Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2011-11-28City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of November 28, 2011 Page 1 of 8 bt CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2011 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Jon Gustafson called the Planning Commission meeting of November 28, 2011, to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 380 “A” Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. 2. ROLL CALL Members present were Chair Jon Gustafson, Vice Chair Puja Bhutani and Commissioners Bill Gaar, Julia Glisson, Jim Johnson and Russell Jones. Commissioner Todd Prager was excused. Council Liaison Jeff Gudman was present as well as Councilor Sally Moncrieff. Staff present were Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Dennis Egner, Assistant Planning Director; Hamid Pishvaie, Assistant Planning Director; Sarah Selden, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Support. 3. CITIZEN COMMENT None. 4. COUNCIL UPDATE Councilor Gudman reported the Council had voted to implement bike signs on Iron Mountain Blvd.; placed two properties on McVey on the market; discussed the water project with the Tigard City Council; discussed utility rates; and adopted code amendments related to invasive trees. He indicated that the Council had found the Transportation System Plan (TSP) funding proposal needed more work because it was more than they were willing to pay; they were about to hold the public hearing on the Streetcar/Foothills project and the Streetcar survey had come out. During questioning he recalled the joint water project target budget was $230 million and Tigard was responsible for the larger percentage of it. 5. MINUTES 5.1 August 22, 2011 Commissioner Johnson moved to adopt the Minutes of August 22, 2011. Commissioner Jones seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. 5.2 October 10, 2011 Commissioner Jones moved to accept the Minutes of October 10, 2011 as revised by Commissioner Prager. Vice Chair Bhutani seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of November 28, 2011 Page 2 of 8 6. WORK SESSIONS 6.1 Comprehensive Plan Update (PP 10-0007). Review and discussion of preliminary background reports for inspiring spaces and places and complete neighborhoods and housing action areas. Ms. Selden and the Commissioners discussed components of the November 17, 2011 staff report. Process and Schedule Staff advised that the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) and the Planning Commission were to collaborate on updating Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. They explained that if the CAC and the Commission did not agree on something, staff would document each recommendation and present them as options at the public hearing. Staff indicated that ultimately it was the Commission that would forward a recommendation to the Council. Councilor Moncrieff, chair of the CAC, discussed the relationship between the CAC and the Commission. She explained that the CAC had been formed to be a boots on the ground feedback loop between the Planning Commission, other city groups, neighborhoods and a broad swath of the community throughout the process. She appreciated the Commissioners’ helpful suggestions about how to improve the summits. She stressed it was important that they be comfortable with the process because the Commission would be the big champion of the Comprehensive Plan and that it had to be the people’s plan to be successful. Summit Format Chair Gustafson and Vice Chair Bhutani had attended the first summit on the topic Community Culture. Chair Gustafson had already shared his concerns about it with the CAC. Commissioner Prager had emailed some concerns he had about the process. Vice Chair Bhutani talked about what she thought had worked well and what had not worked as well at the summit. She saw a need to achieve more even participation; to get more comments; to diffuse influence of dominant personalities; and to integrate use of written comments in the workshop. Her suggestions were to continue to break up into focus areas, but have staff give a short introduction to each topic and what feedback they were looking for; let the participants each either talk to staff or write comments down themselves; and have something next to each focus area where a participant interested in knowing more could write his/her email address. Vice Chair Bhutani explained that staff would use the email list to notify them about CAC or Planning Commission meetings. She indicated that participants should be able to write comments during the event, not as an afterthought after the workshop and there should be enough staff at each focus area to provide information to participants when they needed it. Commissioner Gaar asked how the format had been chosen. Ms. Selden recalled participants at the previous visioning workshops had liked that format. She pointed out the CAC had also listed its suggestions for ways to improve future summits. Chair Gustafson noted some of the things he and Vice Chair Bhutani had suggested were on the list. Ms. Selden related there had been facilitator training prior to the first event, but staff planned to improve the training. Commissioner Johnson advised some people did not want to take the time to write comments, they just wanted to voice their comment and leave and some were not comfortable speaking in a group, but would write comments. He added that some wanted to think about what they heard and comment later. Chair Gustafson recalled City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of November 28, 2011 Page 3 of 8 hearing people make comments that did not make it to the facilitator or on the board. He recalled the comment forms took time to fill out. He also noted that some of the questions that were being asked were fairly tough and that ample space was not provided to respond. He suggested the forms be simplified. Commissioner Johnson suggested one issue to be addressed could be that verbal comments were not getting recorded correctly. Vice Chair Bhutani suggested offering participants