Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2011-03-14City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of March 14, 2011 Page 1 of 9 t CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 2011 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Jon Gustafson called the Planning Commission meeting of March 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 (via telephone from 7:20 p.m. to 8:22 p.m.) and Commissioners Puja Bhutani, Julia Glisson, Todd Prager and Russell Jones. Council Liaison Jeff Gudman was also present. Commissioner Jim Johnson was excused. Staff present were Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Denise Frisbee, Planning and Building Services Department Director; Brant Williams, Director, Economic & Capital Development Department; Laura Weigel, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Support. 3. CITIZEN COMMENT None. 4. COUNCIL UPDATE Ms. Frisbee reported the Council was scheduled to hear an update on the North Anchor project and parking study, they would be discussing the West End Building (WEB) and School District funding and they would consider the Highway 43 jurisdiction question. 5. MINUTES 5.1 January 24, 2011 The vote was postponed until the March 28, 2011 meeting. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of March 14, 2011 Page 2 of 9 6. WORK SESSIONS 6.1 Lake Oswego to Portland Transit Project (LOPT). Review and discussion of the Local Preferred Alternative. Brant Williams, Director, Economic and Capital Development Department, reported the LOPT Citizen’s Advisory Committee, the Project Management Group, and the Steering Committee recommended the Streetcar Alternative as the preferred mode for future transit in the Highway 43 corridor. He said the City Council was scheduled to consider the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) on April 12. He reported the streetcar alternative had the strongest support in public comments and that some of those who commented were concerned about noise and vibration impacts on neighbors. Mr. Williams explained that the Steering committee recommendation kept all the design options on the table in the Dunthorpe/Riverdale area and the Lake Oswego/Foothills District, but recommended routing the line onto Macadam in the Johns Landing area. He said not using portions of the Willamette Shore right-of-way would reduce its local match value. He indicated that property owners in Johns Landing seemed to support raising funds via a Local Improvement District (LID) to make up for that, but it was not clear whether residents of Dunthorpe would support routing the streetcar over Riverwood, a local street. Mr. Williams said the Steering Committee did not recommend a Lake Oswego design option because the outcome of Foothills planning was still unknown and the line could still either go down into Foothills along Foothills Road or follow the existing Union Pacific right-of-way close to State Street. He anticipated Foothills planners would present a Foothills concept plan by fall. Mr. Williams highlighted the benefits of the streetcar. He explained that having a streetcar would be like having an additional highway lane, it would reduce vehicle miles traveled and be the fastest and most reliable travel option. He said it would serve as alternative transportation when there was a problem on Highway 43 and it was the most cost effective alternative, even with high capital cost. He said it would work with local land use plans and the project would make bike and pedestrian connections and improvements, including a bridge across Tryon Creek. He indicated it would fix and improve water quality, drainage and fish passage and restore habitat. He said issues that still had to be addressed would be looked at in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. He reported that Tri- Met would not contribute to streetcar capital funding, but the streetcar would cost Tri-Met less to operate than Enhanced Bus service. He assured the group that the LPA decision did not mean the City was committed to contributing additional funding, that there were many more decision points to come. Mr. Williams explained that the Project Management Group recommended a Pre- Project Engineering phase prior to applying for federal “New Starts” funding. He said that phase would clearly define the cost of the project; identify funding sources; clarify the understanding between Portland and Lake Oswego; and clarify whether the unused Willamette Shore right-of-way could be used for a pedestrian/bike trail. He indicated there was a governance issue to be worked City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of March 14, 2011 Page 3 of 9 out when the line was extended to Lake Oswego, that the City of Portland owned its streetcar, but the system was managed by Portland Streetcar Inc., which contracted with Tri-Met to operate it. He said construction was now anticipated to begin in 2015/16 and the project would take two to two and a half years to construct. During the questioning period, Mr. Williams cautioned that if the overall amount of the local match increased significantly it would be very difficult to fund the project. He said the Council had just asked for a current appraisal of the value of the Willamette Shore right-of-way and they had also asked his office to do an analysis of what an expanded urban renewal district would mean to east end businesses, the City and the School District. He said if it resulted in more revenue for the School District local schools might not benefit much because the state would reduce the amount it gave the District. Mr. Williams advised that it would be much too costly to decommission the waste treatment plant, but Foothills planners were working with Portland Bureau of Environmental Services to determine how future improvements to the plant could fit Foothills redevelopment. He confirmed his office was working with the county to determine what it would mean to Lake Oswego to take over jurisdiction of Highway 43. He said the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) had