Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2011-03-28City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of March 28, 2011 Page 1 of 7 t CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2011 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Jon Gustafson called the Planning Commission meeting of March 28, 2011, to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Willamette Room of the West End Building 4101 Kruse Way, Lake Oswego, Oregon. 2. ROLL CALL Members present were Chair Jon Gustafson, Vice Chair Lynne Paretchan and Commissioners Jim Johnson, Russell Jones and Todd Prager. Commissioners Julia Glisson and Puja Bhutani were excused. Staff present were Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Denise Frisbee, Director, Planning and Building Services Department; Anthony Hooper, Management Analyst; Erica Rooney, Assistant City Engineer; Dennis Egner, Assistant Planning Director; Sarah Selden, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Support. 3. CITIZEN COMMENT None. 4. COUNCIL UPDATE Ms. Frisbee related that the Council was about to hear about the Downtown Parking Study and receive a North Anchor update. She said at their next study session they would consider a public facility strategy, school district funding; and Highway 43 jurisdiction. She said in April the Council was scheduled to review the Capital Improvement Plan; hold the public hearing on the Locally Preferred Alternative for the Lake Owego to Portland transit project; and meet jointly with the Commission to consider the sustainability framework for the Comprehensive Plan update. 5. MINUTES 5.1 January 24, 2011 Vice Chair Paretchan corrected the section regarding onsite circulation and then moved to approve the Minutes of January 24, 2011 as amended. Commissioner Jones seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. 5.2 February 14, 2011 Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the Minutes of February 14, 2011. Commissioner Jones seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of March 28, 2011 Page 2 of 7 6. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER Zoning Overlay for Industrial Park (IP) District (LU 10-0042) Both Chair Gustafson and Vice Chair Paretchan were concerned that the draft did not adequately explain the background and history of the proposed legislation, how it had evolved, the rationale underlying the decision, and the reasons for the 4:3 vote. They stressed the Councilors needed to be able to read that in the findings because this was a unique situation; the proposal did not originate with the Commission but with commercial property owners. They indicated it was not sufficient just to refer to the findings in the staff report. Vice Chair Paretchan suggested putting the discussion of compliance with the Transportation Planning Rules (Finding #3) in a separate memorandum to be forwarded with the Findings document. She explained that putting it in the Findings document made it seem to be a more significant aspect of Commission discussions than it actually was. Staff agreed to that and to revise the draft findings document. There was no motion to approve LU 10-0042-1756, Findings, Conclusions and Order. 7. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2011-2012 Ms. Andreades distributed the March 18, 2011 Planning and Building Services Department Staff Memorandum. She explained that the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) was a five year plan that was updated every year to correlate with the budget, that the draft CIP for 2011-12 was supposed to match the FY 2011-12 City budget. Erica Rooney, Assistant City Engineer; and Anthony Hooper, Management Analyst presented the current version of the draft CIP. They reported that staff had worked with the Finance Department and followed accounting rules and guidelines, that the CIP’s primary goal was asset management that CIP funding was based on revenue projections and that it had to match the budget. Staff had removed LORA projects and other items that did not pertain to the City budget. They explained that some groups of projects would not be funded during the five year period, for example, there was no funding for any pathway project. They had prioritized projects based on safety concerns, Council goals, Master plans, grant funding, sustainability criteria and board recommendations. They indicated that the Parks and Recreation Department Director had asked them to fund George Rogers Park improvements after 15 people had asked for that at a recent open house. The Finance Department had recommended putting enough General Fund money into Capital Assets each year to pay for the park project in 2014-15. During the questioning period, staff clarified that roadway projects had been prioritized based on roadway condition studies and that the CIP funded the worst ones first. Commissioner Jones observed the current draft CIP was dramatically different from last year’s CIP. Staff confirmed they had paired the proposed CIP down and removed small maintenance and repair projects and activities that were not considered capital projects by accounting rules. Commissioner Jones questioned whether the proposed amounts for the Tennis Center and the Golf Course driving range were adequate. Ms. Rooney reported the Parks and Recreation Department had recommended those amounts. Mr. Hooper explained that the costs of unfunded projects in out years were “best guesses” and that as a project got closer to being funded the estimates were refined. Citizen Comments Michael Buck, Edgemont Road, stated he was a member of the Lake Grove Business Association and the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association. He asked for a funding mechanism in the CIP and budget to accomplish the Lake Grove Village Center Plan. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of March 28, 2011 Page 3 of 7 He saw a need for better equity and parity in the way the City allocated spending between the east and west sides of the City. Ms. Rooney explained that there was $7 million in unfunded Lake Grove Village Center improvements in the draft 5-year CIP and that it would take much more than that to accomplish the Lake Grove Village Center Plan. She indicated that it would take at least $16 million more to make the Boones Ferry Road improvements. She said those projects were not funded or not in the CIP because no financing strategy had been identified to pay for them. She added that the public would have opportunities to talk to the Council and the Citizens’ Budget Committee about that at their upcoming meetings. Ms. Rooney indicated that the Council was to review the draft CIP on April 5 and offer direction to staff. She said the Budget Committee was to begin a series of budgeting meetings in April. She noted that CIP projects for 2011-12 were a small part of the overall City budget for that period. Mr. Egner reported that the City would use a Metro grant to study Village Center financing strategies. Mr. Hooper confirmed that staff wanted to hear the Commissioners’ comments about prioritizing projects even though the Commission’s official role was to recommend whether the CIP was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Johnson advised that the Comprehensive Plan needed to be clearer about priorities and that it could make Lake Grove a priority. Jack Lundeen, Douglas Way, spoke on behalf of the Lake Grove Business Association. He said they also perceived a lack of parity and that the focus seemed to be on the east end even though the Lake Grove Village Center Plan had been adopted for several years and it was a Council goal. He pointed out the CIP would spend much more money on parks and roadway and other projects that would benefit the east end business district than on projects that would benefit the west end. Commissioner Johnson observed that the City had invested heavily in the Lake Grove planning effort and Council had made it a priority. He held the Comprehensive Plan should reflect that and the City should invest on the west side. Ken Sandblast, Falstaff Street, asked if revenue matched outlays for the George Rogers Park and Transportation projects. Mr. Hooper explained the City would set aside a million dollars in General Funds each year to eventually pay for the park project and the increase in the Street Maintenance Fee would pay for the transportation projects. Mr. Sandblast suggested planning to pay for the Village Center project in incremental steps, that the City could start by funding an urban renewal district analysis and then fund setting up the district. Bill Ward, Upper Drive, Chair of the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association observed the Lake Grove Village Center Plan had been in place for many years, but the other end of town was getting all the attention. He said Lake Grove deserved attention, too. Staff planned to take the Planning Commission recommendation and comments to the Council on April 5. Chair Gustafson invited the Commissioners to offer comments. Commissioner Johnson found the draft CIP was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He suggested the Commissioners forward their comments and the Lake Grove representatives’ comments about parity to the Council and advise them to start to implement the Lake Grove Plan – not shelve it. He saw a need to start long term planning along the industrial segment of Boones Ferry Road too. Vice Chair Paretchan recalled the Parks and Recreation Department had funded George Rogers Park improvements based on a request from 15 people at one open house. She asked to see a map that showed geographic distribution of CIP funds. She said it would help show whether the CIP spending was balanced. Ms. Rooney agreed to provide that in time for the Budget Committee meetings, but she cautioned that some projects were prioritized based on the need for them, not geographic distribution. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of March 28, 2011 Page 4 of 7 Commissioner Prager suggested re-wording a statement in the report that explained 1% for Art was “not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.” He questioned that statement; if the Comprehensive Plan was silent on 1% for Art it was not inconsistent, just silent. The Commissioners then discussed the question of whether something that was not mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan should be described as not consistent with the Plan. Commissioner Johnson advised the Plan was about land use. He was not sure it said anything about percent for art, but it might talk about those kinds of resources. Ms. Rooney explained the 1% for Art allocation in the CIP was for art in the right-of-way. State law required it. She advised that the Commission could tell the Council there was nothing in the CIP that was “out of whack” with the planning effort in the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Prager observed that removal of invasive species was not reflected in the CIP and that the Commission should ask the Council to consider it. Ms. Rooney and Mr. Hooper recalled the Finance Department had to follow state budgeting rules. They explained that removal of invasive species, restoration planting and street tree planting were not considered capital improvements, unless they were part of a larger project. They said invasive removal could have funding priority in the budget, even if it could not be in the CIP and that it would likely be budgeted for under