Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2011-10-10City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 10, 2011 Page 1 of 8 t CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2011 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Jon Gustafson called the Planning Commission meeting of October 10, 2011, to order at 6:42 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 Puja Bhutani and Commissioners Bill Gaar, Julia Glisson, Jim Johnson, Russell Jones and Todd Prager. Council Liaison Jeff Gudman was also present. Staff present were Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Jane Blackstone, Economic Development Manager; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Support. Rick Williams, Rick Williams Consulting also attended. 3. CITIZEN COMMENT None. 4. COUNCIL UPDATE Councilor Jeff Gudman related that Planning and Building Services Department Director Denise Frisbee had announced that she would resign at the end of the year. He commended her leadership of the Department and said she would be missed. He reported the Council was about to discuss the Downtown Parking Study; Boones Ferry Road financing strategy; and Stafford. Ms. Andreades reported the Council had approved most of the Community Development Code (CDC) amendments in LU 08- 0052, but had modified them to allow a limited height exception for solar panels. Councilor Gudman indicated that the Council was sending proposed amendments related to trails and open space maintenance back to the Commission for further consideration. He said the Council was going to consider an exemption for invasive tree species. 5. MINUTES 5.1 July 11, 2011 Commissioner Glisson amended the minutes by adding language to clarify that the Goal 10 Work Group had only talked about secondary dwelling units as a means of satisfying the goal to achieve additional housing units to meet projected housing needs. She moved to adopt the Minutes of July 11, 2011 as amended. Commissioner Gaar seconded the motion and it passed 6:0:1. Commissioner Johnson abstained. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 10, 2011 Page 2 of 8 6. PUBLIC HEARING 6.1 LU 11-0028 – Amendments to Lake Oswego Community Development Code (CDC) to bring the City into compliance with Title 4 of Metro’s Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. A request from the City of Lake Oswego for amendments to the CDC to limit the sizes of specified retail uses in the Mixed Commerce (MC) and Industrial Park (IP) zones. Chair Gustafson opened the public hearing and outlined the applicable procedure. When invited by the chair none of the Commissioners declared a conflict of interest. Staff Report Associate Planner Andy Gulizia reviewed the staff report. He explained that the City code complies with Title 4 except in one area: it does not impose a size limit on certain retail uses. He indicated that the proposed ordinance would establish a size limit on certain retail uses and bring the City into full compliance with Metro’s Title 4. He reported that staff concurred with and would incorporate Les Schwab’s recommendation to add the words, “floor area” to clarify the City’s intent. Staff recommended that the City adopt draft Ordinance 2575 (dated October 3, 2011) with that change. Public Testimony None. Deliberations When invited by the chair no one came forward to offer public testimony. Chair Gustafson then closed public testimony and opened deliberations. Commissioner Johnson moved to recommend that the City Council approve Ordinance 2575 as recommended by staff. Commissioner Jones seconded the motion and it passed 7:0. 7. WORK SESSIONS 7.1 PP 11-0012 – Parking Study/Strategy. Review and discussion of the 2010 Downtown Parking Strategy commissioned by the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency (LORA) as part of the 2010 Economic Development Strategy. Jane Blackstone, Manager, Department of Economic and Capital Development, explained the City decided to study downtown parking conditions after it heard a lot of concern about parking. She indicated that some felt there was not enough parking or the parking format did not meet the need while developers felt parking was an impediment to downtown development. Rick Williams, Rick Williams Consulting, presented the findings of the parking study which covered a 16-block area (Evergreen to B/5th to State). He explained that the data indicated that except in the core zone of the 16-block area, only about half of the on-street stalls were filled and a large number of off- street stalls were unfilled during peak hours. He indicated that parking stalls were well distributed throughout downtown and that Lake Oswego had an unusually large percentage of long term stalls serving retail uses. Mr. Williams observed there were hundreds of stalls with no time limit and use data indicated the average customer used a stall for a few minutes longer than the 1-hour stalls allowed. Mr. Williams suggested that the perception of constrained parking was because parking in the Core Zone was 85% occupied at peak hours and the parking format there was long term stalls and patrons could find more parking if they were willing to walk across the street. He summarized City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 10, 2011 Page 3 of 8 that Downtown had abundant parking, but it needed to be managed better. He suggested the City look at stall time limits and that one-hour stalls were not appropriate for the need. He said the violation rate was 14% to 