Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2011-02-14City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2011 Page 1 of 14 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2011 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Jon Gustafson called the Planning Commission meeting of February 14, 2011, to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 380 “A” Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. 2. ROLL CALL Members present were Chair Jon Gustafson, Vice Chair Lynne Paretchan and Commissioners Puja Bhutani, Julia Glisson, Jim Johnson, Todd Prager and Russell Jones. Council Liaison Jeff Gudman was also present. Staff present were Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Dennis Egner, Assistant Planning Director; Denise Frisbee, Planning and Building Services Department Director; Paul Espe, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Support. 3. CITIZEN COMMENT None. 4. COUNCIL UPDATE Denise Frisbee, Director, Planning and Building Services Department, introduced Councilor Jeff Gudman, the new Council Liaison. She reported that the Council was about to meet with the the Citizens’ Budget Committee to review financial reports and discuss priorities. She said the Council was also scheduled to meet with the Comprehensive Plan Update Citizens’ Advisory Committee to hear the draft vision statement and telephone survey results. She said the Council was about to consider whether the City could transfer $2 million (5%) from the General Fund to the School District. Ms. Frisbee said the Council had approved the Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan with the 10-foot side yard setback for structures under 18 feet high and the neighborhood-requested a 50% limit on hardscape. She said the Council had not accepted the Planning Commission recommendation to require a green driveway turnaround and had directed staff to take a closer look at how the area of flag lot driveways was treated. Ms. Frisbee said the Council had approved the two-year extension of land use approvals, but they would not be processed as minor development and the applicant was not required to demonstrate economic hardship. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2011 Page 2 of 14 Commissioner Jones recalled the Council had indicated it wanted to look at the hardscape issue on a citywide basis. Ms. Frisbee clarified for Commissioner Prager that a Planning Commission recommendation was normally the final step in the process of adopting a neighborhood plan, but Lake Grove neighbors had held additional, internal, discussions after the Commission hearing and then submitted a neighborhood recommendation for the Council to consider. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 LU 08-0054, Ordinance 2526 – Community Development Code – Policy Related Housekeeping Amendments. Amendments (Chapter 50) for the purpose of clarifying, and updating various code provisions. The provisions had been identified as having policy implications. Continued from October 25, 2010. Chair Gustafson opened the hearing. Staff requested that it be continued. Commissioner Johnson moved to continue LU 08-0054, Ordinance 2526 to March 28, 2011. Commissioner Glisson seconded the motion and it passed 7:0. 5.2 LU 10-0042 – Zoning Overlay for Industrial Park (IP) District. A request by the City of Lake Oswego for legislative amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Map, Zoning Map and Community Development Code to create a zoning overlay for the Industrial Park (IP) District. The new overlay (IPO) would allow office, service and limited retail uses. Continued from November 22, 2010. Staff Report Chair Gustafson opened the hearing and Dennis Egner, Assistant Planning Director, presented the staff report. Mr. Egner recalled the Commission had directed staff to draft an ordinance that permitted the set of proposed uses in existing buildings, but to make them conditional uses in new buildings. Staff noted the following:  The Comprehensive Plan update process could change the IP District.  The draft Economic Opportunities Analysis looked to redevelopment to address a shortage of new employment land.  The IP area along Boones Ferry Road could be a place for employee- intensive office uses that would add jobs to the community.  That area had a regional designation as an employment area. Staff drafted the ordinance with two options and four alternatives: Option A incorporated Alternatives 1 and 2; Option B incorporated Alternatives 2, 3 and 4. Option B allowed the entire set of new uses outright in existing buildings and it allowed the subset of new office uses outright in new buildings. That would help achieve employee-intensive office buildings. The alternatives included allowing an existing building to be expanded up to 5%; not allowing commercial storage facilities; and setting a .8 minimum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for new buildings. Mr. Egner said that City Hall was an example of an employment-intensive building. It met the proposed .8 FAR and 45 foot height standards. With three City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2011 Page 3 of 14 stories, 125 employees (109 employees per acre) it was more intense than what Metro anticipated for employment areas. Staff reviewed an e-mail submitted by Don Hanson of OTAK Inc. Staff agreed with a point made by Mr. Hanson that .5 FAR might be more realistic