boone directed Chair Arthur to proceed to an update of the staff report and then to deliberations. Staff Report Update Evan Fransted, Senior Planner, noted that 10 additional comments in favor (mostly relating to the skate park), 3 additional comments in opposition (concerns over parking, street improvements, sensitive lands, traffic impacts, lighting impacts, skating on surrounding streets, and a request for the Luscher Farm Master Plan), and the Applicant's rebuttal comment (Exhibit F-018) were received within the allotted timeframe and added to the record. Questions of Staff Chair Arthur requested a further explanation of the parking concerns raised. Mr. Fransted pointed to the details outlined in his memo, where the parking study found that 62 parking spaces were required for the sports field and 3 spaces were required for the skate park. He explained that the 3 parking spaces for the skate park were in addition to the 62 spaces (off-setting joint uses). He acknowledged that more parking spaces were provided at Hazelia Field (60 for the sports field, 40 for the dog park, and 20 for the trail users), noting that Rassekh Park was not providing a dog park nor connectivity to any trails, hence the difference in the number of spaces. He agreed that staff maintains its position that the parking requirements were met. Deliberations Commissioner Shearer opined that they were headed in the wrong direction for the Stafford area, acknowledging that each project stood by its own merits by the rules. He pointed to Stafford Road having Hazelia, Lakeridge, a new Lakeridge JV field, a new aquatics/recreation center, Rassekh Park, a traffic improvement from Wanker's Corners to Childs Road (county), and a nearby freeway that may go to a toll road (state/county). He stated that he felt that government, as their leadership, should have an overall traffic study for that area, and having none was wrong (given the combined traffic impacts from all of the projects together). He agreed that the parking study was correct. He relayed that, at this point, they did not know whether the traffic improvements to Childs Road would make things better or worse. He shared that his next concern was the lack of a sidewalk at Overlook and Stafford, given the anticipation that people will walk to the park, opining that it would be foolish as a community to allow risks to pedestrian safety. He stated that he was not against the park; however, they needed to understand the impacts of all of these projects on Stafford Road. Chair Arthur stated that he appreciated Commissioner Shearer's comments, acknowledging past frustrations by DRC members regarding the piece-meal approach taken to evaluating traffic impacts of developments (viewed in isolation). Chair Arthur asked staff to address the concerns raised during the last meeting over the lack of an overall traffic study of the area. Will Farley, City Traffic Engineer, replied that traffic studies typically looked at the impacts for a specific Development Review Commission Minutes July 18, 2022 Page 3 of 10 development, adding that, for this project, they looked at Rassekh park and "in-process" trips (with no other nearby development seeming to add traffic to the system, except the Lake Oswego Recreation and Aquatic Center (LORAC)). He noted that the Childs Road project (south of the roundabout) had no expected traffic impacts at this time, as the complete plan was yet unknown, and that the I-205 tolling project was still going through the assessment phase (impacts also unknown at this time). He relayed that there were no real, defined answers of what was going to happen, so they had to look at known, existing conditions to forecast at the year of this project's completion, and then look at the specific impact for this project. He opined that it would be difficult to say who would put forth the funding for a full Stafford corridor traffic analysis (Wilsonville to South Shore Boulevard), as the City was looking at the area north of the roundabout and Clackamas County was looking at the area south of the roundabout to the Tualatin River Bridge. He stated that the application before them was for Rassekh Park and its specific impacts. Mr. Boone reminded members that he indicated at the last meeting that the standard they were looking at was LOC 50.07.003.5, which addressed mitigating impacts on development, and was applicable whether the Applicant was a public body or a private entity. He indicated that no one would expect a private entity to conduct a regional traffic study, and that the text language to consider in subsection 5.a.iii stated that "The condition is reasonably related to alleviating a need for public services or facilities created or contributed to by the proposed development. As used in this section, public services or facilities includes...streets, sidewalks, and pathways." Commissioner Shearer asked if this meant that the sidewalk at Overlook Drive and Stafford Road was not included. Mr. Boone responded that if members found that there was substantial evidence in the record showing that an additional pedestrian demand coming from that area