Materials & Services. Commissioner Jones recalled a city manager once told him state law did not allow the City to use open space money to maintain that land. Ms. Frisbee reported the Council was going to consider Parks and Recreation Department options for addressing invasives removal on April 19. She advised the parks bond was specifically for open space acquisition and significant improvements and funds for ongoing maintenance came out of the General Fund. Commissioner Prager reported that the City of Tigard categorized tree planting, removal of invasives and restoration work as capital projects; and from a sustainability perspective, investing in the City’s green infrastructure was investing in capital assets. Ms. Rooney explained staff was guided by the Finance Department according to budget laws. Commissioner Johnson moved to recommend the draft CIP to the Council and forward it with Commissioners’ comments. Commissioner Jones seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. Vice Chair Paretchan and Commissioner Johnson clarified that the citizens’ comments should be forwarded too, staff agreed. The Planning Commission took a short break and reconvened at 7:45 p.m. 8. 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 (pages 71-232 and 275-412). Continued from March 14, 2011. Chair Gustafson opened the hearing. The Commissioners continued their review of the amendments in Package B. 50.06.015(8) Conditional Uses R-0, R-2, R-3, and R-5 Zones Cemetery (R-5 Zone Only) Mr. Boone confirmed that Cemetery use was also being proposed as a conditional use in the R-7.5 and R-10 zones, but not in the Public Functions (PF) zone. Since no one present could recall the original rationale for allowing cemeteries in a residential zone the Commissioners agreed to Mr. Boone’s suggestion to flag and research the matter. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of March 28, 2011 Page 5 of 7 Commissioner Johnson questioned why the City should encourage more cemetery use when it could use available land for something else. 50.06.035, Lot Area, Density Transfer, Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in (R-0, R-2, R-3, R-5, WR Zones) Mr. Boone clarified for Commissioner Jones that existing code which exempted habitable areas of detached accessory structures from floor area calculations set a specific size threshold for exemption – it did not apply a “sliding scale.” 50.06.040, Lot Coverage Mr. Boone asked if First Addition Neighbors-Forest Hills Neighborhood Association’s (FAN) cap on the amount of garage square footage that was exempt from lot coverage should be a cumulative total, no matter how many garages were on the site. Vice Chair Paretchan observed that FAN’s limits on garages were unique to that neighborhood and did not need to be applied citywide, where property owners should be allowed to have as many garages as they wanted as long as the development met the FAR requirement. Commissioner Johnson agreed as long as the garages were accessory to a residential use. 50.06.050, Yard Setbacks, Buffers (R-0, R-2, R-3 and R-5) Staff had noticed a section in the R-2 Zone Setbacks Table that did not make sense, but could not be addressed under the current hearings notice. They explained that it limited “Other Primary Structures and All Accessory Structures” to 10-foot front and side setbacks and that because “other structures” was interpreted to be accessory structures, one result could be that a duplex would be required to have a 7 foot side setback, but the accessory structure in back could have a 10 foot setback. Chair Gustafson suggested the Commissioners discuss that during an upcoming discussion of accessory structures. 50.06.055 Height of Structures, (1) Projects >1/2 Acre This discussion was postponed until the Planning Commission addressed the topic of accessory structures. 50.06.060, Structure Design – R-0, R-2, R-3 and R-5 Zones Staff proposed to add language under 2(b) to clarify that even though the front porch was exempt from the Front Yard Setback requirement, it still had to comply with the Street Front Setback Plane. Chair Gustafson observed that there was already a limit on the square footage of the front porch and adding this provision would not cause a problem. LOC Appendix 50.07-J Side Yard Appearance and Screening Commissioner Prager observed it would be hard to track compliance with the wall plane landscaping screening requirements. Chair Gustafson recalled the Commissioners just hoped people would take care of it. 50.06.065, Garage Appearance and Location (R-0, R-2, R-3 and R-5 Zones) Staff proposed to add Subsection 2 to clarify that the requirement for a change of plane or fenestration applied to each garage wall exposed to a street on a corner lot. Chair Gustafson observed the intent was to avoid having blank walls facing the streets. He City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of March 28, 2011 Page 6 of 7 disagreed with staff on whether the door was considered “fenestration.” Mr. Boone asked the Commissioners if the garage door should count. Vice Chair Paretchan said yes. Commissioner Johnson moved to continue LU 08-0052-1756 to April 11, 2011. Commissioner Jones seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. The Commission was to start on page 110. 