Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2003-02-24 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2003 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Daniel Vizzini, called the Planning Commission meeting of Monday, February 24, 2003 to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 380 A Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Commission members present were Chair Daniel Vizzini and Vice Chair Frank Groznik and Commissioners Mark Stayer and Alison Webster. Commissioners Johnson and Sandblast were not present. Staff present were Stephan Lashbrook, Community Development Director; Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner and Iris Treinen, Senior Secretary. III. CITIZEN COMMENT – Regarding issues not on the agenda. None. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A vote on the Minutes of November 25, 2002 was postponed until the March 10, 2003 meeting for lack of a quorum of Commissioners eligible to vote on the minutes. V. GENERAL PLANNING – OPEN WORK SESSION Outlook 2025 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Review (P 02-0001) Goal 2 – Land Use Planning Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He said the intent of this meeting was to identify issues related to Goal 2, Land Use Planning. He explained that the City addressed land use issues through Comprehensive Plan land use policies and regulations that reflected statewide planning goals, and through the Community Development Code. He reported that the staff had found no relevant periodic review issues under Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 660-025-0070. He said the City was mostly built out and the residents wanted to ensure that future development (primarily City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 1 of 7 Minutes of February 24, 2003 small developments and infill) was compatible with existing development. He reported that although the staff had not received any public comments that identified any issues related to Community Design and Aesthetics, staff suggested the Commissioners consider possible issues related to residential infill compatibility, signs, and requirements that residential development protect trees (pursuant to the new tree code language). He suggested that there was a need to clarify the definition of “public need” in zone change provisions in Policies 5 and 14. He also suggested that these two policies were similar enough to be combined into one policy. He recommended that consideration of any negative impacts on natural resources should be included in Policy 10, which allows development at the maximum allowable density when it is shown that negative impacts can be resolved. He cited an example of a recent proposed project that was allowed ten units per acre based on the zoning and land area, but could only reasonably achieve seven units per acre due to the presence of natural resources. He said that recent neighborhood plans lacked regulatory language and implementing measures. He suggested the Commissioners discuss the intent of neighborhood plans. Another consideration is to consolidate the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps for the purpose of consistency and map maintenance. He reported the staff had not received any public comments. Chair Vizzini recalled the Quality of Life Indicators Subcommittee had suggested additional indicators related to housing and residential use, including an indicator to show the number of variances requested. He then invited the public to participate in the discussion. Public Comment Jim Bolland, 804 Fifth St., Lake Oswego, 97034, Chair of the First Addition Neighbors (FAN), explained that FAN’s problems dealing with Conditional Uses demonstrated that the current system was not working and that the City should revert to a previous division of labor where it was the Planning Commission that heard Conditional Use applications and the Development Review Commission (DRC) reviewed development design. He recalled lingering questions about what was approved parking at the Morton project on 5th Street after the DRC had approved the project and instructed the developer and the neighborhood to work out parking issues. He reported that he had learned at one DRC hearing that none of the Commissioners had read the FAN Plan. He stressed that it should be the Planning Commission that heard applications where there was an issue of compatibility. He held that good existing zoning regulations should be inviolate, that it should be harder to upzone land (to a higher density); otherwise, he feared that entire neighborhoods and eventually the entire City would be changed. Chair Vizzini could only recall hearing a handful of applications for a zone change during the five years that he had served on the Planning Commission. He recalled that in the Sedoruk case the Commissioners had unsuccessfully endeavored to define the “edge” between zones. He invited FAN to recommend new criteria for a zone change to the Planning Commission. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 2 of 7 Minutes of February 24, 2003 Mr. Bolland suggested the Commissioners consider how to define a zone. He recalled that the FAN planning process had been instigated after area residents found that the R- 7.5 zone did not work in their neighborhood of smaller lots. He observed that zoning designation worked very well in West Lake. He noted that other areas of the City included non-standard-size or shaped lots. He clarified that the FAN Plan was the only neighborhood plan that had actually adopted regulations. He said that it was important to codify neighborhood plans and make their policies regulatory in order to make the plans work. Mr. Bolland observed a need for adequate funding of neighborhood projects. He explained that although the FAN Plan called for a storm water drainage system and the project was in the Capital Improvement Plan, it had never been funded. Norma Peterson, 890 “F” Avenue, Lake Oswego, 97034, recalled that her neighborhood had been allowed to testify regarding possible environmental impacts of a Conditional Use medical facility expansion in the 1980’s. However, they had not been able to voice all of their objections to a Conditional Use application recently heard by the DRC. She asked how citizens could learn about and comment on development where there might be related environmental issues and chemical and toxic pollutants. The staff explained that pollution was typically regulated by federal and state agencies, rather than cities. They advised that a zoning designation typically specified what types of uses were permitted outright in the zone and that the City had inventoried and established Sensitive Lands Overlays that protected natural areas from development. They related that the State of Washington applied