22% but there was not much enforcement. He would not recommend more enforcement now because such a small percentage of available spaces were being used. Mr. Williams compared downtown parking with industry standards and other cities. He explained that the average downtown stall turnover rate was 4.2 times per day and the standard stall turnover in an active retail area was 5 per day. He indicated that in Milwaukie and Hood River it was 6; in Salem it was 7.5 and he noted that Oregon City was addressing its 4.7 rate by changing its system of employee parking permits to take that parking off the streets. Mr. Williams reported the consultants heard people in public meetings say they could see lots of parking but it was not available to them. He explained that there was empty space that was not available space because the Lake Oswego code required developers to “overbuild” parking that was to serve a specific site but the code did not allow that site to share underutilized spaces. He observed that the City had been requiring an average of 2.65 stalls per 1,000 square feet of floor area, but the current true demand rate was 1.87 stalls per 1,000 square feet. He indicated that it was not unusual for cities to use traditional suburban minimums for parking and Lake Oswego was “in the middle of the pack” in that regard, however, it was requiring many more parking stalls than were actually needed. He clarified for Vice Chair Bhutani that 1.87 stalls per 1,000 square feet was the sweet spot for the combined overall mixed use of the entire downtown and the City could continue to use specific standards for free- standing, single use businesses, like restaurants. He recommended that in a mixed use center with mixed use buildings it should collapse the current 14 different standards into one minimum parking requirement that reflected true demand so parking was not overbuilt. Mr. Williams suggested the City address parking format and put more short term parking where it was most needed. He recommended forming three different parking management zones and signing them clearly. He suggested the City lower the minimum parking requirement in the commercial section of the development code; allow shared parking; and generally simplify parking standards. He explained that the industry considered a consistent 85% occupancy rate constrained and although downtown was not there yet, the City should think about more aggressive strategies now to use when it got to 85%. He indicated that strategies included strengthening enforcement; issuing employee parking permits; moving downtown employee parking from on-street to off street shared parking lots; and ensuring they were downtown employees. He recalled that during the survey, the consultants had observed Portland employees parking in long term stalls, particularly those close to bus stops. He said the City should think about limiting or prohibiting new surface parking lots in the future that would use up developable blocks and it should have a program in its code that allows neighborhoods to ask for a neighborhood area permit program with framework in place that will allow it, and potential incentives for developing public parking. Commissioner Prager noted that the survey was done on a Wednesday and that there is a different dynamic on the weekend. Mr. Williams responded that the first step was to have a database which could be used for comparison in the future. He recommended that demand data be refined every two years. Ms. Blackstone confirmed the consultants had consulted the business community about the right day to conduct the survey. The Commissioners wanted to know if the consultant advocated publicly owned parking structures; if the City should control who could park downtown; if the strategy hinged on shared parking agreements; and the relationship between metering and turnover. Mr. Williams explained he personally believed the ideal progression was to start with City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 10, 2011 Page 4 of 8 public/private partnerships for parking that would eventually transition to all privately owned parking. However, he recalled that some jurisdictions had used one or two publicly owned “catalyst garages” to start the process. He said he came from the “Main Street School of Downtowns,” that there should be parking for people who lived, worked and shopped downtown. He observed that a customers’ first preference was to park on the street and that after parking became a problem the solution would be to move downtown employee parking to an off street lot. He noted that was Milwaukie’s strategy. He advised that underutilized lots had lower value and allowing shared parking would better utilize parking; create a market for parking; and leave more land for development. He said the code should allow it, but not require it. He advised it was too early at 49% occupancy for the City to consider going to metered parking. He indicated that meters could help facilitate turnover, but recalled that Kirkland Washington had an 8.9 turnover rate without meters and Hood River had 90% to 95% occupancy even with meters. Ms. Blackstone noted the streetcar project included park and ride facilities. She indicated that stakeholders were telling staff it was very challenging to develop downtown under current code standards. She asked if the City should encourage redevelopment of smaller parcels by increasing the parking supply and allowing developers to buy into that parking by paying a fee-in-lieu