was present, they could consider the need for a widening of the sidewalk as a Condition of Approval (COA). Commissioner Shearer then asked if staff expected that people would walk on Stafford Rd. from south of Sunnyhill and Lakeridge to get to the park. Mr. Fransted replied that the required public improvements (paved asphalt pathway) had a pedestrian connection to Ridge Pointe Drive. Commissioner Shearer indicated that he was speaking of the short, narrow pathway on Stafford Road from Overlook Drive. Mr. Farley acknowledged the lack of sidewalk, but the City did not have a current project to replace that piece. He explained that it would need to become an improvement on the City's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and identified in the Transportation System Plan (TSP). He explained that it was difficult to construct an improvement off of the site of a project unless there was a nexus and proportionality aspect to consider ("Nollan/Dolan and Koontz"). He noted that there was also a pedestrian route on the east side of Stafford Road (people could cross at the Overlook Drive signal, walk on the east sidewalk, then cross back over at the roundabout). Mr. Boone added that "Nollan" required that there be a relationship between the mitigation requirement and the impact of the development, and that "Dolan" required that the mitigation be roughly proportional to its impact, and the question would be whether the current sidewalk system was inadequate to handle the flow of projected pedestrian traffic. Commissioner Shearer expressed his concern over even one child being injured while crossing back and forth over Stafford Road. Commissioner Lyons requested confirmation that a COA requiring that the City complete that portion of sidewalk would be reasonably related to the alleviation of a need for public services or facilities that are created or contributed to by this proposed development and, thus, would not be outside of the scope of this project. Mr. Boone affirmed that if the evidence showed that there was pedestrian traffic related to this project, the next question would be whether that COA was roughly proportional to that finding, and that would be in the Commission's judgment. Commissioner Lyons then asked if there was an estimate of the increased foot traffic from the south. Mr. Fransted replied that the nexus/proportionality analysis found that 12' of right-of-way (ROW) dedication was required along Stafford Road, and that the existing pathway and new 12' asphalt pathway were required, based on the proposed impacts to the system (no requirement for a new sidewalk north of the site was found). Development Review Commission Minutes July 18, 2022 Page 4 of 10 Chair Arthur requested a description of the existing pathway to the north of the site. Mr. Farley responded that there was approximately 90' of sidewalk that extended south of the crossing signal at Overlook Drive, a separated asphalt pathway in front of the next property (swinging up into the bike lane), and then a separated asphalt pathway from that property to the Rassekh Park property. He indicated that he was unsure what ROW was available outside of the bike lane, and that he had not performed a cost or engineering analysis to establish what would be needed to make that connection. Vice Chair Smith stated that what struck him was the way in which the skateboarders would get to the skate park and the lack of facilities to make that possible, citing the implied danger of them being on the road itself. He then pointed to what the City might impose on itself to have a safe park, as the Applicant. He shared his observations of watching the traffic at the roundabout on Stafford, adding that he was not persuaded by the individualized impact of the analysis. He opined that they owed it to the citizens to perform a regional traffic study, given the number of City-owned projects underway in the area, in order to find what was best for the community and its safety. Chair Arthur requested confirmation that the traffic study included LORAC. Mr. Farley affirmed that the traffic study looked at Rassekh Park on its own, and at the park being constructed after LORAC. He stated that the study included the roundabout and the intersections at Stafford/Overlook, Stafford/Bergis, Stafford/Sunny Hill, South Shore/Stafford/McVey, and Overlook/Treetop. Vice Chair Smith inquired when the study was performed. Mr. Farley replied that he believed that the study was completed in April 2022, using data collected from February 2022. Commissioner Shearer asked if "Neighborhood Only Parking" signage would be installed at Ridge Point Drive and Bella Terra Drive, or if open parking would be allowed. Mr. Fransted responded that there was no COA that required the installation of signage. Chair Arthur stated that he had reservations about future traffic impacts, but thought the project met the criteria, with the COAs proposed. He relayed that he appreciated the preserved natural features, the design of the athletic field, and the significant public outreach and comments received in return. Chair Arthur moved to approve LU 