9. WORK SESSION Comprehensive Plan Update (PP 10-0007) Update of Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) and Housing Needs Analysis (HNA) Outlines and Project Timeline Sarah Selden, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and schedule. She said the Planning Commission and City Council were scheduled to discuss the draft housing and economic needs analyses at a joint meeting. She said they would consider Commissioner Bhutani’s list of questions and discuss the Metropolitan Housing Rule, then the Goal 9 and 10 Work Group would consider implementation strategies. She indicated that staff would then draft a report regarding potential strategies to be considered during the Comprehensive Plan update process. Ms. Selden advised that one strategy to increase the City’s capacity for dwelling units could be to remove the one discretionary standard from the standards for secondary dwelling units so all of the standards were clear and objective standards and those potential units could be counted in capacity calculations. She said that subject was on a future Commission agenda. When Vice Chair Paretchan suggested the City “draw a line in the sand” and say it had the appropriate capacity, Ms. Selden suggested legal staff might explore that. Chair Gustafson held the City should be deciding for itself what it wanted to be and not just let the state decide for it. He observed there were numerous ways the City could make the case that it met state rules, including secondary dwelling units and higher density redevelopment in certain areas. Ms. Selden reported staff was still working on updating the City’s current capacity by analyzing how many additional units could be achieved through redevelopment under existing zoning. She said they would provide that information to the Work Group and distribute it to the Planning Commission. She clarified secondary dwelling units were not currently counted in the 10 dwelling units per net buildable acre analysis. She confirmed for Commissioner Jones that the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) had decided to update the “low” growth forecast alternative and use the ten year average annual growth rate of .37% that was supported by the latest census data, instead of a .45% growth rate. Under this scenario the gap in needed dwelling units would be reduced to less than 1,800. Commissioner Jones anticipated that could be made up in Foothills and the rest of the City could stay the density it was now and still meet density guidelines of 10 dwelling units per net buildable acre. The Commissioners discussed the upcoming sustainability discussion at the joint meeting with the Council. Ms. Selden anticipated they would hear a refresher regarding the draft framework and how the triple bottom line and the Natural Step process were used to help make decisions. Commissioner Johnson held that it was a concept the Commission had heard for a long time and the Commissioners should be prepared to stand up and support it. Commissioner Prager indicated that if the decision had previously been made to move forward using the sustainability framework, he did not want to reverse that. Commissioner Jones wanted “sustainability” to be defined and to be provided with examples so he could be able to relate to it. Commissioner Johnson City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of March 28, 2011 Page 7 of 7 referred him to the presentation on what the City of Whistler was doing. Chair Gustafson observed that many cities were doing that. Commissioner Prager offered his comments about Community Economic Development objectives. He suggested the first and second bullets of Attachment 5 could be combined and that Foothills should be added to the third bullet as an area for long term redevelopment. He suggested the City should encourage larger corporations in other parts of the Metropolitan area to establish satellite campuses in Lake Oswego so employees who were City residents did not have to commute so far. Ms. Selden recalled hearing a suggestion to encourage establishment of educational satellite campuses on Kruse Way. Commissioner Prager said he was not sure he would agree with that, he suggested asking the public to talk about how to encourage home occupations at the upcoming open house. He also wanted to know what mixing employment and housing zones would look like and if it would work. Commissioner Johnson recalled South Waterfront had office towers next to residential towers, he thought it was worth exploring. Vice Chair Paretchan recalled a business that had moved away from South Waterfront because it was too isolated with only OHSU there, but she acknowledged a mix might work better on Kruse Way. She suggested using plainer language than “multimodal connections.” Staff offered an example of that concept: offer alternative transportation choices to help Kruse Way workers go down Boones Ferry Road or downtown at lunch time. Staff planned to provide the Commissioners with a summary of comments at the open house. 10. OTHER BUSINESS – PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Boone if individual Commissioners had to save emails between Commissioners on their own computers. Mr. Boone advised the Commissioners to copy Iris McCaleb whenever they were communicating amongst themselves. That way the loop of emails would be on the City computer system and that would be the public record. 11. OTHER BUSINESS – COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT None. 12. SCHEDULE REVIEW Mr. Boone urged the Planning Commission to finish LU 08-0052 before the City adopted a reorganized Chapter 50. He explained to the Commission that he anticipated it would have to schedule a special meeting to finish LU 08-0052 if it did not finish it on April 11. Chair Gustafson and Vice Chair Paretchan each indicated they preferred not to meet again in the Willamette Room of the West End Building because they had experienced problems with the sound system and lighting. 13. ADJOURNMENT The next meeting was scheduled for April 11, 2011. There being no further business Chair Gustafson adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Iris McCaleb /s/ Iris McCaleb Administrative Support