of providing it on site. She asked if the City should provide incentives to encourage whole block development. Commissioner Glisson let the consultant know that one of the objectives of the Lake Grove Village Center Plan was to have consolidated parking sites and offer small site developers credit toward required parking that would otherwise be prohibitively expensive. She was concerned that if the minimum parking requirement were reduced a developer could put pressure on a restaurant tenant to accept less parking than the tenant felt it needed. Mr. Williams agreed with Vice Chair Bhutani that Block 24 should be in Zone A because that block had two block faces that were at least 85% occupied. He clarified for Commissioner Gaar that the consultants planned to fine-tune Figure J. Ms. Blackstone and Mr. Williams indicated the next steps in the process were more public outreach, refining the recommended strategies, a final report; a Council decision; and implementation. They planned to come back to discuss the outreach program with the Planning Commission. 7.2 PP 09-0016 – Housing Strategies. Recap and discussion of Planning Commission Housing Tour on June 24, 2011. Ms. Andreades presented slides showing the developments the Commissioners had visited. She recalled they had seen examples of compact urban form and different options for providing housing. She indicated it was an appropriate time to review this as the City was preparing to amend Comprehensive Plan Goal 10: Housing. She said the Council had gone on a similar tour about a year ago, but had not gone to Salish Pond. Visited Sites Hastings Green (72nd/Clinton – Portland) This development put 23 relatively small, well designed, affordable houses on a 33,592 square foot site. There was a common area, the garages were clustered, and each house had a small private area. Commissioner Glisson observed that the garages in the south and north sections were a little different. Salish Pond (Gresham) This 34 acre development of small houses was on a reclaimed gravel pit near wetlands and the floodplain. The buildings were carefully placed to minimize environmental impact and the garages were clustered. Vice Chair Bhutani and Ms. Andreades noted it was a planned development that had lot sizes as small as 2,500 square feet. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 10, 2011 Page 5 of 8 Commissioner Glisson recalled it had a great feel – like vacation cabins – but it was an isolated community. Sabin Green (Prescott /19th Area of Northeast Portland) This was a development on two separate lots that had been combined into a condominium complex after development. One lot contained a new house and the other lot contained an existing 100 year old house that had been renovated. On each of the lots an accessory dwelling unit was constructed. Development of the two lots was in compliance with the code. They were then combined as a four-unit condominium development. Bohnsen Cottages (SW Vista, Portland) This was a circa 1920s development of five cottages and a small open space tract. Each 550 square foot unit and its garage were on a separate lot. The development seemed to fit very well into the surrounding single family neighborhood. Mississippi Avenue Food Cart Pod The Commissioners had visited this pod for a lunch break. Discussion Chair Gustafson related that the Commissioners had not discussed their feelings about the developments on the tour. He invited them to talk about them. Ms. Andreades confirmed for Commissioner Glisson that Sabin Green was zoned R-5 and the new house and the accessory dwellings had been built to code, with no exceptions. She related that Portland did not require the owner to live in one of the units, so the four units could have four separate ownerships. Chair Gustafson commented that a lot in First Addition (FAN) could look like that if the City allowed accessory dwelling units without that restriction. But he noted the Sabin Green accessory dwellings looked big. Commissioner Glisson agreed and recalled they had been right on the property line. Ms. Andreades stated that it was unlikely that that aspect would be allowed by the Lake Oswego code. Chair Gustafson speculated that if the new house on lot two were in FAN it would likely be twice as big and there would not be room for an accessory dwelling. Ms. Andreades suggested the builder probably planned to build the new house and leave enough space for a secondary dwelling unit. She recalled it looked similar to other houses in the neighborhood in spite of the additional density. Vice Chair Bhutani agreed how it interacted with the neighborhood was very important but it would also take a certain kind of profile to embrace living in a community of such close proximity. She recalled that one side had a wall and observed that edge conditions were important. She indicated that the design - especially on the streetscape - was important to compatibility. Ms. Andreades agreed it took a certain profile to embrace this kind of density and indicated that it would likely not look the same in Lake Oswego, but the concept (the interaction of two lots, both with an accessory dwelling unit behind the primary structure) could be carried out in a different way. She said it would depend on the design and how the pieces interacted. Commissioner Gaar indicated he saw things on the tour that would fit Lake Oswego and suggested the City should look at code and design standards that would utilize smaller spaces for someone who would