21-0078, with the conditions outlined in the staff report. Seconded by Commissioner Dewes and passed 4:2. Mr. Boone instructed staff to return the Written Findings, Conclusion, and Order on Monday, August 1, 2022, at 7:00 PM. ******* LU 21-0076: A request for approval of the following:  Conditional Use Modification for site modifications to replace the existing 18-hole public golf course with a 9-hole course;  Development Review Permit for construction of a maintenance building;  Minor Variance to maximum fence height to allow 75-foot-tall netting for the driving range and two 30-foot-tall screen fences to the north of Hole 1 and to the southwest of the maintenance building;  RP District delineation; and  Removal of 160 trees. This site is located at 17525 Stafford Road (21E16A00600 and 21E16A00690). The Staff Coordinator is Evan Fransted, AICP, Senior Planner. Development Review Commission Minutes July 18, 2022 Page 5 of 10 Mr. Boone gave an overview of the public hearing process, outlined the procedures, and gave instructions for any 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, except as noted following. Chair Arthur declared that PBS and Environmental, Inc was a co-defendant in a matter (relating to an asbestos claim) being overseen by his firm's Seattle office, and a party adverse to one of his firm's Portland office clients (relating again to an asbestos claim); however, there was no financial benefit to himself, nor was he working on those matters. Vice Chair Smith declared that he made a specific site visit. There were no challenges to the Commissioners’ rights to consider the application. Staff Report Mr. Fransted added 7 additional Exhibits to the record (G-100 & G-101 in support and G-201 to G- 205 in opposition), and noted that if LORAC was not approved, there was a Condition of Approval (COA) to build the pedestrian pathway as part of the connection requirement between adjacent properties. Trees #111-118 were requested to be retained by one of the opponents; however, the tree removal is necessary prior to LORAC construction because temporary access to the construction site is required. The site is approximately 38.51 acres with frontages on Stafford Road (minor arterial street), Overlook Drive (neighborhood collector), and Banyan Lane (local street). It is zoned Parks and Natural Area (PNA). Properties to the north are zoned R-10 or Public Function (PF), adjacent to the south is zoned R-15, abutting to the east and southeast are zoned R-10 and across Stafford Road are zoned R-10, R-15, and PNA, and to the west are zoned PF and R-7.5. The trees lining the north and west border of the property will remain. There is a Class II Resource Protection (RP) District on the site, consisting of a stream corridor and wetlands along Lost Dog Creek (there is a path across the creek). The proposed redesign of the golf course includes changing it from an 18-hole to a 9-hole course, construction of a new maintenance building (with associated parking lot), and an extension of the existing driving range and fence screening. The Applicant has separately applied for Development Review and Conditional Use permits on the site for a new recreation and aquatics center (LORAC – LU 22-0002). As part of LU 22-0002, the existing maintenance building will be demolished, but the existing clubhouse will remain. The Applicant performed a site study of the wetland boundary near Lost Dog Creek to determine the location of the wetlands and waterways within the RP District. The application proposes grading near Hole #2, within the delineated RP District, and the report states that there will be the removal of non-native turf grass and no removal of any native vegetation. The proposed extension of the existing driving range is on the north side of the property and includes new screen fencing along its edge and along the north of Hole #1 (to prevent golf balls exiting the course) and to the south of the maintenance building (to prevent baseballs from the high school entering the parking lot). The proposed pathway begins at the south edge of Banyan Lane, runs along part of the golf course and the school property, and ends at the parking lot that will be built as part of LORAC. The pathway is part of the LORAC project and will be reviewed at that time. The proposed maintenance building will be approximately 2,600 square feet and include 6 parking spaces, a wash rack, and a fuel tank structure. These comply with the PNA dimensional standards for setbacks, maximum lot coverage, and maximum height. The proposed building is utilitarian in design and uses simple forms. The materials include vertical corrugated metal siding, standing seam metal roof, roll-up metal service doors, aluminum store-front windows, and Development Review Commission Minutes July 18, 2022 Page 6 of 10 aluminum man doors. The siding and roll-up doors will be painted green, and the roof will be gray. Staff finds that the design is complementary and similar in design to Lake Oswego High School's hitting bar/weight room and is complementary to the existing clubhouse building (the maintenance building is not intended for