and “buildable”. The result would be that new buildings would have to be at least two stories. Mr. Hanson had asked that the 5% expansion limit be reconsidered. Mr. Egner clarified it would limit the new set of uses but not the IP uses currently allowed. It was an interim change until the Comprehensive Plan update process determined what the community wanted to see in that district. Staff agreed that Mr. Hanson’s request to allow non-office uses like retail and services on the first floor was worthy of discussion. Mr. Hanson also asked the Commission to increase the allowable restaurant size to 3,000 sq. ft. and to allow storage facilities. Mr. Egner said the proposed standard for storage facilities was 1.5 FAR, which could be a three story building. The higher FAR was not a problem because the use did not require a lot of employees or parking. Mr. Egner reported that the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) had found the traffic study did not adequately address impacts on the freeway interchange. He said staff would return with findings addressing this issue. During the questioning period, Mr. Egner clarified that if City Hall were .5 FAR and did not have parking underneath it might not have a third floor. He confirmed that Option B would allow retail use in new buildings as an ancillary use, because that was what the current IP zone allowed. He clarified that the current IP Zone did not mention “warehouses” but it did allow “offices for warehouses” and staff interpreted that to mean warehouses were allowed. The IP Zone did not list “storage” as an allowable use, but the Industrial (I) Zone did. Staff interpreted that to mean that “commercial storage” and “mini-warehouse storage” were each a subset of “storage” and that the City would need to change the entire IP district to allow commercial storage use there. Mr. Egner clarified that Option B did not allow doggy daycare or restaurant uses in a new building and that those uses would be allowed as conditional uses in Option A. Mr. Boone observed the conditional use, Pet Care, was partially conducted outside a building; since the outside area it used could not be counted as landscaping, it would likely be a challenge for that use to meet the FAR requirement. He confirmed that any of the permitted uses would be allowed in a new .8 FAR building. Vice Chair Paretchan had asked the staff to discuss examples of how big buildings could be under each scenario. Mr. Egner had not prepared any drawings, but he advised that City Hall would meet those standards. It was just under 45 feet high, which was the height limit in the IP Zone. When she asked, he confirmed that it would be unusual to have a four story building as low as 45 feet, but it could be done. The General Commercial (GC) area of the Lake Grove Village Center District limited height to 45 feet. He anticipated that a .5 FAR minimum would result in two-story office buildings. He recalled the [IP] zone’s current FAR limit was 1.0:1.0. Chair Gustafson then observed a 1.0 FAR, 45-foot height limit would control building size fairly well. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2011 Page 4 of 14 Chair Gustafson re-opened public testimony. When invited to, none of the Commissioners declared a conflict of interest. Public Testimony Don Hanson, OTAK Inc., 17335 Boones Ferry Road, stated he represented both OTAK and a group of property owners. He testified they preferred Option B with a .5 FAR limit, which was still “aggressive” but not as aggressive as .8 FAR. They wanted the 5% limit on additions either eliminated or increased. They asked the Commission to increase the allowable size of a single tenant restaurant from 2,000 sq. ft. to 3,000 sq. ft. He explained he was not yet clear on the difference between “warehouse” and “storage facility.” He explained that .5 FAR and 45-foot height limits would allow a three story building with mixed-use retail on the ground floor and two stories of office above it. He explained the water table was too high to have underground parking, so some parking would have to be tucked into the first level and that if the Commission wanted to limit additions, they should increase the limit to 20%. When Mr. Hanson asked if the limit applied to upward expansion as well as outward expansion, Mr. Egner clarified it limited the total square footage of the building. Mr. Hanson recalled OTAK had increased its own employment density by converting the back half of its building from a two-story industrial shell to a second floor work space. He said the code should require appropriate parking and site improvements to make it work. When asked about buildings that would not support a second story addition, he anticipated they would have to be torn down. He said that eliminating or increasing the limit on additions would help businesses make good use of existing structures while they grew, it would keep jobs in the City and it would allow them to renovate into “green” buildings. He indicated that a 5% limit would deter that kind of activity. He said that the permitted uses listed on pages 5 and 6 of Option B should be allowed on the ground floor of existing and new buildings, but he could agree to require them to be ancillary to the other uses. He explained that rents were different for ground floor and upper story spaces and when the owner got higher rent from the ground floor uses of a mixed use structure he could make the