offered to pay the affected cities and counties money to do that, but West Linn had determined that ODOT’s offer was not adequate. He clarified that for the time being planners anticipated ODOT would continue to control the highway. He acknowledged that he did not know what design would be used to allow the streetcar line to cross the Union Pacific line, that it might be an underpass. He confirmed that private developers had told him that having a streetcar would make a difference whether or not they got involved in redevelopment. He acknowledged that state transportation planning rules would make locating a park and ride facility at Albertsons more challenging, but project planners would make it fit its surroundings and it would not look like the Beaverton Transit Center. Mr. Williams explained that a traffic analysis showed that a streetcar did not hold as many people and that when they got off and into their cars they would create a rush on State Street. He confirmed that planners would try to create easy, direct, connections between streetcar stations and downtown and that Tri-Met was studying how to provide good bus connections from the west side of the City to the streetcar. He clarified that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) described the worst case scenario and that project planners would figure out which design options worked best for the community and refine them to get the best “bang for the buck.” He noted the project did not need to immediately purchase all the vehicles that would be necessary in 2035. Commissioner Glisson asked if the project would budget funds for technology to address neighborhood impacts of noise and vibration. Mr. Williams reported the cost estimates contained robust contingency funds to address such issues. He explained that the LOPT line would cost more than the Portland streetcar line (which had cost about $50 million per mile) because the LOPT line would feature trestles, a potential underpass, a creek crossing, a park and ride facility and the project had to address drainage issues. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of March 14, 2011 Page 4 of 9 The Commission took a five minute break and then reconvened. 6.2 PP 10-0007 Comprehensive Plan – Periodic Review. Review and discussion of the draft vision statement and growth pattern scenarios. Vice Chair Paretchan joined the discussion via telephone. Laura Weigel, Associate Planner, presented the staff report containing the Draft Vision for 2035 (2/15/11 version) and draft scenarios. She said the Vision was supposed to reflect what citizens valued and how they wanted the community to look in the future. It would serve as the framework for updating the Comprehensive Plan. She said staff had begun the current process by asking for boards and commissions to assess the 2008 vision statement the Council had been using for goal setting. Based on the feedback from the boards, commissions, and public on the Comprehensive Plan, the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) developed a draft vision statement. A survey showed that the vision had been statistically validated and the validation report was available online. She said all but two of the statements ranked higher than 6.8. Ms. Weigel indicated that after the survey results and themes had been discussed at two October public workshops, the Council had indicated in a 4-3 vote that the draft vision was going in the right direction. She said the Councilors suggested some ways to tweak it and that staff planned to present the Councilors’ and the Commissioners’ suggestion at the Citizen Advisory Committee’s April meeting. She said staff had a public open house scheduled for March 29. During the questioning period, Vice Chair Paretchan questioned why staff was still pushing the regional leader concept if that statement had the lowest validation ranking. Commissioner Bhutani observed the vision was too specific in places. She suggested simply saying that high density housing was “located sensitively and strategically” instead of specifying exactly where it would be, that it would be fleshed out later in the process. She said it was too limiting to specify that foods would come from local community gardens and farmers’ markets and that instead it could talk about opportunities for active lifestyles and locally grown food that promoted health and social interaction of residents. She suggested anticipating that good road and pedestrian connections would encourage social connections as well as safety. She suggested replacing “community design” with “design that fosters a sense of community.” She suggested if “We are a regional leader” meant leading in sustainable design or ecosystems that sentence should be moved to Healthy Ecosystems and expanded to say “We are the regional leaders in sustainable design and by sharing the example of our success we help preserve the region’s quality of life.” She suggested the “built environment” statement under Healthy Ecosystems should be moved to under Inspiring Spaces & Places. Commissioner Prager accepted the draft vision because it had been validated and the CAC had worked on it. He related that it made him uncomfortable that the Council and Commission were micromanaging the CAC. Commissioner Jones liked Commissioner Bhutani’s suggestions but took issue with Commissioner Prager’s comment. He explained the Commission should have City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of March 14, 2011 Page 5 of 9 input into what the CAC did because the CAC was making policy. Chair Gustafson liked Commissioner Bhutani’s suggestions and said that after the Comprehensive Plan was done the City would know where it was going and could revisit the draft vision to ensure it fit the Plan. He said the draft reflected a lot of community input and it was not a case of staff telling the City what it wanted. Commissioner Glisson liked the draft and advised that vision statements were typically pretty broad. She said it was an iterative process and the City would keep working with