use by customers or the public), thus, meeting that criterion. The Applicant has requested a Minor Variance to the Fence Standards to allow 75-foot-tall netting for the driving range, and two 30-foot-tall screen fences to the north of Hole #1 and to the southwest of the maintenance yard. Staff finds that the increased height will not be detrimental to public health or safety, as they will not be located within vision clearance of vehicles entering or exiting the site, nor will it be material nor injurious to abutting properties, and, as such, should be approved. Landscaping plans for the site were shown. All trees in the Sensitive Lands will remain. Many trees will be planted under the mitigation COA. Staff finds that the Conditional Use criteria are met because the PNA Dimensional Standards are met, the site is physically capable of accommodating the proposed uses, and the functional characteristics of the proposed area are such that it can be made to be reasonably compatible with uses in its vicinity. A parking analysis was performed to determine the number of parking spaces required, and a traffic impact analysis was performed to address potential traffic impacts. Staff finds that all parking and access standards have been met. Proposed lighting includes maintenance building lights and a single parking lot pole light (located over 450’ from the nearest residential areas). The lighting plan shows that glare and/or spill will not fall onto adjacent residential properties. The maintenance building plan shows a small heat pump planned on the north side of the building, and the mechanical noise stemming from this equipment will not impact the nearest adjacent residential property (over 450’ from the site). This project is not expected to have any noise or lighting impacts on the abutting school property. The proposed hours of use will continue to operate the same as the existing golf course. The Applicant is requesting to remove 157 trees for redesign of the golf course, including grading and construction of the maintenance building, parking lot, and temporary construction site access driveway. The Applicant will also separately apply to remove 18 trees under the Dead Tree permit, 21 trees under the Invasive Species permit, and 1 tree under the Hazard Tree permit. Staff finds that all but one tree (#230, a 32" Douglas fir) proposed for removal is within the proposed development area. The arborist report stated that the removal of the trees would not have any negative impacts on erosion, soil stability, or flow of surface waters; neither would there be negative windthrow impacts. Fifty-four of the proposed trees for removal are over 15" in diameter and in good or fair condition. Staff and the city contract arborist performed a tree-by-tree inspection. Staff concurs with the arborist report and finds that the proposed trees for removal are not significant in terms of size, species, or distinctive character, and most cannot be seen from the neighborhood (public right-of-way or within 300'), except trees #253 and #254 (46" and 48" Douglas firs), whose removal would impact the neighborhood skyline. These and the three stands of trees proposed for removal require an exception to Criterion 3. Staff finds that the only feasible alternative to the removal of the three stands of trees would be a realignment or a reduction in yardage of Holes #1, #4, #5, and #6, which would not comply with the USGA Standards to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone, thus, no reasonable alternatives are found. Staff finds that a reasonable alternative exists in order to retain trees #253 and #254 (enlarge the green at Hole #7 to allow a clear sightline from the tee to the green), thus the exception criteria are not met. Staff finds that 154 trees are approved for removal. The applicant proposes 157 mitigation trees, including native trees. In conclusion, staff recommends approval of LU 21-0076, subject to COAs, except three trees are Development Review Commission Minutes July 18, 2022 Page 7 of 10 denied for removal (#230, #253, and #254). Questions of Staff Vice Chair Smith pointed to three trees next to the pathway alongside the existing clubhouse not being shown on the site plan and asked if these trees were proposed for removal as part of the LORAC project. Mr. Fransted affirmed that they were included in the LORAC project. Vice Chair Smith then inquired when the LORAC project was coming before them. Jessica Numanoglu, Deputy Community Development Director, informed members that they would hear that application on August 15, 2022. Vice Chair Smith asked if golfers would be expected to walk around the apparent push-out (in the location previously noted). Ms. Numanoglu replied that it would depend on the timing of the projects, as the golf course was currently closed, and for the removal of the trees, the question would be asked during the hearing for the LORAC project. Staff reminded members that both projects are on property owned by the City. Chair Arthur inquired whether members were to make any decisions regarding the current clubhouse as part of this application. Mr. Fransted