rent for upper floor uses more affordable. He said that increasing the allowable size of a single tenant restaurant to 3,000 sq. ft. would not generate much more impact than 2,000 sq. ft. as long as it did not feature a drive-through window. He said the market and lenders would control how many storage facilities could be in one area and it was not likely that more than one storage facility could be developed in the relatively small subject area. He observed those types of facilities met the FAR requirement because they did not need parking and they supported employment and office uses. He explained that OTAK was an “employment-intensive” use and that the building could accommodate 160 to 230 workers. He said its insurer required it to use an off- site storage facility and that it was located in Tigard. He indicated if there were one close by to use it would be complementary to employment intensive uses and fit the neighborhood well. Mr. Boone explained the difference between “warehouse” and “storage facility.” A warehouse business was one that actively moved inventory in and out and generated more traffic. A storage facility was a less active use where things City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2011 Page 5 of 14 were left for the unforeseeable future. He clarified that “mini-warehousing” was a subset of storage, not warehouse. Mike Duyn, 290 SW Santana Place, Portland, Oregon, 97225-6157, asked if the proposed new construction requirement was 100% office. Mr. Egner clarified it was under Option B if it was to be a permitted use. Mr. Duyn asked to be allowed to have mixed use, including commercial uses. He explained that he did not envision the subject area as another Kruse Way, with formal, high end office buildings. He saw a “village” type area with 2 to 2.5 story structures with ground floor retail which would fit the neighborhood. He said that the FAR limit should be .4 or .5, which was “a little crowded, but workable” on a site that also had to accommodate parking and the 20% landscaping requirement. He said that at .8 FAR there would only be enough parking for 1.3 cars per 1,000 sq. ft. rentable area. Mr. Duyn indicated that typical office buildings had four stalls per 1,000 sq. ft. and .4 FAR or .5 FAR could leave room for 3 to 3.5 stalls per 1,000 sq. ft. He observed that today’s public storage buildings looked a lot like good-looking, three-story office buildings and that the only one in Lake Oswego now was on State Street which was always full. He said there was a need for another facility like that in this market and advised the 2,000 sq. ft. limit on restaurant/retail was extremely small. He indicated that 2,000 sq. ft. with a back room did not leave much up front for seating. He said if it were expanded to 3,000 sq. ft. there could be back room space and retail floor space in front to use as leasable/rentable space to other tenants. He discussed how the 5% expansion limit could affect Northwest Staples, which was in a 10,000 sq. ft. building on 45,000 sq. ft. of land. They would be faced with the predicament that they could either expand the building by only 500 sq. ft. or they would have to have a 22,000 sq. ft. building. He contended those two extremes were too far apart. David Emami, 1014 North Shore Road, said he had owned Lot 19 at Pilkington/Boones Ferry Road for 15 years, that it was almost 90% leased and the remaining 10% could not be leased because it was an “odd duck” and did not fit what the current zoning allowed. He said it featured uses such as a bridal shop and flower shop, that it looked more like Bridgeport Village, that it had never been and never looked like an industrial park and that it was close to the gateway to Lake Oswego. He indicated that when people called to inquire about using it for uses such as a beauty salon, bank, loan processing, insurance office, real estate office he had to tell them it was categorized “industrial park.” Mr. Emami said callers were asking for what the market was demanding. He said Wells Fargo Bank had been interested in having a loan processing service there, but they wanted to put an ATM in front. He indicated that most inquirers wanted to use it for professional offices, but he did not have that right as a permitted use. He explained that the grandfather clause for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) allowed several uses, but did not mention that. He said what was missing was the ability to have professional office space. He anticipated the Development Review Commission (DRC) would allow it because they would see that it fit the neighborhood, but it cost around $2,000 to hire a good planner to demonstrate that to the DRC. Mr. Emami urged the Planning Commission to recommend the full proposal that OTAK had submitted on City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2011 Page 6 of 14 September 29, 2010 on behalf of the group of property owners, not just give them a little bit. He said it was a reasonable, well thought out, proposal. Mr. Emami especially wanted to be allowed to have finance, real estate and professional and personal services. He said he got about ten calls a week for hair salons, medispas (personal services) and day spas and there was definitely a demand for personal services and retail sales, including second hand furniture. Deliberations Chair Gustafson closed the public testimony. Mr. Boone clarified the IP Zone height limit