Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2011-10-24City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2011 Page 1 of 9 t CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2011 1. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Puja Bhutani called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall at 380 “A” Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. 2. ROLL CALL Members present were Vice Chair Puja Bhutani and Commissioners Bill Gaar, Julia Glisson and Todd Prager. Chair Jon Gustafson and Commissioners Jim Johnson and Russell Jones were excused. Council Liaison Jeff Gudman was also present. Staff present were Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Dennis Egner, Assistant Planning Director; Denise Frisbee, Director, Planning and Building Services Department; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Support. Also present were Elaine Howard, Elaine Howard Consulting and Lorelei Juntunen, ECONorthwest. 3. CITIZEN COMMENT None. 4. COUNCIL UPDATE Councilor Gudman reminded the Commissioners of the upcoming joint Council/Planning Commission meeting regarding the code reorganization. He advised that the Council wanted the Commission to take a look at public involvement related to major facilities. Ms. Frisbee reported the Council was about to talk about the infill handbook; invasive trees exemption; and Stafford related issues. She reported the City had received a $30,000 Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) grant for the Comprehensive Plan update and that a local television station had covered the poetry contest. She referred to a recent newspaper article about the high cost of doing small business and that the cost of applying for a zone change in Portland was $28,000 regardless of the size of the business. She advised it cost around $9,000 in Lake Oswego. She wondered if the City should consider encouraging small business by scaling permit fees. 5. MINUTES 5.1 September 12, 2011 The vote on the Minutes of September 12, 2011 with modifications submitted by Vice Chair Bhutani was postponed until the next meeting. 6. WORK SESSIONS 6.1 Lake Grove Village Center Financing Strategy (PP 09-0019) Mr. Egner noted the study was partially funded by a Metro grant and Metro staff liaison, Lisa Miles, was present. Consultants Lorelei Juntunen, ECONorthwest, and Elaine City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2011 Page 2 of 9 Howard, Elaine Howard Consulting, presented the update. Ms. Howard was helping fashion the scope of work and ECONorthwest was looking at funding sources. They had done a number of interviews and had just come from a public meeting. They asked for feedback on two questions: what aspects were concerning or particularly exciting to the Commissioners; and what should the timing of projects on the potential project list be. They indicated that a recommendation would be very different if a project was to be funded earlier than later in the process. Ms. Juntunen posted the study area map. She clarified the boundary had been drawn for purely technical purposes in order to do the projections and that it would likely change during the process, but it would be easier to take properties out than to add them. She said the participants at the public meeting that day had told the consultants there were areas they would rather not see within the boundary. Commissioner Gaar asked what their reasons were for taking properties out. Ms. Juntunen explained there were two properties on unincorporated county land that were left out due to concerns related to annexation and a few single family residential lots where the concern dealt with commercial encroachment. Ms. Howard reported that there had been strong consensus to not have the West End Building inside the study boundary. She said participants had also questioned having Parsons Farm inside the study boundary because of its redevelopment potential. She recalled that their general inclination was to stick to the existing Lake Grove boundary. Ms. Juntunen talked about the consultants’ scope of work. She stressed they needed to know both the cost and the timing of projects for the analysis to make sense. She said they would develop financing strategies that involved the whole range of tools, including urban renewal. She explained that the feasibility study would be done and then the Council would decide if it wanted them to go forward to a plan and report. She indicated that since there were statutory requirements associated with urban renewal they would give more attention to that tool. Ms. Howard reported participants at the public meeting had indicated they felt there was too much emphasis on urban renewal. She explained the Federal Urban Renewal program was intended to address blighting influences in specifically designated areas. She advised state statutes authorized it for cities to use as a mechanism to implement city plans. She showed slides of places in Lake Grove that showed typical conditions of blight: poor sidewalk conditions and underdevelopment. She outlined how an urban renewal area was established and the limits placed on it. She explained an urban renewal district had a 20- to 30-year life and that during that time the locality could use the tax revenue above the taxes paid on the initial assessed value (“frozen base”) for urban renewal projects. She clarified that the 2009 state legislature