a choice of writing comments or interacting with staff, who would write them down. She was not sure literally recording the comments would work in the summit format. Commissioner Gaar advised his experience was there should be a recorder as well as a strong facilitator. He advised there had not been enough people to facilitate tables at the summit and he was certain there were members of other boards and commissions who had that ability if the City could not afford professional facilitators. Commissioner Johnson cautioned that using professional facilitators made people think the process was being driven by staff - not the public. He suggested the public might find the next summit topics more engaging than Community Culture and there might be a higher level of public involvement. Community Culture Results Ms. Selden confirmed there had been a spike in online comments a few days after the summit with a total of over 3,500 comments provided by 178 people. She said the results were being compiled and would be ready in time for the December 14 CAC meeting and the December 13 Council update. Councilor Moncrieff advised the Commissioners to keep in mind people had an opportunity to submit comments online through the virtual summit, but it was not a statistically valid survey. Relationship Between the CAC and Planning Commission Commissioner Jones asked what the hierarchy was, if the relationship was collaborative with the CAC drafting the goals and policies was the Planning Commission rubber stamping the CAC recommendation? Councilor Moncrieff explained collaboration meant the CAC and Commission were to stay in touch to ensure everyone’s feedback was incorporated in the process as it moved forward, that the Planning Commission was not a rubber stamp. Commissioner Jones indicated he wanted to avoid a situation where each body sent a separate recommendation to the City Council. He held it was the purview of the Planning Commission to send a single document to the City Council. He was concerned about whether the Commission would have enough time to spend on the January draft. Commissioner Johnson saw the issue as primarily a work load issue, that Periodic Review was such a big project the Commission could not get it done alone, it needed help. He recalled that in the past the Commission formed work groups to help it do its work and that this time the Council formed the CAC to help. He explained that the CAC was also responsible for bringing together all the other bodies and that ultimately it would be the Planning Commission that would make the recommendation to the Council. He noted that other groups could still tell the Council if they disagreed with the Commission recommendation. Commissioner Gaar recalled the past when projects were done in isolated groups and other stakeholders did not get the information until late and were left behind. He supported a collaborative process in which the various groups were pulled together by the CAC and things were funneled through the CAC. He indicated that there would be no silo-like isolation or tug of wars that the CAC would forward its recommendation to the Planning Commission and the Commission would forward its recommendation to the City Council. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of November 28, 2011 Page 4 of 8 Vice Chair Bhutani observed that the CAC widened public outreach. She questioned whether there really needed to be two feedback loops for each topic (CAC to Planning Commission to CAC to Planning Commission) and if that could all be done within the six month timeline. She recalled Commissioner Prager had suggested the Commission not send something back to the CAC when the there were no big controversies to be addressed. Chair Gustafson saw benefits to having a system that offered feedback loops that could be used when they were needed. He recalled Commissioner Prager’s comments about the Planning Commission working with staff instead of the CAC. He observed the Commissioners had opportunities to provide input as individual citizens, individual Commissioners, or as the Planning Commission as a whole. Commissioner Johnson advised that the legislative process would allow the Commissioners to touch base with staff as a group or as individuals. He said that Lake Oswego was fortunate enough to have the citizenry and the resources to not rely on a totally staff driven draft. Commissioner Glisson supported the process, it seemed sound and it offered synergy, having the loops was important. She indicated that the CAC would do the work of formulating the goals and policies and offer an additional perspective. She said it could work on balancing aspects the Planning Commission did not consider. She noted that the time frame was tight enough and should not be any tighter. New Issues Protocol Framework Commissioner Gaar recalled the CAC had recognized a need to have a new issues protocol that would keep the process open to new issues and ideas. Commissioner Glisson trusted that the CAC would be able to let the Planning Commission work on items that were truly land use related. Commissioner Johnson agreed it could. He recalled there had been times when he and Commissioner Gaar had alerted the CAC that it was straying off into things like school board policy. Chair Gustafson recalled Commissioner Prager saw the need to track each new issue that came up. Ms. Selden confirmed the CAC had talked about receiving it, discussing how to move forward with it, and responding to the person who suggested it to let him/her know it would be appropriately considered. She explained that the CAC would mention the new issues that did not make it into the goals and policies draft that it forwarded to the Planning Commission hearing, so the community did not lose sight of them. Feedback on Next Two Summit Topics  Inspiring Spaces & Places (Goal 2: Land Use and Goal 14: Urbanization)  Complete Neighborhoods & Housing (Goal 10: Housing) Suggested policy questions and draft background reports on these topics were attached to the staff memorandum. Ms. Selden asked for feedback. The