was 45 feet, but a building had to step down to a residential zone if it was closer than 60 feet from the residential property line. The Commissioners examined an aerial photograph and observed Lots 8, 20 and 21 were close to residential lots. Mr. Boone confirmed the right-of-way was counted in the 60 feet, that IP Zone setbacks were 20 feet (front), 10 feet (side and rear). He said to know what the building height could be at the setback line one would have to know how wide the right-of-way was. Mr. Egner indicated the Pilkington right-of- way width varied, but it was likely around 50 feet wide. The Planning Commission took a short break and reconvened for deliberations. Deliberations (continued) Commissioner Glisson recalled the Commissioners had talked about finding an interim approach that would address the issues the proponents raised, but would not hinder a longer term vision that would come out of the Comprehensive Plan update process. She recalled the Goals 9 and 10 group had talked about encouraging a much more intensive employment base. Commissioner Bhutani also recalled the Commissioners had talked about an interim fix to give the property owners some relief in terms of uses they could have and allow a little bit of renovation and remodeling. She held an interim fix should address the problems that were presented and not encourage or permit significant redevelopment. Commissioner Bhutani commented that the Commissioners could not predict what the Comprehensive Plan would say about how it should develop and what the range of uses or scale of development should be and that significant redevelopment required a planning process and proper study that looked at ramifications. She indicated a study would help determine what FAR, setbacks and height limits should be and that a master planning process should determine whether retail uses should be allowed on the ground floor, the strategic mix of uses to be allowed, and find good solutions to parking issues. She said it would also look at transit, freeway issues, and the mix of uses and those determinations should not be allowed to be made piecemeal, site by site. She added that it took studies and a more comprehensive planning process to achieve the full potential of the district. She did not believe .8 FAR could support the kind of parking that might be required. She held any significant redevelopment should wait for the Comprehensive Plan update process. She observed that the staff recommendation would allow office use outright at .8 FAR and that if 15 of the 24 acres in the overlay district (65%) were ripe for redevelopment it could result in substantial development. She said that should not be the purpose of an interim ordinance that the interim solution should only City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2011 Page 7 of 14 allow the owners to do some renovation or remodeling of existing properties and allow them a wider range of uses in existing properties. Commissioner Johnson indicated he had the same understanding regarding the Comprehensive Plan update process as Commissioner Glisson. He recalled the points Mr. Hanson had made in his email. He indicated he supported the staff recommendation for the most part, but he would agree to change the proposed standard to .5 FAR, as Mr. Hanson had recommended because staff had indicated that might make sense. He said that was as far as he would go in addressing the proponents’ requests. Mr. Egner confirmed that the proposed 5% expansion limit applied to any newly listed uses that might occupy an existing building - not just office uses. Commissioner Johnson recalled Mr. Hanson had suggested increasing the limit to 20%. He cautioned the Commission not to allow “too much, too fast” in allowing building expansion and expansion of uses (referring to the uses listed on pages 5 and 6). He recalled Commissioner Bhutani and Commissioner Glisson’s comments that this was to be an interim fix. Commissioner Johnson cautioned the Commission to be very careful how far it went because at some percentage the change would start to change the character of the area to the extent it would have implications that would affect the decisions being made in the Comprehensive Plan update process. He said he was not convinced there should be an increase from 2,000 sq. ft. to 3,000 sq. ft. for a restaurant. He questioned where the threshold was when a restaurant changed from serving businesses in the area to drawing patrons from outside the area, that they were supposed to be daytime restaurants serving the area, not drawing from outside the area during later hours. Commissioner Johnson observed that a storage facility was not an employment generator. He said there were lots of storage facilities in the area, even though they might not all be in Lake Oswego. He was not yet convinced the City needed more of them. He said another reason to slow down and not go too fast was because the Commission still had to hear what ODOT had to say about the impacts on the interchange, that it was a long range planning consideration. Commissioner Johnson indicated the transportation issue was related to intensity of development in the area and a more comprehensive analysis was necessary. He was concerned about the impact on access at the Pilkington/Boones Ferry Road intersection and another intersection on the next street up from Willow that was uncontrolled. Commissioner Glisson