had applied revenue sharing requirements. Ms. Howard went on to explain that an urban renewal district could be administered by the City Council and that some cities with more than one urban renewal district used advisory committees. She offered examples of how other cities had used the funds and showed a slide that listed Boones Ferry Road construction projects which included “Redeveloper Assistance” in case the city decided to use urban renewal. She referred to OTAK’s estimate of the rough initial costs of the roadway- related projects and the total estimated cost of $27 million to $28 million and indicated that the other set of projects could total about $15 million. She recalled that at the public meeting participants had been asked to prioritize project timing and that they made it clear they wanted the roadway project done first and as soon as possible. The consultants were asking for input about other tools besides urban renewal, including sole source System Development Charges (SDC); Local Improvement Districts (LIDs) and general obligation bonds. They described the uses and constraints of each of them. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2011 Page 3 of 9 They cautioned that when an urban renewal district was used timing was crucial and it would take time for the new district to produce enough revenue to convince bond underwriters the locality could pay them back. They explained that the rule of thumb was that for every $10 million of additional assessed value the locality got about $1 million of borrowing capacity; for example, Zupans’ development might be a $9 million development and generate about $1 million in bonding capacity. They observed it might make sense to fund components such as the String of Pearls with Parks SDCs and that from a technical perspective a General Obligation (GO) bond was the simplest way to go, but they would have to assess the political will to do that which would required a citywide vote. They explained those four tools were not the only sources the consultants would be looking at, but they were the big ones the consultants wanted feedback about. They wanted to find out what the community appetite for them was. During the questioning period the consultants confirmed that different boundaries could be used for different tools. They indicated that as an example, LIDs could include more residential property if those owners would also benefit from the improvement. They clarified that if the priority was to fund Boones Ferry Road as quickly as possible, timing would require a very different package of tools and strategy than if the charge was to work on broad implementation of the Lake Grove Village Center plan by finding ways to catalyze redevelopment. They observed there had not had much time between meetings to analyze comments they had just received at the public meeting, but they had scanned them and saw a mix of responses for and against specific funding sources. LIDs seemed to be fairly popular. Ms. Juntunen reported they had conducted eight interviews with key stakeholders in the area and they had heard key potential development sites were Parsons Farm; a site on the northwest corner of Kruse Way/Boones Ferry Road; the Providence Hospital site; Mercantile Village; the Pacific Lumber site; and areas where there were properties that could be combined for redevelopment. They heard the greatest barriers to development were the road system; inability to find the centerline; lack of accessibility; and lack of streetscape amenities. They heard positive conditions for development were the efforts to move the Lake Grove Village Center plan forward; that it would be an area people would walk to; that it would be a 24-hour area that would not close down at night; and that restaurants would have other activities around them to help support them. They observed that unlike the public meeting, the interviews did not show a consensus on project prioritization, that some would prioritize the String of Pearls and the Festival Street and community gathering space because they would provide nice amenities in the interim until the City could afford improvements to Boones Ferry Road. The consultants were reluctant to report interviewee responses regarding the political feasibility of different tools in case they would influence the Commissioners’ comments. Mr. Egner clarified that Redevelopment Assistance had not been on the plan project list, but it had been alluded to in the economic section and that it might be an important program to prioritize and budget for because it might be the best way to catalyze development. Ms. Juntunen related she sensed different groups had different opinions on what should be the highest priority: roadway and pedestrian access, connectivity or economic development and attracting more businesses to the area. Commissioner Glisson suggested the roadway was likely the most important project, but the public involvement process should also consider the parking issue. She indicated that finding the centerline might mean shifting the roadway in a way that took a few feet from some properties. She observed that could mean that they would not have room for enough parking to support redevelopment with a larger building. She agreed there could be interim projects to create things like pedestrian connections and generate more activity in the area if the projects could find dollars to build them. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2011 Page 4 of 9 Commissioner Gaar commented that starting with the roadway made sense. He advised that one of the few ways to come up with a sum as large as $27 million would be the General Obligation bond and the process should test the community’s appetite for that. He mentioned some funding could be LIDs related to mixed use and that the burden could be spread out over many years, however, he clarified that businesses would want to see the numbers. Commissioner Prager asked the consultants to compare the effectiveness of spurring development of building the road and redevelopment assistance. The consultants advised assistance alone would not create the necessary connections for a pedestrian oriented community and that typically improving the streetscape, pedestrian access and connectivity eventually helped development, but did not guarantee it. They clarified that it worked best combined with redevelopment assistance. Vice Chair Bhutani suggested looking at a strategy that used Tax Increment Financing (TIF) and general obligation bonds to build Boones Ferry Road while concurrently using LIDs and SDCs for catalyst projects. She cautioned redevelopment assistance should offer incentives to improve the site itself. It should not go to the business on it, which could go away. The consultants confirmed they would look for the logical funding tool for each type of activity. They wanted to hear if there was any aversion to any of the tools they had talked about. They confirmed they would also explore tools they had not yet mentioned, but the four tools they had talked about were the biggest ones and the ones that seemed to have more direct nexus. They explained that tools like revenue bonds, grants, loans and other monies that the state or Metro could provide tended to help in smaller bites. Mr. Egner announced that the group would come back to present another update in about a month. 6.2 Foothills Update – Review and Discussion of Draft Framework Plan (PP 11-0003) Brant Williams, Director, Economic and Capital Development Department, offered the Commissioners another opportunity to tour Foothills. He reported the recommendation would be an urban renewal district and that current values were so low there was plenty of capacity to increase values and use the tax increment to fund the district. He indicated that the Council was scheduled to hold a study session on the plan on November 8 and make a decision on December 13. Matt Brown and Christie White of Williams, Dame & White, reported the Citizens Advisory Board (CAC) had unanimously endorsed the report and that they had briefed all the boards and commissions. They indicated there would be a few more public meetings before the final draft was forwarded to Council. Mr. Brown explained that the current concept plan emphasized connections with downtown Lake Oswego; that buildings on both sides of State Street would be of compatible scale and height. Ms. White discussed the land use chapter and reported that the recommendation would be to create a new mixed use zone that included retail, residential and office use. She clarified that Foothills would not be an island, but connected to and be a part of Downtown. She indicated that the CAC decided to apply general zoning and let the district grow organically instead of being too specific, but they did decide to cap the size of grocery and retail uses. She explained that retail in Foothills was to serve residents in Foothills and supplement and complement Downtown instead of competing with it. She further explained that grocery use in the village center (currently the Albertsons shopping center) could be bigger than in the rest of the district, but exactly how large it could be was still under consideration. She reported that the CAC had studied height in relation to topography and they were recommending keeping buildings right along State Street a lower height to match what was across the Street, but allowing them to go to 90 feet City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2011 Page 5 of 9 elsewhere in the district. Ms. White explained that the concept was that the district in general would have buildings up to 90 feet (7 story buildings) with ground flood retail and residential or office above and that a couple of blocks along State Street the height would be capped at 45 feet. She indicated that height would also be tiered down to create a transition between Old Town and the district. Mr. White clarified for Vice Chair Bhutani that the current code allowed buildings along State Street to be as high as 60 feet. She further clarified that the analysis was based on structured parking, but surface parking was permitted if it was done appropriately (well-landscaped, well-buffered, etc.) Ms. White explained the concept of sub-areas, that they would all be connected, but they would not have the same feel or the same standards. She indicated that the area north of the condos was currently an industrial area and the most blighted part of the district and that this was where floodplain mitigation would resurface the land and development would be more urban intensive. She explained that the Garden District would be characterized by the retention of mature trees below the shelf, where a lot of the existing apartments were located and it would have a “brownstone” feel. She