Commissioners examined the policy questions related to urbanization. Commissioner Jones wanted to know why the community should be concerned about owner-initiated annexations. Mr. Egner explained current practice was to wait for an owner to initiate annexation, but existing Comprehensive Plan policy called for the City to annex islands. Commissioner Johnson suggested the City needed to think about having policies related to urbanization of the region, not just Lake Oswego. He suggested that the policies could address things like regional allocation of growth; for example, if Lake Oswego did not want to grow into Stafford did it want to protect farmland there? He recommended that it adopt and then defend its policy. Commissioner Gaar agreed. He suggested discussing whether the City wanted to grow its employment centers; have people working in Lake Oswego who did not live there; and have a transportation system that City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of November 28, 2011 Page 5 of 8 would bring them to work in the City’s vacant commercial spaces. He noted that it would improve the tax base. Commissioner Glisson cautioned that staff should also help people understand what the impacts of that would be. The Commissioners examined the draft Inspiring Spaces & Places document. Ms. Selden reported the public was asking when the process was going to talk about low impact development or green building. She indicated that it seemed to fit in this section. Commissioner Johnson agreed the community needed to look at things like sustainable form, but he did not believe Goal 2 was the right place for it, Goal 2 was about legal process and this part of the Plan would inform the code. He agreed with Commissioner Gaar this was the right place for the sustainability framework. Chair Gustafson asked staff to try to get the public’s thoughts on it, and make sure it was put in the right spot. Ms. Selden invited the Commissioners to submit any additional comments and questions in time for them to be sent out in the CAC meeting packet. The Planning Commission took a five minute break and reconvened for the next work session at 8:00 p.m. 6.2 Boones Ferry Road Plan Implementation (LU 11-0040) Update and discussion of plan and code amendments to implement the Boones Ferry Road Refinement Study. Mr. Egner discussed the November 23, 2011 staff report and a sheet of questions related to the recommended amendments. The staff report listed and discussed the eight advisory committee recommendations. Mr. Egner said the City was about to put a version of the proposed map and plan amendments together for the public notice, and for the required notice to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) and Metro. Mr. Egner focused on the proposed language related to Applicability – Exceptions. He said these provisions offered exceptions to properties that would become nonconforming because they would need to give up site area for right-of-way. Mr. Egner asked if the Commission generally agreed with the exceptions approach; what the trigger should be; and if the exceptions should be ongoing. He asked if exceptions should only be used in situations where the City condemned or purchased right-of-way (not where the owner dedicated right-of-way); and if the exceptions should be applied just along Boones Ferry Road or citywide (as Commissioner Prager had suggested in an email). Commissioner Johnson cautioned that the code should not exempt property that was already nonconforming for reasons that had nothing to do with giving up land for the new right-of-way. He asked staff to clearly define “redevelopment” so it would not mean maintenance activity, such as re-roofing or installing new windows. Mr. Boone said that redevelopment would involve an intensification of use that put enough increased demand on the transportation system that it justified an exaction (required dedication) of additional right-of-way from the developer. He and Mr. Egner confirmed that the Lake Grove Shopping Center redevelopment was an example of intensification of use but the new paint store façade change was not. Commissioner Jones suggested it was only fair to allow an already nonconforming property to have exceptions if the road project made it even more nonconforming. Mr. Boone and Mr. Egner stated under the proposed exceptions code, the right-of-way area lost would continue to be factored into calculations of lot coverage and landscaping. Commissioner Jones wanted to know if similar exceptions had been allowed before and if applying them citywide would be a problem. Staff recalled the City had acquired some right-of-way in a previous Boones Ferry Road widening project. They advised that applying the exceptions to a residential parcel that was just large enough before the City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of November 28, 2011 Page 6 of 8 dedication to be split into two, minimum sized R-7.5 lots would essentially be equivalent to reducing the minimum lot size requirement. They indicated it was not a big issue in commercial zones, which did not typically have a lot size requirement. Chair Gustafson suggested that if the code offered exemptions for property along Boones Ferry Road it should offer them to all property owners. Mr. Egner suggested considering making the change along Boones Ferry Road now and considering whether it should be a blanket policy change during the TSP update process. Commissioner Glisson wanted to learn what the potential impact of citywide application would be on affected properties as there might be unintended consequences. Vice Chair Bhutani anticipated there might be some sites that had more parking than they needed today and would not need the exception when the right-of-way was widened. She asked if an analysis had been done. Mr. Egner recalled about 50 parking spaces would be impacted and that they were scattered along the entire length of the corridor. Vice Chair Bhutani suggested that if the exceptions were compensation for land taken away from current uses, the exceptions should go away when a site was