recalled that restaurant use would be a new use and she agreed it should be required to be a subsidiary use and primarily serve employees in the area. Vice Chair Paretchan suggested it was premature to allow anything more than expanded uses in existing buildings and that a comprehensive look was necessary to determine things like how the IPO area would balance with the LGVC (where the City was deeply invested); and if the subject area should be a “mini-Kruse Way,” a commercial area, or a mixed use area. She stressed that so far no balancing at all had been done on a citywide level, there had not been enough planning – it would just be “spot zoning.” City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2011 Page 8 of 14 Vice Chair Paretchan indicated that the Comprehensive Plan update was not that far out in the future and she could accept the interim solution the Commission had previously asked for that allowed the expanded set of uses in existing buildings and retained the conditional use process, which would look at compatibility with the existing neighborhood. She stressed that the current code offered the conditional use process, but no one had taken advantage of it and that might indicate the demand was not there. She believed the community had a need for an industrial area there and the Comprehensive Plan update process could determine if a storage facility should be allowed in the IP zone at all. She added that there should definitely not be a commercial storage facility within the red-dashed area on the map because, as Commissioner Glisson had observed, it was a “dead zone” where there would not be any interactivity between businesses. Commissioner Prager indicated he could support Option B with a .5 FAR limit; allowing the expanded set of uses on the ground floor of a .5 FAR building; and he might even support a higher than 5% expansion limit. He said the area was underutilized and he could agree to allow a storage facility in the zone. He stressed the Commission should compare the proposal to the Comprehensive Plan when it made decisions, not try to anticipate what a future Plan would say. He noted the things he had mentioned were consistent with existing Comprehensive Plan policies. Chair Gustafson said he thought staff had done as well as they could interpreting the Planning Commission’s earlier suggestions and coming up with a workable scenario and that Option B with some modifications to FAR was probably reasonable. His primary concern was it might be too premature on the verge of a Comprehensive Plan update and he worried that the changes the Commission allowed - no matter how slight – could cause one of the parcels to be redeveloped in such a way that the opportunity to redevelop under a new Comprehensive Plan was lost. He said the 5% expansion limit might be ok if it just allowed owners to reuse existing buildings in a way that would not prevent future redevelopment, but 20% or more was too risky. He indicated that the IP Zone was very important because the City did not have much of this type of land left to use in the future. Chair Gustafson said that if the Planning Commission wanted to move forward with the discussion and allow redevelopment then it should be done with a minimum FAR to ensure the land was not being underutilized by some minor addition to a building. He acknowledged that he was very uncomfortable moving forward with this. He indicated that although the property owners might have valid points and concerns, the Commission had to balance that with the entire City and with the Comprehensive Plan and that what was being discussed might be premature at this point. Mr. Egner explained that if the Commission came to a decision that night, staff would need additional time to redraft the proposal language to clarify it and to follow up on the ODOT request. He explained that ODOT’s position was that an analysis of the I-5 interchange and the SW 65th/Boones Ferry Road intersection was necessary. He indicated that current modeling showed the intersection failing by 2035 and it could affect the entire Comprehensive Plan update process. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2011 Page 9 of 14 Commissioner Johnson indicated he would support Option B with the change to .5 FAR. Commissioner Bhutani observed that Alternative 3 would allow new buildings outright in the majority of the overlay zone. She questioned how that was going to be consistent with any future plans for the area. Commissioner Johnson observed an owner could build a new building there now under existing IP zoning. Commissioner Bhutani questioned why a temporary fix should encourage what the existing zoning already would allow with a conditional use permit. Commissioner Glisson recalled that the Commissioners had gone through the list of potential uses with the idea that they would add more “office- oriented” uses. She indicated that the logic was they were headed toward an employment zone that would be more office oriented and that most of the uses they were adding would be compatible with that. Commissioner Bhutani advised that would be “setting it in stone” that the area was to become a “mini Kruse Way.” She cautioned that it might be determined it should become a mixed use area with housing, retail and commercial uses. So she could not support Alternative 3. Commissioner Glisson questioned whether an employment zone typically included housing. Mr. Egner