it. Ms. Weigel then discussed the scenarios staff had developed. She explained they were based on the draft vision statement, survey feedback, the two October workshops, and a January meeting of the CAC and local design professionals. She said they were Baseline (subsequently renamed Current Comprehensive Plan); Village Centers; and LOconomy. She indicated that at the March 29 open house the public would be asked which elements they liked and what they were concerned about, but they would not be asked to choose a scenario because staff anticipated the final scenario would be a blended scenario. She said staff had already presented the scenario matrix and maps to the CAC/Goal 9 and 10 Work Group and they received good suggestions. Vice Chair Paretchan agreed with replacing “Baseline,” but suggested the new name could be, “LO Today” (a more positive heading) or the scenarios could just be identified by number. She said then people would not assume what the scenario was from its name, she wanted the differences between the scenarios to be clearer. She believed the material should explain that some things could be implemented under the Comprehensive Plan the City used now. Chair Gustafson recalled that had been brought up at the joint CAC/Work Group meeting. Ms. Weigel said staff would endeavor to address it before the public workshop. Vice Chair Paretchan then ended her participation by telephone. Ms. Weigel discussed each of the maps and highlighted how staff had used color coding and circles. She said the LOconomy scenario was a means to talk about what kinds of businesses the City wanted to attract and it was a way to concentrate growth in mixed use corridors so it would not impact neighborhoods as much as it would under the Current Comprehensive Plan, which anticipated accommodating growth through infill. She explained that the map showed Marylhurst as a stronger economic engine for the City and that was what it wanted to be and that Foothills was shown as a primary employment area. Ms. Weigel indicated that LOconomy recognized that the City was an attractive headquarters location because it had the amenities of a small town but was proximate to I-5 and downtown Portland. She said the streetcar line would go all the way to Marylhurst. Commissioner Bhutani observed the LOconomy scenario emphasized employment districts and that the main difference between the Current Comprehensive Plan scenario and the other two was where the City would accommodate more housing. She said the map needed to show that too. Ms. Weigel pointed out that the Village Center map focused on nodes around schools, with local services, small gathering spaces, and pedestrian and bike connections and that some of the nodes currently also offered some City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of March 14, 2011 Page 6 of 9 employment. The Commissioners suggested making a clearer distinction between nodes that offered employment and those that did not. Commissioner Jones held it would be a lot less work to modify the current Comprehensive Plan; that the City did not need to start over from scratch. Chair Gustafson saw value in visioning and outreach even if the City ended up with the same thing. Commissioner Bhutani observed that the City was going to experience more growth than the Current Comprehensive Plan scenario would accommodate and the 4,000 additional dwelling units and increase in jobs would have to come through redevelopment. Commissioner Jones questioned whether the City needed to plan to accommodate another 4,000 dwelling units. He held that the City currently had the required capacity of 10 dwelling units per net buildable acre. He anticipated that over half of the future growth could be absorbed by Foothills redevelopment and the current Comprehensive Plan could be modified to handle each of the scenarios. Ms. Frisbee explained that staff was following Council direction and that the Council had initially considered doing only what was required for periodic review and just tweaking the Comprehensive Plan, but then decided on a broader process. Commissioner Glisson recalled the Commission had supported a visioning process years ago because it believed it would help the neighborhood planning process by answering the question of how growth should be accommodated. Chair Gustafson observed it would also be a lot of work to tweak the existing Comprehensive Plan; the City was compiling valuable information; and the Baseline (Current Comprehensive Plan) scenario would likely end up blended with the others. He said it would be worth it and it would guide Commission work in future years. Ms. Frisbee advised that even if the visioning process showed that people wanted to keep the community the way it was, the City would still have to look for a strategy that would maintain the current quality of life in spite of the changing demographics that indicated the City was an aging community. Commissioner Prager wanted to see better illustrations of scenarios. He recalled Tigard had architecture students sketch scenarios. He said illustrations or photos would give people an idea how different housing densities, mixed use and primary employment areas would look. Commissioner Bhutan questioned scheduling the open house on a weekday. Ms. Weigel explained staff had found they could attract more people on a weekday between 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. She said they would also encourage people to submit online comments. Commissioner Bhutani advised they would get better input in person. Ms. Weigel offered to extend the open house hours one more hour. Commissioner Bhutani offered many other suggestions. She advised staff to clarify that the City was retaining the same residential density in all the scenarios and would accommodate most of the growth through redevelopment. She observed the heading of each scenario, including “LOconomy” did not adequately describe its content. She advised staff to focus more on highlighting the differences between scenarios and to be more consistent in use of references