Clackamas County design panel reviews recovery campus plans; decision continued

The Clackamas County Design Review Committee on March 10 evaluated plans for a proposed Recovery Campus that would replace a county-owned former elementary school with two two-story buildings housing withdrawal-management and residential-treatment services, transitional housing and an outpatient clinic. County project manager Cindy Becker said the campus is intended to provide a ‘‘full continuum’’ of detox, residential treatment, transitional housing and outpatient services and to include peer supports and connections to other medical providers.

Planning staff member Melissa Lord told the committee the county is the applicant and that the project team is still awaiting comments from several partner agencies; she also flagged two technical items in the staff report that must be addressed, including landscaping shortfalls and an engineering comment that one trash enclosure must be redesigned for forward-only access. The project was deemed complete at the end of January; by state law the review clock requires a decision by the end of May unless the applicant requests more time.

Architect Sarah Boss of Holst Architecture reviewed site and building details, including a 98-stall parking area, two courtyards, material selections and a photovoltaic addition to meet the county’s 1.5% green-energy target. Her presentation listed program counts for the campus: building one would include a withdrawal-management wing (16 beds) and 24 residential-treatment beds organized around a south-facing courtyard; building two would include an outpatient clinic and approximately 36 transitional-housing beds with manager studios.

Joe Buer, chief administrative officer at For Health, described the services the operator would provide: medically supervised withdrawal management (typically two to five days), residential treatment (up to 90 days in some cases), intensive outpatient programs and transitional housing with individualized stays often targeted around six months. ‘‘We provide trauma-informed, evidence-based care and peer supports for people with substance-use disorders,’’ Buer said.

Committee members focused on several elements they said must be clarified or revised before a recommendation: whether proposed reduced eaves and simplified parapet detail meet the zoning code’s purpose for safety, walkability and shading; whether the street-facing public entries are ‘‘clearly defined and highly visible’’ as required by code; several landscape- and planting-plan details; acoustic screening and placement of a generator and transformer near the southern property line; and a trash-enclosure layout flagged by engineering because the proposed vehicle maneuvers would require backing onto the street. Planner Melissa Lord said the engineering comment is recent and will require reworking that area of the site plan.

A committee member also raised preservation concerns after noting the existing school on the site had been evaluated as National Register-eligible. ‘‘Why was more effort not given to retaining that building?’’ the member asked. Project manager Cindy Becker said the county completed an assessment, consulted with the State Historic Preservation Office and concluded the school contains asbestos and lead and is in poor condition, making adaptive reuse impractical for the intended campus functions.

No formal decision was made. Several committee members said they were uncomfortable issuing a recommendation while partner-agency comments (fire, engineering and others) remained outstanding and while the trash-enclosure access problem was unresolved. The committee agreed to continue the review and asked staff to propose follow-up meeting dates; staff said it will circulate suggested dates to the members and will share revised drawings and additional permit-level landscaping and irrigation details when available. The DRC adjourned the session with the application continued to a date to be scheduled.

What happens next: applicants said they will revise the trash-enclosure layout for forward-access, provide a more detailed planting/irrigation package for permit review, and coordinate acoustics and screening materials for the generator. Staff reiterated the statutory review deadline (end of May) unless the applicant requests an extension.