stated that no changes to the clubhouse were proposed (it will remain as-is). Commissioner Shearer asked if drainage from the back of the driving range was addressed in the stormwater report. Mr. Fransted showed a rendering of the stormwater plan, which included pipes and swales to manage runoff. Commissioner Shearer then inquired if the temporary access driveway will only be temporary. Mr. Fransted noted that the driveway will be made permanent during the LORAC project. Commissioner Lyons requested confirmation that the pathway will be constructed as part of the LORAC project primarily, and secondarily, as part of the golf course project if the LORAC project were denied. Mr. Fransted affirmed. Mr. Boone added that the imposed COAs offer contingencies if one or more aspects of the LORAC project were not approved. He further explained that it was up to the Applicant to define the proposed use during the development application process. Chair Arthur asked if the 77 parking spaces found as the minimum requirement for peak hour (with 97 spaces provided) could be expected to be adjusted for the LORAC project. Mr. Fransted responded that the parking study included the requirement for both the golf course and LORAC. Seventy-seven spaces were found to be required for the golf course use and LORAC requires a minimum of 183 parking spaces. Applicant Testimony Ken Reams, Civil Engineer for PBS Engineering and Environmental, Inc., introduced his team. He then shared a brief history of the property and a timeline/overview for the project. He noted that they would be enhancing the downgraded existing wetlands at a 3:1 ratio for mitigation. He stated that the parking and access would stand alone for this project (per the Traffic Impact Analysis) because the 9-hole course was expected to create less traffic. Renderings of the proposed developments were shown for the driving range (screen fencing to be between 15' to 25' higher than the existing), the maintenance shed, and the golf course. A 2' to 4' berm and swale will be created at the north end of the driving range to feed stormwater runoff to the new pipes that will be installed. Oliver Brandt, Architect with Polymath Studio, noted that the new maintenance building will be approximately 3,200 square feet and the overall facility will be approximately 11,000 square feet. The building will have a storage "barn" area, an equipment maintenance bay, and a small Development Review Commission Minutes July 18, 2022 Page 8 of 10 staff area (with a bathroom). Dan Hixson, Owner of Hixson Golf Design, informed members that the USGA required a minimum of 1,500 yards in order to set a handicap on any given course. He noted that Hole #7 was modified, with a slight reduction in overall distance, and now were in the 1,580 range for total yardage. He stated that they would modify the course again to account for the retention of trees #253 and #254. He explained that many trees were being removed to improve the condition of the turf (more shade equates to poor turf). He opined that this design would bring an ease in maintenance of the greens. Mr. Reams relayed that they would be re-grading the driving range to improve the sightline for the golfers. He informed members that he had been involved in the coordination of design along the boundary lines with the LORAC project. Questions of Applicant Commissioner Lyons requested that the location of the current Holes #15 and #16 be pointed out. Mr. Hixson described their location as being behind the current driving range on the northeast side of the property. Commissioner Lyons then requested an explanation of the new stormwater collection plan. Mr. Reams stated that the stormwater will sheet-flow into the swale area in front of the new berm. Commissioner Shearer asked if the existing stormwater feed had the capacity to manage all of the water. Mr. Reams affirmed. Commissioner Shearer then requested confirmation that the access off of Overlook Drive would be solely for the maintenance facility. Mr. Reams replied that the access on Overlook Drive would be the temporary access for the site construction and then would be turned into permanent access as part of the LORAC project, adding that the existing access from Stafford Road would remain. Mr. Fransted added that there was a COA that required paving of the construction access and that the drive would tie into the existing parking area. Chair Arthur asked whether there would be social events held at the clubhouse. Mr. Reams replied that there was no anticipation of social events being held at the site. Public Testimony In Opposition Rick Cook, 18451 Stafford Road, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, representing the Stafford Hamlet, opined that it did not make sense to look at the traffic impacts singularly rather than cumulatively. He asked whether there was a plan to perform a traffic study that involved all of the new developments in the Luscher Farm area, and for confirmation that he heard that the clubhouse would be used for wedding receptions and other events in the future. He pointed to his written testimony, which