observed neither the Goal 9 and 10 Work Group nor the Comprehensive Plan Citizens’ Advisory Committee had discussed that yet. Chair Gustafson recalled that he had heard people talk about adding residential use to Kruse Way, that the Commission really did not know what the subject area would become. Mr. Egner observed it might make sense to have residential in part of this employment district because it was going to be more transit-oriented. Commissioner Glisson anticipated a future employment zone would be much larger than just the 25 acres in the IPO area. Vice Chair Paretchan recalled that in previous Commission discussions the Commissioners had indicated they did not want to keep the Section 5 Site Development Limitations that staff had brought forward from the Lake Grove Village Center District. She stressed the subject area was not the same area, did not have the same purpose and that section was not necessary. Commissioner Glisson agreed that the Commissioners were talking about an interim solution and that section imposed more burdens on certain modifications than they might want to impose. Commissioner Bhutani reasoned that if the City was talking about having a gateway there, there should be certain design requirements related to that. Commissioner Johnson was concerned about how staff would review site access related to an application if the Site Development Limitations section were removed. Chair Gustafson agreed site development standards were important even if only a small amount of redevelopment were allowed. He indicated that once a building was torn down and replaced by a three-story building the result was permanent - not an interim fix. He said the Commission might not want to just cut and paste standards from one area to another. Commissioner Glisson agreed and added that she had another concern that one of the middle properties would develop and set the precedent for where the access drive was to go and that would drive how the surrounding properties developed. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2011 Page 10 of 14 Commissioner Johnson saw a need to decide if the Commissioners were talking about an “interim” or “temporary” fix. He explained that “interim” was an approach to use to allow development that would be permanent and it should be a very cautious approach. He had always thought the Commissioners were talking about an interim fix that would allow something to occur in the area until there was better development there. He indicated that was not “temporary.” Chair Gustafson agreed that was why the Planning Commission had to be extra cautious. Commissioner Prager indicated it made sense to allow the additional set of uses (Option B) on the ground floor of new office buildings if they were going to be allowed in existing buildings. He said he would support that. Vice Chair Paretchan wanted to know why those uses could not be on the ground floor if they were on the list. Chair Gustafson pointed out one alternative limited outright permitted use of new buildings to office use or the other uses currently allowed in the IP Zone. Commissioner Glisson observed that would prohibit a use like doggy daycare on the first floor of a new building, but it could be in an older building. Commissioner Prager said a restaurant use would be another example. Vice Chair Paretchan observed the restaurant use would have to be related to another use. She explained that it might be the in-house restaurant of a big company and that it would be open to the public, but it was more of a day use and was not supposed to draw patrons from the outside. She questioned if it would be a bigger draw on the first floor and whether it would keep the Village Center from reaching critical mass. She noted the City was committed to improving the Village Center. Commissioner Prager questioned whether it made much difference if the restaurant were in an existing building or a new building. Motion #1 Commissioner Johnson moved to recommend that the City Council adopt LU 10- 0042, Option B with FAR changed to .5. Commissioner Jones seconded the motion. Commissioner Johnson confirmed that his motion would keep Section 5, Site Development Limitations. The vote was conducted and the motion failed 3:4. Chair Gustafson, Vice Chair Paretchan and Commissioners Bhutani and Prager voted against. Commissioner Glisson asked those who voted against if including the full, expanded, list of allowable uses in the new buildings (not just office uses) would have made a difference. Commissioner Prager said yes. Commissioner Johnson said that might have made him change his vote. Commissioner Jones said he still would have voted yes. When asked, Mr. Egner clarified that staff had informed the proponents they could apply for a commercial zone change, but staff would not support it. He indicated that when the proponents filed an application for a Plan amendment staff had explained to them that it was a legislative matter, not a matter to be decided in a quasi-judicial process. Vice Chair Paretchan observed staff had told the proponents it would not support an application for a commercial zone change, but staff proposed something to the Commission that would result in more commercial uses. She said that was confusing and that she did not believe what was proposed was a good thing to do and it was too soon to do it. Chair Gustafson observed the Commission had received no input or direction