the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) to development and that typically made the process a lengthy one, but that the State of Oregon did not have a similar set of regulations. The staff and the Commissioners advised Ms. Peterson that some uses were subject to federal (e.g. Environmental Protection Act) and state (e.g. Department of Environmental Quality) regulation and permits. David Powell, City Attorney, advised that a city could adopt its own stricter environmental protection laws to the extent that was not pre-empted by the state. However, he said it was no longer typical for a City to have the technical training, expertise and funding to enforce its own environmental protection regulations when such issues were addressed by state and federal agencies that regulated hazardous releases and clean up sites. The Planning Department staff invited Ms. Peterson to also participate in the upcoming Planning Commission work session regarding Goal 6, Air, Land and Water Quality. Chair Vizzini suggested the Commissioners include environmental impacts on the list of items to consider during periodic review. Frank Orem, 41 Condolea Ct., Lake Oswego, 97035, related that he resided in Mountain Park and served on many advisory boards for Metro. He suggested that the link between the City’s land use regulations and the City’s Transportation System Plan (TSP) needed to be strengthened and clarified so that the scope of the transportation analysis related to a development proposal was broader than current requirements. He also noted that developers of residential projects of more than four units were required to plan transportation connections, but there was no corresponding provision for City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 3 of 7 Minutes of February 24, 2003 nonresidential development (i.e.: commercial). He said the residential development provision should be expanded beyond the requirement to plan connections to major activity centers. He recalled that the Lake Grove planning area had first focused on the transportation capacity of the corridor and only subsequently on localized land use planning. He held that land use and transportation planning should be done together. Vice Chair Groznik observed a conflict between planning to accommodate more through traffic and planning to make the City pedestrian-friendly. Chair Vizzini asked how the City could address traffic impacts on the City generated from outside the City. Mr. Orem advised that could be done through Metro and ODOT. He suggested the City explain, for example, that Highway 43 was having adverse impacts on State Street and Downtown and the City did not want to see Boones Ferry Road become a freeway through Lake Grove. Mr. Bolland recalled that the developer of Blocks 136 and 138 had agreed with the neighborhood and voluntarily provided a traffic study that examined a broader area than the Code requirement. John Pullen, 18 Britten Court, Lake Oswego, 97035, observed a difference in approach between current and long term planning bodies and staff. He also observed that the City was not implementing neighborhood plans in a timely manner. He suggested that Policy 26 should include a provision currently found in the Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan that required the staff to discuss neighborhood concerns about a proposed development at least seven days prior to issuance of the staff report. He said that requirement would address the kind of problem the neighborhood experienced during an application for development of a site at 2nd Street and B Avenue when the applicant changed their plan after the application was submitted. Mr. Pullen then read aloud comments provided by Sherry Finnigan, 128 Condolea Drive, Lake Oswego, 97035. Ms. Finnigan stressed that it was important to help interested citizens understand how land use decisions were made and how they could participate in the decision-making process. She also suggested that when the infill standards were adopted they could appropriately be inserted under Policy 4(b). The staff responded to a question she posed by advising that “Planned Development” was the correct term, and not “Planned Unit Development”. Ms. Finnigan also suggested that Recommended Action Measures (xv) and (xvi) relating to analysis of a development site, and resources and personnel, be made policies. Mr. Pullen suggested a new policy (xv)(b) that adequate resources were to be provided to implement neighborhood plans. Mr. Bolland said the pre-application process could be improved by including a formal procedure by which the neighborhood would submit their comments and perception of the issues to the staff after the neighborhood/developer meeting and before the staff report was prepared. He cited the case of the development at 2nd Street and B Avenue. He recalled the neighbors had raised issues that had never been addressed in the staff report. He suggested that the staff be required to attend the neighborhood/developer City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 4 of 7 Minutes of February 24, 2003 meeting. He cited the example of a current school addition application where the neighbors felt that they were having a problem getting the School District to meet with them and resolve issues before the hearing. He reported that Blocks 136 and 138 developments demonstrated how successful the process could be when the parties worked together to resolve compatibility issues before the hearing. Stephan Lashbrook, Community Development Director, said that he was aware of some jurisdictions that assigned a planner to focus on neighborhood plans and work with neighborhoods. He also acknowledged that it could be beneficial to assign staff to attend neighborhood/developer meetings. However, he estimated that would require reprioritizing staff time to focus on neighborhoods and it would require additional staffing resources to cover 15 – 20 more evening meetings per year at a time when the City was trying to reduce costs. He advised that if the division of labor between the DRC and the PC reverted to what it was at a previous time, that system would also involve more staffing resources and lengthen the review process. He also clarified for the Commissioners that the degree of detail in neighborhood/developer meeting minutes received from neighborhood associations varied and in some cases the City only received a one-page submittal from the developer. He confirmed that neighborhood comments could be included in the hearing record. He recalled cases where a developer had used the 120-day time limit strategically and changed the plan at the last minute, as well as cases where a late change was a positive one because it reflected neighborhood input. Mr. Egner advised that the Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan process advocated by Mr. Pullen had not been codified. Mr. Powell cautioned that if the pre-application process became too formal, the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) might decide that the 120-day process began before the application was filed. He said the City did not consider an application to be complete unless it showed the developer had met with the neighbors. He cautioned that if the neighborhood comments were required to be considered after submission of the application, but before issuance of the staff report, that could lengthen a process that was currently required to be accomplished within a 120-day period. Mr. Lashbrook related that some jurisdictions accepted an initial deposit from a developer and then charged for actual staff time. Vice Chair Groznik related that he had worked under such a system and found that it worked very well. Chair Vizzini observed that opponents of an application could abuse system. Mr. Lashbrook also cautioned that if the City decided to include the neighborhood in the formal process it would be necessary to ensure that provision did not conflict with the state’s Expedited Land Division Law, which required the City to process subdivisions and partitions within 63 days without a public hearing. Vice Chair Groznik observed a need to determine the status or standing of a Neighborhood Plan and whether it was to be a refinement of the Comprehensive Plan or stand alone. The staff observed there were many provisions in neighborhood plans that could apply city-wide as well as some that were inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Vizzini recalled the Commissioners had also made the same observation when they discussed the Glenmorrie Neighborhood Plan, but they had never resolved the issue of what common neighborhood policies should be applied city-wide and what City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 5 of 7 Minutes of February 24, 2003 unique things about a neighborhood should be the focus of a neighborhood plan. He observed that “Implementing Neighborhood Plans” was on the Commissions work agenda. Mr. Egner asked how the staff should interpret Recommended Action Measures (RAMs). Chair Vizzini saw a need to tie improvements called for in Neighborhood plans with funding. Vice Chair Groznik recalled that another state required “concurrency,” so that an identified funding source was to be linked to all planned public improvements connected with changes in land use. Mr. Powell contrasted the Planning Commission decision-making process with that of the DRC. He advised that although the architects and professionals on the Development Review Board each had their own idea of good design, if the applicant had provided several alternatives that each met the legal threshold of compatibility, then the applicant’s choice governed. He said that the same “threshold” concept applied to consideration of a Conditional Use, except that the standard was more subjective. If the use was listed as a Conditional Use in the zone, it was to be allowed somewhere in the zone, and a decision to deny a Conditional Use application was to be justified by the fact there was something special about the particular lot that meant it should not be allowed there. Mr. Powell advised that if the use was listed as a Conditional Use, the neighbors could not argue that the use was inherently incompatible with residential development. The Commissioners discussed the usefulness of “contract zoning,” or “conditional zoning,” that allowed a zone change based on a specific development plan. They recalled the City Council had approved a recent request for a zone change that the Planning Commission had recommended be denied, but the Council had conditioned approval upon the specific project plan that had been approved by the DRC. Mr. Powell recalled that the Council had determined that the proposal addressed a public need, that it mitigated negative impacts and that approval of a specific plan was preferable to an approval that would allow a different project to be built on the site if there was a change in developer. He said the Council had decided not to require the site to revert back to the old zone if the project was not built because that had not been allowed in a Beaverton case. He suggested that the Commissioners plan to consider how to define “public need” for a zone change. He noted that the City was mostly built out and a developer might be able to successfully argue there was a need for land in all zones. So, he suggested that applicants be required to show why a change in zone was necessary. The staff clarified for the Commissioners that the Plan and Zone maps differed where they showed open space and public lands, but most residential and commercial areas were the same on both maps. Mr. Egner advised that the City could create even more variations of single-family residential zones, which would provide more flexibility, but may be more complicated. Mr. Lashbrook suggested that the City could have one primary map supplemented by a secondary map showing areas of future annexation. He also City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 6 of 7 Minutes of February 24, 2003 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 7 of 7 Minutes of February 24, 2003 suggested the Comprehensive Plan Map could show only the major designation categories (residential, commercial and industrial) and the Zoning Map could show the varieties of each category (e.g., R-5, R-7.5, R-10, etc.). Adelle Jenike, 208 Ash St., Lake Oswego, 97034, stated she was a real estate broker and developer. She said the City should not discourage developers from developing sites in the City by charging them for staff time on an hourly basis. She explained that a developer’s financial success depended upon predictable costs. Chair Vizzini closed the work session. VI. OTHER BUSINESS Kruse Way/Carman Drive Future Zone Change Request Vice Chair Groznik related that a developer had discussed his desire to build a commercial/office use on the corner of Kruse Way and Carman Drive with the neighborhood. The staff anticipated the developer would submit a request for a zone change there in the near future. Lake Grove Town Center Planning Process Mr. Egner reported that the staff had presented options for streets at the most recent Lake Grove Town Center public meeting, but few of the attendees had submitted comments. He suggested the Commissioners schedule a work session to discuss the street system in order to provide the staff with the direction they needed to draft a proposal. Chair Vizzini announced a special meeting for that purpose on March 17, 2003. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business, Chair Vizzini adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Iris Treinen Senior Secretary