redeveloped. Chair Gustafson was concerned that might be a disincentive for redevelopment. Mr. Boone reiterated that “redevelopment” was related to intensification of use. He questioned allowing the exceptions for dedications because it was the property owner’s voluntary decision to intensify the use to the point he had to dedicate land to mitigate for additional traffic impacts. He suggested the exceptions should apply when the City purchased the right-of-way because the property owner did not intend to give it away. Commissioner Johnson recalled the concept underlying nonconforming use policy was to eventually bring the property into conformity. He and Commissioner Jones advocated treating both types of owners equally. Mr. Egner planned to present language for both options at the public hearing. He indicated that the draft would allow ongoing exceptions to continue with the property (meaning that the lost square footage would carry forward with the property). He clarified that the Commissioners could change that at the hearing if they decided to. He confirmed that the draft would apply the exceptions to the Boones Ferry Road corridor with the option to apply it later in other places. The Commission then addressed the issue of sidewalk widening. Mr. Egner said that this section was proposed to address the fact that the plan proposed narrower sidewalks in certain constrained areas. Locations included the music store and lumber sites. Staff proposed that a code trigger be established to require the narrow sidewalks be widened to 9 feet. Commissioner Johnson suggested it could be an increase in the intensity of the use or square footage. Chair Gustafson invited public testimony. Mike Buck recalled the advisory committee had been concerned about the impact of street widening on the parking as well as on the buildings in the constrained areas. They had made exceptions for many sites including the Chevron and Bank of America businesses. He suggested the Commissioners should consider making parking impacts a threshold. Carolyn Krebs suggested the Commissioners consider requiring wider sidewalks when development requires more parking. Commissioner Jones asked how wide the narrowest part of the sidewalk along State Street was and how staff came up with the amount, $100,000. Mr. Egner recalled the sidewalk might be about five feet, plus a planter area. He explained the $100,000 was just a placeholder amount. Commissioner Jones advocated using a percentage in value trigger instead of a dollar amount, given that the dollar amount could change with inflation. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of November 28, 2011 Page 7 of 8 The Commissioners did not direct Mr. Egner to put any particular trigger in the draft code. Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Egner to clarify “redevelopment” in the code. Mr. Egner acknowledged the recommendation related to access coordination was controversial and he anticipated there would be public testimony about it. He said he would schedule the public hearing in January. Ms. Krebs referred to page 2 of the staff report where it related that the Council had provided direction on the recommendations. She said she had been at the meeting and had not heard that direction. She reported the neighborhood did not support putting a signal at Madrona. They would propose a compromise at 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 which had been identified as having policy implications. At this session the Commissioners began on page 120 and covered the following articles:  Article 50.42 Weak Foundation Soils  Article 50.43 Hillside Protection  Article 50.45 Building Design  Article 50.55 Parking  Article 50.65 Downtown Redevelopment District Design Standards  Article 50.68 Variances  Article 50.70 Non-Conforming Uses and Structures  Article 50.79 Types of Development and Review Criteria for Each Type of Development Chair Gustafson opened the hearing and asked the Commissioners to highlight provisions they wanted to talk about. Article 50.42.010, Weak Foundation Soils Section 50.42.010 Standards for Approval Commissioner Jones asked why “density to be reduced” was struck. Mr. Boone explained the code anticipated engineers’ structural solutions to weak foundation soil would address the problem. Article 50.45 Building Design Section 50.45.010 Standards for Approval Commissioner Jones noted that (i) which was related to views would be struck. He asked if an owner who had a view should expect that the view would remain. Mr. Boone advised that property rights were not based on the first in time to develop his property. He related that staff had not been applying this provision due to the difficulty of administering what a “desirable view” was. Commissioner Johnson differentiated between protecting the public view and protecting a particular neighbor’s view where a neighbor might seek to buy the lot to protect his view. When asked, he confirmed that the City had view corridors, but it needed to go through the Goal 5 process to determine if they were significant enough to be protected by code. Staff advised that the City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of November 28, 2011 Page 8 of 8 Downtown Redevelopment Design District standards called for protecting a view corridor towards Mt. Hood and Lakewood Bay to the extent possible, but did not require that. Chair Gustafson observed a consensus to agree to the proposed change. Commissioner Johnson moved to continue Ordinance 2526, LU 08-0054 to January 23, 2012. Commissioner Glisson seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. 8. OTHER BUSINESS – PLANNING COMMISSION None. 9. OTHER BUSINESS – COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT None. 10. SCHEDULE REVIEW The Commissioners planned to continue with ordinance 2526, LU 08-0054 on January 23 starting with Parking Standards on page 128. 11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Chair Gustafson adjourned the meeting at 9:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Iris McCaleb /s/ Iris McCaleb Administrative Support