from the City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2011 Page 11 of 14 Council about the matter. He asked how the Commission could get the issue in front of the Council before they recommended anything. Mr. Egner said the Commission could ask for a study session with the Council, but he cautioned that the Council had not discussed the topic at all. Commissioner Johnson stressed the Commission’s job was to make recommendations to the Council. Commissioner Glisson suggested when they met with the Council to talk about Goals 9 and 10 they could learn how the Council felt in general about industrial districts and potential employment zones. Mr. Egner reported that the Council had not seen or studied issues related to Goals 9 or 10 yet. He indicated that some Councilors had attended a Chamber economic development workshop. He had heard a couple Councilors express concern about the proposal, but he did not know about the others. He said the Council had a very full set of agendas and was going to hear recommendations from various working groups as well as the Planning Commission. He agreed with Commissioner Johnson that the Planning Commission’s job was to vet these issues and advise the Council. Commissioner Glisson suggested the Commission look to the Goal 9 and 10 Work Group to indicate what the Comprehensive Plan update process was likely to do with the area in the longer term. Commissioner Jones recalled this was the fifth or sixth time the Planning Commission had considered the matter and it owed it to itself and the property owners to make a decision. Motion #2 Commissioner Jones moved to accept Option B, with FAR changed to .5 and with increased uses. When asked, he clarified that “increased uses” was the full range of increased uses in a new building that Commissioner Prager had referred to. Commissioner Prager seconded the motion. Discussion followed. Commissioner Johnson suggested the Commissioners consider what they would do if this were an applicant-initiated application and not a City-initiated proposal. He said they would consider whether what was proposed was consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan. He observed there was nothing in the staff report that said it was inconsistent with the current Plan. He did not want to see a lot more uses allowed in the area, but the “bottom line” was it was more like a Comprehensive Plan amendment for a specific property than a Comprehensive Plan policy change. Commissioner Johnson said he might have to support the proposal even though he would rather support the previous motion because it would have kept some limitations on it, and it was a balance between both of the approaches. Chair Gustafson observed that approach treated the request as a change from a predominantly industrial zone to potential office use. Commissioner Johnson explained the office use did not bother him, that the reality was this was going to be an office employment area. He said it did not have the transportation system to be a manufacturing or distribution warehousing center. His biggest concern was the commercial aspect and he held that the City did not need a commercial strip from I-5 all the way to Lake Grove. Chair Gustafson indicated he was also concerned about that and that it seemed to make sense to allow office use because it was employment, with a minimum FAR to ensure utilization of the land. Commissioner Johnson clarified that he still did not know how he would vote on the matter. Commissioner Glisson indicated she did not think allowing widespread service/retail uses was the right first step City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2011 Page 12 of 14 for the area. She stressed that the Commission was considering an interim zoning change and she did not want it to be used to guide a lot of investment and decision making. She said the interim solution was for the few sites where a building with a leaky roof had to be rebuilt and it should not result in a lot of redevelopment. She hoped that if redevelopment did occur it would be.5 FAR office uses. Commissioner Jones questioned how much development was going to take place in the area before there was a new Comprehensive Plan. Commissioners Glisson and Johnson stressed the Commission did not know. Commissioner Jones said the Commission owed it to itself and the property owners to make a decision based on the current Comprehensive Plan. He indicated he did not think the subject area would compete much, if at all, with the Village Center. Commissioner Bhutani advised the Commissioners to be aware of what might be a near future opportunity and that they could not make decisions based on an assumption that something probably would not happen. She said she could support Alternative 2, which offered some relief to the property owners. She indicated that it allowed them to renovate existing buildings and have expanded uses. She said that she could support Alternative 4 because commercial storage was not an employee intensive use and that use could be in other zones that were closer to the freeway. She did not support Alternative 3 because it permitted extensive redevelopment and that was not required of an interim district. She concluded she could support Option B as long as it did not include Alternative 3. Chair Gustafson called for the vote and reminded the Commissioners they still had different boundary options to consider. Commissioner