want that. He agreed the development the Commissioners saw would not look the same in Lake Oswego. He indicated that the Commissioners could think about code and design standards that would allow the private sector to develop something that fit the neighborhood. He suggested some kind of front porch architectural concept and community central area idea that moved away from the scenario of a prominent garage and back yard with a high fence. Commissioner Glisson was not sure that kind of living situation would be embraced in City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 10, 2011 Page 6 of 8 Lake Oswego. She indicated the City did not have to go that far, but that kind of density would work as long as the house was similar in scale to those in the neighborhood, so she was not as concerned about the closeness. She observed that residents of Lake Oswego might find it scary to have four little houses clustered on a lot, but in this development the house in front on the street was more like the houses next to it and maintained the street-front scale. Commissioner Johnson observed Lake Oswego had residents who wanted to age in place in the City. He indicated that it might see groups of couples wanting to live in one place to take care of one another. He suggested there were a lot of opportunities for that kind of development in unincorporated areas. He suggested the City and county should start thinking about how those areas could have four or five units on smaller parcels of land. Commissioner Prager recalled this project had eight cars which was a traffic and parking concern. He suggested that perhaps there should be locational criteria so such developments were not allowed just anywhere in the City. Chair Gustafson and Commissioner Glisson recalled Hastings Green’s clustered housing and off street parking which required a bigger lot. Chair Gustafson wondered if a neighborhood with bigger lots that was not used to that level of density could handle it. He said it had been helpful to see that example of how land that was in the county now might be developed with ten little houses instead of one big house. Commissioner Johnson observed that society was changing and the experiment of the suburban model was over. Commissioner Glisson agreed with Commissioner Prager that the City needed to determine where the right areas for those kinds of developments were. She said the cottages on Vista were darling and part of their charm was the fact they were historic structures, however, she wondered if that neighborhood or places in Lake Oswego would accept a brand new development like that. Commissioner Johnson observed it might fit in Multnomah Village or John’s Landing. Commissioner Glisson indicated she liked the fact that Hastings Green had off street parking, but she wondered how the neighbors to those parking structures felt. She observed the design would really be important if there was to be a row of garages in an R-7.5 neighborhood. Vice Chair Bhutani indicated higher density could work in lower density areas if the design and the perceived density made it seem to blend in with the neighborhood. She agreed with Commissioner Prager about locational criteria. She questioned why the City should allow people to build high density developments in places where the residents had to drive from them. Commissioner Jones agreed that type of higher density would not work everywhere in the City, and that perhaps it should be limited to nodes. Chair Gustafson asked how to determine what locations or nodes or zones it should be allowed in. Ms. Andreades did not recommend “spot zoning,” but suggested locational criteria could be used. She explained, that as an example, it could be allowed in the R-6 zone on corner lots of a particular size within a certain distance of a higher classification street. 8. OTHER BUSINESS – PLANNING COMMISSION Comprehensive Plan Update – Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) Lake Access/Zoning – Discussion Commissioners Gaar and Johnson serve on the Comprehensive Plan Update Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC). Commissioner Gaar reported the CAC had considered whether to address access to the lake and they considered it an important issue, but one that was complicated by legal issues that could sidetrack them. He explained that the CAC had a lot on their plate and believed the lake issue would be a quagmire. They had discussed whether to get an opinion from the Council on the issue but then voted not to address it. He had supported that decision. Commissioner Johnson said that although he wasn’t at the CAC meeting when it was discussed, he saw lake access as a land use issue, aside from the legal issues, recalling that the lake was not even zoned. He City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 10, 2011 Page 7 of 8 indicated there should be a long term vision for the lake. He was not sure it was legal for a city to leave an area un-zoned. He indicated that periodic review only happened once every 10-20 years and that his was an issue the CAC or the Planning Commission should address. He acknowledged there might be a need for better direction from the Council. Chair Gustafson indicated he was concerned that the decision to not have the conversation had been made too quickly, and it short-changed the process to say it was too big an issue. He questioned why it could not be looked at more broadly from the visioning level; that the Comprehensive Plan could say something like, “In 