Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2004-02-23 , 1703 -'W07 LAKE os-- , gpoomEo_--- ----0, E i �, -kz City of Lake Oswego �' , $fir$ \ Planning Commission Mi rits \\, _ February 23, 2004 / L E ,.„_0..0,4 I. CALL TO ORDER Commissioner Dan Vizzini called the Planning Commission meeting of February 23, 2004 to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 380 A Avenue Lake Oswego, Oregon. Commissioner Webster moved to appoint Commissioner Vizzini as acting chair during the absence of the chair and vice chair. Commissioner Stayer seconded the motion and it passed with Commissioners Coffey, Stayer, Vizzini and Webster voting yes. Chair James Johnson, Vice Chair Groznik and Commissioner Ken Sandblast were not present. II. ROLL CALL Commission members present were Vice Chair Frank Groznik* and Commissioners Mary Beth Coffey, Mark Stayer, Daniel Vizzini and Alison Webster. Chair James Johnson and Commissioner Kenneth Sandblast were excused. Staff present were Stephan Lashbrook, Community Development Director; Sidaro Sin, Assistant Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Iris Treinen, Senior Secretary. III. CITIZEN COMMENT None. IV. GENERAL PLANNING— WORK SESSION P 02-0001, Outlook 2025—Project Priorities Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He reviewed a matrix that reflected the Commission's desire to sort projects according to goal and to include goal- related short and long-term projects. Acting Chair Vizzini agreed that implementation of existing neighborhood plans and creation of a new neighborhood planning process should be short-term projects. He recalled that both the City Council and the Lake Oswego Neighborhood Action City of Lake Oswego Page 1 of 7 planning Commission Minutes of February 23, 2004 • Coalition (LONAC) had indicated thos. tasks should be given high priority, and the Council had decided to establish a Ay neighborhood planning staff position. He suggested that a "short term project" be defined as a task that could be accomplished within the current calendar year; a "medium term project" would be one that could be accomplished within three years; and a "long range project" would be one that could take five years or longer to complete. He also suggested that the Commission plan to complete at least one neighborhood plan per year. Commissioner Coffey and Stephan Lashbrook, Community Development Director, related that there were still transportation issues to be worked out in the Foothills District, and that might be a short-term task because the City was hearing from developers interested in developing that area. Acting Chair Vizzini emphasized that commercial/industrial and residential lands inventories were critical tools that should be created in the next two years and used to address edge, core and beach head issues related to zone change requests. Mr. Lashbrook clarified that the City was now a member of the National Streetcar Coalition and references to "Trolley" would be changed to "Streetcar." He noted that the City's system was to link to the City of Portland's Streetcar system. The Commissioners agreed to continue their discussion of the matrix at their March 8th meeting in order to allow absent Commissioners to participate in the discussion of projects. P 03-0003, East End/Commercial Zone Changes Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager, had prepared Community Development Department Memorandum, "East. End/Commercial Zone Changes — Update," dated February 17, 2004. Because Mr. Egner was not able to attend the work session, Chair Vizzini directed the staff to reschedule this agenda item. P 02-0012, Affordable Housing Stephan Lashbrook, Community Development Director, presented the staff report. He reported that the City's annual "Affordable Housing"report to Metro had been filed. He recalled that Metro had considered, but not adopted mandates for affordable housing in the Metro Functional Plan. Instead, they required that all cities and counties in the region consider strategies and report back to Metro. He reported that the City Council had held several work sessions on the subject during the past two years, and they had agreed that the Planning Commission should consider an affordable housing strategy and implementation steps that could be included in the Comprehensive Plan. *Vice Chair Frank Groznik joined the meeting. Mr. Lashbrook pointed out that the staff report listed seven tools that might be used to achieve affordable housing goals. He explained that Metro defined "Affordable Housing" as housing available to low to moderate income households (determined as 30% - 50%, 50% - 80% and 80% - 120% of the area's medium income level households) that cost them no more than 30% of their income. He noted that could mean that someone making 120% of medium income could be considered a target for affordable housing. The Commissioners asked him to describe each tool, and he responded as follows: City of Lake Oswego Page 2 of 7 Planning Commission Minutes of February 23,2004 Density bonus: To allow more units per acre than would normally be allowed on a site if the units would be available to targeted income groups. Replacement housing: To address situations where currently affordable housing is torn down in order to build replacement housing. Also to address situations where "affordable"rental units were converted to condominiums. Inclusionary housing: To offer incentives to encourage inclusion of affordable housing units in housing developments. He advised that under Oregon law it was illegal to mandate that a percentage of affordable units were to be included in a development. Transfer of development rights: To transfer development rights from one location to another. He explained that the City already used this tool to transfer density within a site (e.g., to outside of a protected resource area). He explained that he would not recommend allowing a transfer to a receiving location anywhere in the City (due to the administrative burden); however, it might a good tool to be able to transfer development rights to a receiving location on an adjacent property, or