Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2003-08-25 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes August 25, 2003 I. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Frank Groznik called the Planning Commission meeting of August 25, 2003 to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 380 A Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Commission members present were Vice Chair Groznik and Commissioners Mary Beth Coffey*, Daniel Vizzini and Alison Webster. Chair James Johnson and Commissioners Ken Sandblast and Mark Stayer were excused. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner; Tom Tushner, Principal Engineer; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris Treinen, Senior Secretary. III. CITIZEN COMMENT – Regarding issues not on the agenda. None. IV. GENERAL PLANNING – OPEN WORK SESSION Outlook 2025 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Review (P 02-0001) • Goal 12, Transportation and Goal 13, Energy Conservation • October 27, 2003 – Public Workshop – Program Discussion Identification of issues to address during 2004 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Review. Staff coordinator is Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner. Goal 12: Transportation Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He explained that the Statewide Planning Goals require the City to develop a plan for all modes of transportation, including pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle transportation. He advised the state’s Transportation Planning Rule called for a local Transportation System Plan (TSP) that was to provide for safe, convenient and economic transportation for all modes of travel. The TSP was to also address regional and statewide needs, energy City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 1 of 6 Minutes of August 25, 2003 conservation and the ability to provide for adequate flow of goods and services. He reported the City had adopted a TSP in 1998 that classified streets and provided for alternative modes of travel and better connections. He noted the City’s TSP included a Roadway Improvement Plan. He observed that the Public Facilities Plan (PFP) included a transportation element. He said the Community Development Code addressed parking and transit, and Chapter 48 of the Code prescribed standards for streets and sidewalks. He explained the City used the state Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) as criteria for zone changes and Comprehensive Plan amendments. Mr. Sin pointed out state criteria to be used to identify a need for a Comprehensive Plan change. He reported that the staff had found nothing to trigger an amendment. He reported that the staff had examined the existing Summary of Major Issues in the Comprehensive Plan and had found no issues to be addressed during the current review. He pointed out that Attachment 3 of the staff report was a report from the City’s Transportation Division staff. He highlighted their suggestions to consider the impacts of annexation of all properties currently within the Urban Services Boundary and determine how substandard county streets would affect the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and how to deal with a potential patchwork of infill and sidewalks. He conveyed the staff suggestion to emphasize how use of the Trolley could be maximized. He suggested Quality of Life Indicators that could relate to Goal 12, including a comparison of bicycle and pedestrian miles to miles of streets, transit ridership per capita, and measures of roadway conditions and volumes. He reported the City had received no public comments about Goal 12. *At this point Commissioner Coffey joined the meeting and Vice Chair Groznik asked for Roll Call. Tom Tushner, Principal Engineer, discussed the Transportation Division report in Attachment 3 of the staff report. He highlighted an issue that the costs of some public facility projects would in actuality be far greater than they were projected to be in the Public Facilities Plan (PFP). Commissioner Vizzini observed that the Comprehensive Plan seemed to expect development to pay for itself. He asked Mr. Tushner to discuss what kind of policy would be required to accomplish that. Mr. Tushner related that whether or not new development was actually paying the true cost of impacts involved a subjective determination of what was a component of an impact. He related that different jurisdictions varied enormously in what they included in the cost of impact. He recommended that the City gain a clear understanding of how it would measure and assess impacts. Mr. Tushner clarified for the Commissioners that the “hard” costs of infrastructure were relatively easy to calculate, but then the decision to be made was what elements should be included in the assessment. He asked if developers should be assessed for maintenance and maintaining a level of service. He advised that would be difficult to measure and monitor. The Commissioners observed that the state criteria for identifying the need for a Plan amendment included substantial changes in circumstances and a need for intergovernmental cooperation. They observed there had been substantial changes in City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 2 of 6 Minutes of August 25, 2003 the way the City’s transportation system was impacted by development in surrounding jurisdictions. They also observed that even if state criteria did not trigger a Comprehensive Plan amendment, the City was faced with transportation issues related to redevelopment in Lake Grove, the Trolley, the future transit center and Highway 43. Public Testimony Donna Jordan, Transportation Advisory Board (TAB), voiced her concerns that the City was working at cross-purposes with Metro and the state. She recalled that the City had requested funding to implement the Boones Ferry Road Corridor Plan and had been turned down because the local vision was not the same as the Metro vision. She anticipated that if the City started to assess developers the true cost of impacts, they would find the cost to be prohibitive and avoid development in the City. She opined that the terms of a grant, rather than the framework of the Comprehensive Plan had driven the recent redevelopment and transit center planning process. She anticipated that Downtown redevelopment and Foothills Road redevelopment would add traffic beyond what was envisioned in the Plan and beyond the City’s capacity to handle it. She said the Plan should be updated to address the Trolley and Trails Master Plan. She anticipated that TAB would study the issues and submit their comments to the Planning Commission. Frank Barham, Transportation Advisory Board, observed a gap between Comprehensive Plan policies related to transportation and actuality. He advised that the City would not be able to meet the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) goal of a 10% reduction in vehicle miles traveled if it did not adhere to the policies that were intended to move the City toward that goal. Mr. Egner observed that the City’s focus on town center planning might help the community achieve a higher level of transit use. Vice Chair Groznik asked the staff to provide a clearer explanation of the relationship between traffic load and the number of lanes on a roadway. ============================================================== Goal 13: Energy Conservation Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner, advised that both the Comprehensive Plan and Statewide Planning Goal 13 state that the City shall conserve energy. He explained that land uses were to be managed and controlled to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy based upon sound economic principles. He noted that although Goal 13 had been adopted in 1976, availability and pricing of natural gas and electricity were still of concern to the community. He related that the City was developing a Sustainability Plan to conserve energy and natural resources and City departments had been implementing sustainability measures. He said the Oregon Residential Energy Code had adopted energy conserving standards in 1991 and the Community Development Code promoted energy conservation through connectivity and landscaping standards. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 3 of 6 Minutes of August 25, 2003 Mr. Sin advised that Chapter 57: Solar Access, had been adopted to maximize solar access on new and redeveloped lots. He anticipated the City’s Sustainability Plan would establish a baseline of energy use and track changes. He observed that new technology and use of renewable energy sources had a positive effect on energy use. He anticipated the staff would re-examine Goal 13, apply the state criteria for a Plan amendment and then suggest which existing policies and recommended action measures were still useful and which ones could be deleted. Mr. Sin suggested the goal for this section could be enhanced by including sustainability-related language: “The City shall conserve energy with a consideration of social, economic and environmental impacts.” He said that the City had made progress in its effort to comply with the Oregon Clean Air Act goal to reduce employee- commuting trips by 10% over a three-year period starting in 2001. He reported that such trips had been reduced by 5% to 6% the first year. He clarified for the Commissioners that 22 other businesses participated in the program in 2002, and he confirmed that progress in this category could be tracked as a Quality of Life Indicator because the state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tracked and reported changes in this data. He suggested other potential Quality of Life Indicators that could be related to Goal 13, including the ratio of miles of streets featuring transit service with total miles of streets; the number of residences within ¼ mile of public amenities like a park or shopping; the Air Quality Index for the metropolitan area; and the value of improvements to commercial buildings. The Commissioners then discussed how to achieve more efficient land use that would promote alternative modes of transportation and conserve energy. They recalled areas of the community where many residences were further than ¼ mile from amenities and where residents were less likely to walk or bike to the park or shopping. They wondered whether portions of Lake Grove, Forest Highlands, Stafford and an area on South Shore near the Blue Heron Canal might benefit from closer neighborhood commercial uses. They observed that although the neighborhood had initially opposed the Westlake neighborhood commercial development, many residents now walked or biked there. They asked the staff how the City might encourage more neighborhood commercial development. Mr. Egner observed that new commercial nodes were very hard to locate due to neighborhood resistance, but well-designed street and pathway connections that created shorter distances from residences to commercial areas would make it easier for residents to decide to walk or bicycle there. He observed that commercial uses typically preferred locations on busier streets. Vice Chair Groznik explained the concept of “net energy gain.” He explained that sometimes something seemed to be the right thing to do until the cost of the conservation activity was calculated and found to be more than the energy conserved. He gave an example that it was more economical to install a natural system to clean storm water than to pipe it to another area to be mechanically treated. Commissioner Vizzini suggested the City investigate the reliability of the electric power grid. He also City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 4 of 6 Minutes of August 25, 2003 suggested that current land use policies might need to be modified to allow facilities for fueling vehicles powered by natural gas, electricity or hydrogen. The staff clarified for the Commissions that the Residential Energy Code specified energy conservation thresholds that were to be met in order to receive a building permit. Commissioner Vizzini then suggested a Quality of Life Indicator to track the percentage of the city’s buildings that had been constructed after 1991, the year the Residential Energy Code was adopted. ============================================================== October 27, 2003 Public Workshop – Program Discussion Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; and Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. The report suggested options for the format of the public workshop to be held in October. The Commissioners indicated they desired to see a program that would keep participants on track and focused. They suggested a short and interesting introduction that reported trends, followed by a discussion of what the participants like about Lake Oswego today and three things they would like to see five years from today. Commissioner Vizzini suggested the City invite students from high school public affairs classes. The staff said they would present a meeting outline at the next Planning Commission meeting. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Vizzini moved for approval of the Minutes of July 28, 2003. Commissioner Webster seconded the motion and it passed with Vice Chair Groznik and Commissioners Vizzini and Webster voting yes. Commissioner Coffey recused herself from the vote. Chair Johnson and Commissioners Sandblast and Stayer were not present. There were no votes against. VI. OTHER BUSINESS Joint Zone Change and Design Review Hearing Mr. Egner reported that an applicant had requested that the City combine a zone change hearing with a design review hearing. He advised the Code allowed the City Manager to combine both processes and the staff was considering scheduling a joint Planning Commission/Development Review Commission public hearing followed by separate deliberations and decisions by each Commission. He explained the staff believed a joint hearing process would allow the public to testify about issues without confusion about what criteria each body was authorized to consider. He confirmed that the City Manager could also appoint one commission to hear and decide both the zone change and design proposals. He explained the applicant believed that a joint hearing would allow him to make a better argument for a zone change by presenting the proposed design. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 5 of 6 Minutes of August 25, 2003 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 6 of 6 Minutes of August 25, 2003 The Commissioners recalled that the public had seemed confused about the process in a recent case where the DRC had approved the design before the Planning Commission had heard the zone change request. Mr. Boone advised that the 120-day rule applied to the design review process, but did not apply to the zone change process, and the City could not require the applicant to waive the 120-day limit. The Commissioners generally agreed with Commissioner Vizzini’s recommendation that the joint process should continue as a joint process until the public hearing was closed, and that the Planning Commission decision should be made before the DRC made its decision. The Commissioners observed that a recent zone change hearing had demonstrated that the current criteria regarding the need for a zone change was very vague and cumbersome. Commissioner Vizzini suggested that the required traffic study should examine a larger area than just to the nearest intersection. American Planning Association Award Mr. Egner reported the Oregon Chapter of the American Planning Association was to present the City with an achievement award for the new Infill Ordinance. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business, Vice Chair Groznik adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Iris Treinen Senior Secretary