2035 the City shall provide and protect public access to Oswego Lake” and address the fact that it was currently not protected because it was not zoned and the City had no oversight. Chair Gustafson observed there was currently a little bit of access to it in different ways. He believed the City could talk about it without being dragged into a controversy. Commissioner Gaar recalled it had been Commissioner Prager who had raised the issue and clarified that the “access issue” was really about the use of that public waterway - not access to that public waterway. He indicated it was not an access issue because it was over private property and the question, “why can’t I run my boat on the public waterway?” was a legal question. He looked to the City for guidance and believed the CAC could spend a lot of time on the issue and not get answers. Commissioner Gaar suggested it would be a quagmire and the CAC had many other issues to address. He advised the Planning Commission could look at the regulatory authority of the Lake Oswego Corporation over that public body of water. Commissioner Prager explained that he had raised the issue because the lake had been a huge issue for the Second Look Task Force. The Task Force essentially “punted” lake issues to be addressed as part of the Comprehensive Plan update process. He indicated that in July the Parks Department explained to the CAC that water access has been a priority issue identified by the community. The Parks Department explained Oswego Lake is a private lake and they were focused on access to the two rivers, the Willamette and Tualatin. Commissioner Prager contacted the state to verify the status of Oswego Lake, and the state told him the public has the right to access Oswego Lake. Commissioner Prager observed that if the community was going to talk about recreation during the Community Culture discussion he thought it should be considered. He related that he had trouble convincing staff to forward the information he got from the state to the CAC. He related he was disappointed that the CAC had voted to not address the issue before people could discuss it at the Summit on Community Culture and that the decision was premature. He explained that part of the CAC rationale was that there was no community interest in the issue and that he had made the “hard call” to take it directly to the public and get the discussion started. He considered the issue important enough to at least discuss. Commissioner Gaar clarified that the CAC had not concluded there was no public interest, but there had been no “noise” about it yet and it had not risen to the level that would put it on the CAC radar. He indicated that if it came up at the summit there was a “parking lot” for issues that came out of that discussion. He added that if it were raised to the level of a public issue he anticipated Councilor Moncrieff would bring it back to the CAC. He recalled that the majority of CAC members had agreed it was an important issue, but not something the CAC wanted to address. Commissioner Johnson observed this was the scoping phase of periodic review and they were in the process of identifying the issues. He indicated there was no specific work plan yet and the CAC should not be afraid to take up any issue now. Chair Gustafson observed the lake was identified with the community and lake access was related to recreational opportunities and it was a matter of the CAC connecting the dots during the process. He suggested that the Planning Commission could talk about making zoning of the lake a goal for next year and ask for Council feedback. Commissioner Jones wanted to know how Commissioner City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 10, 2011 Page 8 of 8 Johnson would zone it. Commissioner Johnson advised that most water bodies were zoned the same as adjacent zoning, however in the State of Washington shorelines of lakes and streams were zoned differently than the upland zone. Chair Gustafson recalled that Oswego Lake actually had quite a bit of land above the water and that Lake Oswego Corporation owned a lot of land that was basically used as people’s back yards and it was not subject to the City’s zoning regulations. He indicated that Lake Oswego Corporation decided what to allow to be built on its property and it was just as restrictive as the City would be, but he questioned whether the City should rely on that. 9. OTHER BUSINESS – COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT None. 10. SCHEDULE REVIEW Ms. Andreades indicated that the next Planning Commission meeting was October 24. She suggested the Planning Commission finish LU 08-0054 amendments by the end of the year. She explained that staff wanted to start managing Community Development (CDC) updates better by processing smaller packages of CDC updates between January and June of each year. They planned to propose 2011/2012 updates next January. Commissioners Gaar and Johnson agreed to receive Commission feedback by email regarding the CAC process so they would have time to forward comments to the CAC in time for the October 26 CAC meeting and the November 3 Community Summit on Community Culture. Ms. Andreades also mentioned that the code reorganization consultant was to present at a joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting on November 8. 11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Chair Gustafson adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Iris McCaleb /s/ Iris McCaleb Administrative Support