outlined 25 separate sports fields/venues within .25 mile of the Stafford/Atherton roundabout. He disagreed that the driving range, on its own, was considered during the traffic/parking studies. He noted that it would be 8 to 10 years before the County addressed traffic at the roundabout, as it was not on its current Transportation System Plan. He acknowledged that he was not against the construction of the projects but was against the location of the projects, citing a quotation from section 1A.09 of "The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices." He asked Mr. Boone whether there was a fee waiver if a neighborhood association was to appeal either this decision or the Rassekh property decision. Neither For nor Against Development Review Commission Minutes July 18, 2022 Page 9 of 10 Deborah Wilkinson, 17304 Marjorie Avenue, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, noted that she was a volunteer at the golf course for 20 years. She stated that a study for the course was commissioned in 2004 to see how they could make it better, and it took 20 years to see those improvements realized. From the neighborhood standpoint, she requested that they remove COA C(10) from the golf course project, and have it addressed solely during the LORAC hearing because it is not a path that would be used by golfers (they drive their clubs to the course). She pointed to there being no definition of "feasible" anywhere in the language regarding the pathway. She explained that she would hate to hit any person walking on the pathway while she was golfing. She opined that this was not "feasible" to her. She expressed her love for the golf course. Meg Wilkinson, 17304 Marjorie Avenue, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, expressed her concern over the pathway being built for the golf course, opining that parents will use Marjorie Avenue (a street without sidewalks) and Cloverleaf to get to Overlook Drive to drop their children off at the top of the pathway. She also requested that the pathway be deferred and that the Commission use their discretion to determine the feasibility of installing the pathway. Commissioner Shearer asked if the pathway would be on the inside or outside of the golf course fencing. Mr. Fransted replied that it would be on the outside of the fence. Commissioner Shearer then asked for a description of the pathway's use. Mr. Fransted stated that it would be used to connect Banyan and Cloverleaf to the parking lot of the new LORAC complex per the code requirement of there being a pedestrian connection to a new development, if feasible. Ms. Numanoglu added that the pathway would allow neighborhood residents the ability to walk to LORAC and the golf course without having to drive all the way around. Mr. Boone explained that the criteria required that each application address the pedestrian connection issue. Chair Arthur requested confirmation that the pathway was included in the LORAC application, as well. Mr. Fransted affirmed, stating that the pathway was officially proposed in the LORAC application, but that the criteria was triggered as part of this application because of the maintenance building. Commissioner Shearer inquired what would happen if the pathway were disallowed here but approved in LORAC. Mr. Boone responded that if members found that the pathway was not required here, they would not approve it; however, if approved for the second project, and if that project were built, the pathway would also be built. Applicant Rebuttal Mr. Reams pointed to the revised traffic study's finding of the roundabout being at Level of Service B for both the A.M. and P.M. weekday peak hours and Level of Service A for the Saturday peak hours, explaining that it would not fail traffic standards for the expected 2024 construction completion of all 3 projects. He acknowledged that it was a regional traffic corridor but disagreed that all traffic would stem from these 3 locations. He mentioned that TSPs, in general, were developed for short-, mid-, and long-range capital projects. He opined that they had shown that the level of service for this project had been met. 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. Mr. Cook requested a continuance to submit additional evidence. Mr. Boone explained the available options. Commissioner Shearer moved to continue the hearing of LU 21-0076 for the submission of written material only. New evidence will be accepted until 5:00 PM on July 25, 2022, with rebuttal Development Review Commission Minutes July 18, 2022 Page 10 of 10 evidence, to the new evidence, accepted until 5:00 PM on July 27, 2022. The hearing would then be continued, for deliberation only, to August 1, 2022 at 7:00 PM. Seconded by Vice Chair Smith and passed 6:0. SCHEDULE REVIEW AND MANAGEMENT UPDATE Ms. Numanoglu updated DRC members on upcoming meetings: August 1, 2022 has the continuation of this hearing and a Conditional Use permit for a preschool. August 15, 2022 has the LORAC project. ADJOURNMENT Chair Arthur adjourned the meeting at 9:29 PM. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Kat Kluge, Administrative Support