observed the road pattern would be similar to what was there now. She reported that the apartment owners favored this approach because it would enable them to redevelop in phases over time. She indicated the shelf area would be a more urban gridded, sub-area up against State Street and the streetcar. Ms. White shared with the Commission that the CAC decided to allow a developer to choose between conforming to specific objective design standards and going through a design review process. She clarified the Development Review Commission (DRC) could approve an application if the proposed design was equal to or better than what the objective standards would allow. Ms. White reported the district would require 75,000 cubic yards of fill that had to be balanced by cuts elsewhere and that those cuts had been identified. She clarified that restoring the floodplain capacity and salmon habitat in Tryon Creek would require a cut of 65,000 cubic yards. She recalled the cut that created Foothills Park had been about 10,000 cubic yards. Ms. White explained that code changes would be necessary to clarify that the cut and fill balance was based on 100 year floodplain levels and to provide that developers would pay a fee in lieu to a mitigation bank if they started filling for a development before the federal permit was granted to the Tryon Creek project. She indicated that experts had advised that the industrial area functions as a bowl and drains slowly so that allowing fill before the cut would not affect the river level. She said if the Council adopted the plan the code amendments would be presented in February. During questioning Ms. White clarified the actual square footage of uses was only controlled by the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and maximum FAR was 4:1 (4 square feet of building area for every 1 square foot of site area). She said, for example, a 20,000 sq. ft. site could feature an 80,000 sq. ft. building up to 90 feet high. She said there was a list of permitted and prohibited uses and that new industrial uses were not permitted, but the existing ones could continue. She indicated that “Creative Industrial” had not yet been defined, but could possibly be a film making studio. Mr. Brown clarified a block by block analysis had been done to determine the impact on the transportation system and the amount of tax increment financing that would be possible. Commissioner Glisson wanted to know if they had looked at the future housing capacity of the district. Ms. White observed that residential use was the primary use in Foothills and the financial feasibility analysis assumed 120-150 units per block and only 12,500 sq. ft. of retail on each block. Vice Chair Bhutani advised the commercial component had to be the right size in relation to the residential. Ms. White offered to illustrate what they had assumed for retail on each block. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2011 Page 6 of 9 Vice Chair Bhutani was concerned that the result of allowing FAR transfer might result in higher buildings along the lake, Foothills Drive and B Avenue which might have more real estate value. Ms. White explained the concept was to have an average FAR of 4:1, for example if the owner of part of a block only built to 3:1 the other owner(s) on that block could build to 5:1, but none could build higher than 90 feet. She reported that the CAC decided to allow that in order to see varied heights of buildings looking down the B Avenue corridor, however she agreed it may not be needed anywhere else than the northern part of the district. She noted there would be some additional controls, including design and development standards to control massing. Vice Chair Bhutani asked the consultants to study if the density transfer could be limited to certain areas within the site to prevent unintended height impacts. Commissioner Glisson asked if the project would include affordable housing. The consultants explained that to answer the affordable housing question the City needed to define affordable housing; determine how much public money would be available for the necessary subsidies; have a policy related to affordable housing; and then determine Foothills’ share in providing affordable housing. The consultants reported that the Sustainability Advisory Board (SAB) had recently talked about that and housing diversity. They observed that the housing mix concept in Foothills was consistent with demographic trends: units that would appeal to young families and seniors who wanted to stay and age in place in the City. They indicated that Foothills currently had some of the most affordable housing in the City – the existing apartments. Vice Chair Bhutani commented that if the city was involved in the area it just made sense for it to be looking at affordable housing. Ms. White was not sure that the City had a policy on affordable housing yet that could guide Foothills development. Ms. White agreed with Vice Chair Bhutani that it would make sense to apply the same parking standards for Foothills as those that the Commissioners previously discussed during their review of the Downtown Parking Strategy. Vice Chair Bhutani also suggested creating a more explicit infrastructure phasing plan. Ms. White agreed to illustrate that. The Vice Chair also suggested that something more had to happen at the A Avenue junction to draw pedestrians across the