Jones clarified his motion would apply to every property within the red lined area. The vote was conducted and the motion failed 2:5. Chair Gustafson, Vice Chair Paretchan and Commissioners Bhutani, Glisson and Johnson voted against. Vice Chair Paretchan asked if the Planning Commission had to make any recommendation at all to the Council. Staff advised they had to because the Commission had agreed to initiate the proposal at the request of the property owners and had held a hearing on it. In this particular case staff was not going to propose it for the property owners. Motion #3 Commissioner Bhutani moved to approve Option B with Alternatives 2 and 4. She read the two Alternatives aloud from the staff report. Alternative 2 allowed the expanded uses in existing buildings and allowed minor modifications and square footage expansion to accommodate the uses. The floor area expansion was limited to 5% of gross floor area. Alternative 4 did not allow commercial storage facilities and other uses that were not employment intensive within the IP Overlay. Commissioner Bhutani clarified that she was excluding Alternative 3 and her motion did not include the new Site Development Limitations. Mr. Boone clarified that the IP Zone currently allowed Professional Office use as a conditional use. Option B would make Professional Office a permitted use in City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2011 Page 13 of 14 the IPO. He pointed out that there were site development limitations standards that came with it and those were spelled out in the code’s appendix. He said Option B also listed retail uses that could be permitted in an existing building and that a new building could be built for Professional Office use because the IP Zone allowed that today as a conditional use. The Commissioners observed there was no need to set a minimum FAR because the motion only dealt with existing buildings. Commissioner Bhutani clarified that new buildings could only be developed for uses allowed in the IP Zone today. Her motion would allow expanded uses in existing buildings that would be allowed to expand up to 5% for renovation and remodeling, commercial storage facilities would not be allowed and any new buildings had to be for uses currently allowed by the existing IP Zone. Her motion applied to the area outlined in red. It did not adopt any new site development limitations. Vice Chair Paretchan seconded the motion. Discussion Mr. Egner clarified that if a building was remodeled, but not expanded, it could be used for the expanded set of uses. Chair Gustafson questioned whether what was being discussed was enough to warrant an overlay zone and whether what the Commission would be recommending would make much difference. He observed some of the properties would need to be redeveloped, but realistically could not be and that the boat storage building was an example of that. Commissioner Jones observed the motion was close to the original Planning Commission direction and that he would support it. Commissioners Glisson and Paretchan observed an owner could still remove an existing one story building and build a three story building for a use that the current IP Zone allowed via the conditional use process. Commissioner Bhutani clarified her motion would allow the expanded list of uses in existing buildings (Alternative 2). Commissioner Glisson observed that basically made them outright permitted uses in existing buildings. Vice Chair Paretchan observed an owner would have to go through the conditional use process to be allowed to have some other use in a new building. The vote was conducted and the motion passed 4:3. Chair Gustafson and Commissioners Johnson and Prager voted against. Mr. Egner summarized what the Commissioners had agreed to: the expanded set of uses were allowed in existing buildings, which were allowed to be expanded up to 5%; new buildings could be built, but they could not have the expanded uses, they had to have the existing uses in the zone and the Site Development Limitations were not part of the recommendation. Commissioner Bhutani confirmed that the Site Development Limitations language in Section 5 (on page 8) of Option B was “out.” Chair Gustafson closed the hearing and announced the final vote would be conducted on March 14, 2011. 6. OTHER BUSINESS – PLANNING COMMISSION None. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2011 Page 14 of 14 7. OTHER BUSINESS – COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT (None) None. 8. SCHEDULE REVIEW The Commissioners set their schedule through March. The next Commission meeting was on February 28. A joint Planning Commission/City Council work session was scheduled for March 8. When the Commission continued its examination of LU 08-0052 on February 28, Ordinance 2525, Package B, they would be reviewing pages 233 to 274. Ms. Andreades had checked with each Commissioner via email and reported a quorum for both March meetings was expected. Mr. Egner explained that the City had hired a consultant to help with the Lake Grove Village Center and Infill design handbooks and a work session was scheduled for the meeting on February 28 for the Planning Commission to receive an update. 9. ADJOURNMENT The next meeting was scheduled on February 28, 2011. There being no further business Chair Gustafson adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Iris McCaleb /s/ Iris McCaleb Administrative Support