to the growth rate of housing and jobs. She suggested giving examples of what “mixed use” was and providing a better idea of what kinds of heights they would City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of March 14, 2011 Page 7 of 9 see in nodes and centers and other areas. She also suggested the maps show distances in walking time and making it clearer which scenario would require more public intervention and infrastructure because of circulation and traffic patterns. Commissioner Bhutani suggested using more specific calibration instead of saying, “less infill development.” She advised the difference between smaller, dispersed village centers and larger, centralized town centers in east and west end was not coming through clearly in the descriptions. She recommended asking persons attending the workshop to select and rank three or four of the attributes they felt were the most important to consider, that it would facilitate staff analysis. Commissioner Prager suggested asking people at the workshop if they had a strong positive or negative reaction to something proposed in their neighborhood. Ms. Weigel confirmed that the number of persons and the number of jobs were the same in each scenario, that the difference was where they were concentrated. She said the CAC and Work Group had decided to not talk about the numbers at this point in time because the public was not far enough along in the process to understand the numbers. Commissioner Bhutani clarified that existing residential densities were being maintained in each of the three scenarios. She also confirmed that new housing was being proposed in the town centers. Commissioner Prager wanted to know if putting higher density into the centers meant some neighborhoods could have lower density. Ms. Weigel acknowledged it might be possible to lower density in a neighborhood like Lake Forest, which wanted lower density, but it had to be made up for in some other place. She said after the community identified the scenario it wanted to work with, it could start looking at how it would work with different numbers. The Commission took a five minute break. 7. PUBLIC HEARING LU 08-0052 (Ordinance 2525) – Community Development Code –General Housekeeping and Minor Policy Amendments. Amendments (Chapter 50) for the purpose of clarifying, correcting, formatting, updating sections and discussing minor policy changes. Final review of previously discussed items, Package B. Continued from February 28, 2011. Chair Gustafson opened the hearing. The Commissioners agreed to see how far they got through these amendments at the next meeting before they considered scheduling a special meeting to finish it. Section 50.11.020 Special Requirements Commissioner Glisson agreed to the reduction of buffer height to 6 feet high from 7 feet because the higher buffer would not offer a good pedestrian feel. She City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of March 14, 2011 Page 8 of 9 observed the first sentence of (1) [page 267] did not make sense. Mr. Boone changed it to read: All business, service, repair, processing, and storage or the display of merchandise on property abutting or adjacent to a residential zone shall be conducted wholly within an enclosed building unless screened from the residential zone by a buffer area by either constructing a fence 6 feet high, or the buffer area is planted to create year round site obscuring landscaping that will reach 6 feet high within 2 years from the date of planting. Driveway access is permitted through the landscape buffer area. Staff had changed (11)(1) [page 269] to indicate that traffic generation limitations would be placed on all development in order to assure the street system functioned at a Level of Service E at peak hours. They confirmed the lowest functional level of service for a system was LOS F, but the proposed change would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which called for LOS E. Staff proposed to modify (14) Boones Ferry Road/Jean Road Site [page 272] to say, “existing mature trees (such as fir and cedar).” Commissioner Prager suggested relying on the Tree Code instead of having special areas with special tree standards. Mr. Boone explained this provision had been in place for many years and it reflected a special area consideration in the Comprehensive Plan. He said other similar provisions in the code had been applied during the Planned Development approval process, so it would be a policy change to take it out. He and Chair Gustafson agreed that once a Planned Development (PD) was implemented there was not much need to go back and change that part of the code. Mr. Boone clarified for Commissioner Jones it was not “spot zoning” because such special zones were adopted as a result of criteria based analysis. Commissioner Prager recalled that people in the Industrial Park (IP) area wanted to preserve native evergreen trees. Mr. Boone observed this would preserve all mature trees, no matter what species they were. Commissioner Glisson moved to continue LU 08-0052 (Ordinance 2525) to March 28, 2011. Commissioner Bhutani seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. 8. OTHER BUSINESS – PLANNING COMMISSION 8.1 Findings, Conclusions and Order LU 10-0042, Zoning Overlay for Industrial Park (IP) District Action on this item was continued to March 28, 2011. 8.2 Mr. Boone announced that a more functional online code would be available the following Wednesday. It was the product of a contract with Code Publishing, Seattle, Washington. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of March 14, 2011 Page 9 of 9 9. OTHER BUSINESS – COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT None. 10. SCHEDULE REVIEW The next meeting was scheduled on March 28 at the West End Building. The Commission would hear a presentation on the Capital Improvement Plan and continue working on LU 08-0052. 11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Chair Gustafson adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Iris McCaleb /s/ Iris McCaleb Administrative Support