street into Foothills. The consultants reported they had studied the rail line between City limits and talked to the railroad and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) rail. They explained that the rail lines were strongly opposed to having another crossing, even if it was a high quality crossing like the one at Millennium Park. They further explained that a vehicular crossing would place significant negative transportation impacts on the A Avenue intersection. The consultants reported that the CAC wanted them to push harder for an A Avenue crossing in the plan and that they would do that and continue to talk to the rail lines about it. Mr. Brown suggested there could be some kind of physical connection at the foot of A Avenue - perhaps a spectacular fountain and that it would mitigate the view of the PGE substation and draw the eyes of those higher up on A Avenue to the view of Mt. Hood. Vice Chair Bhutani agreed more work should be done on the A Avenue junction. Vice Chair Bhutani indicated she had thought collector streets should have bike lanes, and residential streets could be mixed mode traffic. She questioned why only Foothills Road had dedicated bike lanes. The consultants pointed out that the two primary north/south regional connections were Foothills and the Greenway Trail and they considered Foothills the collector street for the district – everything else was local. They related that the CAC and Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) had recommended some changes, that a parallel path be created along the rail line, separated from the tracks by fencing with a bike path up the steps. The consultants indicated that the CAC and TAB believed it would be safe to mix bikes and vehicles on the other streets, especially with a City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2011 Page 7 of 9 15 mph speed limit. They reported that the CAC had talked about a tradeoff on B Avenue and that in that right-of-way instead of widening the pavement for bike lanes they decided to add five feet to the pedestrian way. They recalled that the CAC thought it would still be safe and comfortable to ride a bike on B, but someone who was not comfortable riding there could use other routes through the district that paralleled B. Commissioner Prager wanted to know if the team had looked at strategies for favoring local businesses and if the design standard would be different than Downtown. Ms. White explained the strategy was to not provide the amount of parking that national chains needed. She clarified that the plan would support small scale retailers that survived with on-street parking, that it had worked in other projects and the square footage limits would help too. Mr. Brown observed some national retailers, like Starbucks, could find it a good fit. The consultants reported the CAC ended up deciding to apply different design standards to Foothills, that the new district would have clear and objective standards as compared to Downtown’s discretionary standards. They explained that the new district would not require peaked roofs which would mean there could be eco roofs and roof gardens that would look nice from uphill. They clarified it would mean there could be solar panels and that it would work with the goal to build to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design-Neighborhood Development (LEED ND) Silver. Ms. White confirmed for Vice Chair Bhutani that rain and stormwater harvesting were key aspects of the plan. The consultants confirmed for Vice Chair Bhutani they had looked at the Energy Performance Score (EPS) system for building as well as many different management systems. They advised that LEED might be the best system for development of horizontal systems neighborhood wide, but the code could allow vertical development to go beyond that. They reported that the CAC had changed the recommendation for vertical development to “LEED Silver or the equivalent” in the hope of encouraging people to go beyond silver. They indicated the design team was looking into that and they still needed to discuss it with City staff. They added that if the Council adopted the plan the consultants were going to bring the implementation code amendments to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission took a five minute break and then reconvened for the public hearing. 7. PUBLIC HEARING 7.1 Ordinance 2526, LU 08-0054 – Community Development Code – Policy Related Housekeeping Amendments. Amendments (Chapter 50) for the purpose of clarifying and updating various code provisions. These provisions have been identified as having policy implications. Continued from September 26, 2011, beginning with pages 68-90 which cover Article 50.13 Industrial Zones, Article 50.14 Accessory and Temporary Uses; Article 50.15 Greenway Management Overlay District; Article 50.17 Planned Development Overlay; Article 50.20 Flag Lots. Time permitting, the Commission would continue with pages 98-156 which began with Article 50.30 Special Requirements for Type of Facility. Vice Chair Bhutani opened the public hearing. Mr. Boone noted for the record that there was no one in the audience. The Commissioners decided to proceed by discussing only those amendments that individual Commissioners had concerns or questions about. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2011 Page 8 of 9 Article 50.14 Accessory and Temporary Uses Page 72 The Commissioners discussed the question of whether accessory uses should be based on the concept of the primary use when it was authorized in the Code, or as the primary use may have evolved over time due to changes in the industry. Example: a grocery store that added a gas station, an electric charging station, a florist’s shop or other uses and a gas station that added a mini-mart. Staff explained that when the legislation was adopted, for example when the current Code was adopted in 1982, the Council, as the legislative body, had not envisioned those uses; thus when they listed the primary uses, they envisioned a certain type of accessory or incidental use as part of the primary use. Mr. Boone confirmed that the code defined Accessory Building (not “accessory use”) and provided that it was to be “subordinate to and consistent with the use of the primary building, which was to be consistent with the buildings and uses allowed in the zone in which it was located.” Staff stated they had not proposed any language for the Code amendment, but related the challenge in interpreting a primary use under this code. They clarified there had not been complaints about it but asked for Planning Commission guidance, envisioning the question would ultimately arise and present an interpretational challenge for staff that could benefit from the Commission’s consideration. Staff questioned whether they should continue to base their interpretation and ministerial decisions on the intent of the code and look at generally accepted industry trends or should they strictly interpret the code. Mr. Boone clarified for Commissioner Glisson that the primary use had to be a permitted use, but accessory uses did not have to be permitted uses, they were authorized just because they were associated with the principal use. He confirmed that even though the Lake Grove Village Center Overlay limited the district to two gas stations, a gas station might be allowed as a secondary use to a grocery store, or some other primary use there, but there would be other parameters to apply. Ms. Andreades observed that technology was changing and wondered whether a grocery store should be allowed to install an electric charging station in their parking lot, as an “accessory use”. The Commissioners observed those uses could generate traffic impacts. Mr. Boone advised the code related to uses, it did not apply performance indicators. Using a performance indicator approach would change the whole concept of the permitted uses in the zoning code, and that currently any use that was determined to be accessory to the primary use was allowed. He agreed that if the volume of the accessory use grew as large as that of the primary use that would be a problem. Commissioner Gaar indicated he was inclined to leave it up to staff interpretation rather than fashion specific code that tried to anticipate what the market would do over the next 20 years. Following Commission discussion, Mr. Boone summarized that the Commissioners generally did not favor the strict “use at the time of the legislative adoption” interpretation; they were concerned about flexibility; they were concerned about size, and the volume of traffic generated; and whether the accessory use was the same as a permitted use. He said these were factors staff would consider. Ms. Andreades clarified for Commissioner Prager that her notes showed the Planning Commission’s consensus had been to limit a Guest House to 400 sq. ft. Mr. Boone advised there was no need to include that clarification in the definition, Guest House, because it was elsewhere in the code. Vice Chair Bhutani agreed with Mr. Boone’s suggestion to let the code reorganization process look at the items related to accessory structures on regular lots. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2011 Page 9 of 9 Page 73 Mr. Boone noted Commissioner Prager’s correction that the language that referred to (a)(1-5) should specify instead, “the above criteria in subsection (a)(1-3) are met.” He also noted Vice Chair Bhutani’s suggestions to clarify Exceptions language in two places with double negatives. The text should read, “does not apply to parcels zoned R-6.”; and “exceptions do not apply if the accessory structure is being used as a secondary dwelling unit.” Page 74 (5)(a)(2) Mr. Boone agreed to come back with revised language to clarify the separation requirement under “Reduction of Side or Rear Yard Setbacks for Accessory Structure.” Commissioner Gaar moved to continue Ordinance 2526, LU 08-0054 to November 14, 2011. Commissioner Glisson seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. 8. OTHER BUSINESS – PLANNING COMMISSION 8.1 Findings, Conclusions and Order 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 Commissioner Prager moved to approve LU 11-0028. Vice Chair Bhutani seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. 9. OTHER BUSINESS – COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT None. 10. SCHEDULE REVIEW Staff and Commissioners examined the Rolling Agenda. Staff noted that a small amount of time during Citizen Comment on November 14 would be used by a potential applicant to talk to the Planning Commission about a zone change. 11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Vice Chair Bhutani adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Iris McCaleb /s/ Iris McCaleb Administrative Support