somewhere nearby. He noted such transfers would require a determination of the appropriate density of the receiving site. Elderly and people with disabilities: He observed the Code already recognized that certain facilities for elderly and disabled warranted different standards. Local regulatory constraints, discrepancies in codes, permitting or approval process: To look for opportunities during periodic review of the Comprehensive Plan where liberalizing or making "housekeeping" changes to current standards and processes would promote affordable housing. For example, lot size averaging - currently allowed in Planned Developments - might also be allowed for partitions or subdivisions. Parking: To allow reduced parking standards for facilities that warrant it, such as facilities for the elderly and disabled. Mr. Lashbrook related that the City Council had asked the staff and the Planning Commission to consider whether the City could be doing more to promote affordable housing. He recommended against using fee waivers to encourage affordable housing. He anticipated that the Council would appoint a task force to present recommendations to the Planning Commission. He advised the City (as well as other jurisdictions in the Metro area) was not able to meet a requirement to establish a five-year goal for years 2001 — 2006, but the City could work on a second requirement to establish a goal for 2017. Commissioner Vizzini calculated from census data that most residents of Lake Oswego would qualify as affordable housing targets. He stressed that the City should be looking not just at opportunities for affordable housing, but also at creating an entire social network to support the targeted groups. Mr. Lashbrook recalled that the City Council had discussed what levels of income should be targeted and acknowledged that City City of Lake Oswego Page 3 of 7 Planning Commission Minutes of February 23,2004 employees, School District employees, first time home buyers, and many employees of local businesses could not afford to live in Lake Oswego. When the Commissioners asked what would happen if the city did not meet its affordable housing targets, he anticipated that Metro would be pressured into mandating affordable housing targets in the future by people who were not satisfied by local jurisdictions' responses to the issue. P 04-0001, Improving the Public Involvement Process Stephan Lashbrook, Community Development Director, presented the staff report. He observed that many of the ideas listed in the report fell into general categories of how to inform the public before a public hearing and how the public hearing was configured and conducted. He reported the staff had changed the public hearing seating arrangement so that they did not have their backs to the audience. He reported that a staff person was reviewing technical reports to look for ways to make them more understandable. He explained that the public address system had been improved and the staff had decided to show more slide presentations. He suggested trying a process where a pre-selected neighborhood association (or LONAC) representative would be invited to attend pre-application meetings. He suggested that a staff person could be assigned to attend a neighborhood/developer meeting to act as ombudsman and educate the neighbors about the land use review process. He recalled public confusion about the City's role in an expedited land division process. He suggested ways to make the hearing sequence, motion and vote more understandable to the audience by taking time at the beginning of a hearing to explain the process and criteria for a decision, moving to public testimony more quickly, and leaving the most technical discussion of criteria for the latter part of the hearing. He posed an alternative procedure to break up a hearing into a land use approval phase and a design review phase. The Commissioners stressed the neighborhood representatives should receive some training regarding the land use review procedure. The Commissioners recalled that the City had changed the roles of the Planning Commission and the Development Review Commission (DRC) a few years ago. They acknowledged that it might make more sense to some for the Planning Commission to decide the land use aspect of an application and then for the DRC to review the design; or for the Planning Commission to focus on long term planning (as they did when they addressed long term care housing and related locational criteria), while the DRC applied the current standards to specific applications. Mr. Boone recalled that some solutions leading to Conditional Use approval involved changes in design components. He recalled that the public had been confused about what testimony was allowed in which hearing in a case where the DRC approved the design before the Planning Commission approved the zone change. Mr. Lashbrook related that some jurisdictions with a heavy workload hired a hearings officer; some jurisdictions allowed most decisions to be made at the staff level; and he was aware of one jurisdiction that had two Development Review Commissions as well as a Planning Commission. He observed the Commissioners' workload would be increased if the Commission were made responsible for hearing all land use issues before the DRC considered the design. The Commissioners related their experience conducting public hearings in other venues. Commissioner Vizzini explained that he solicited audience questions and issues and City of Lake Oswego Page 4 of 7 Planning Commission Minutes of February 23,2004 wrote them on the board prior to or at the beginning of a hearing. Vice Chair Groznik related that he was used to a collaborative process in which stakeholders were involved in and allowed to express their positions early in the process. Mr. Lashbrook suggested that issues aired at a neighborhood/developer meeting should be listed in the staff report. He and Vice Chair Groznik acknowledged that sometimes there was no record of what was discussed in those meetings. Mr. Lashbrook suggested that because traffic was often a contentious issue, the City might retain a traffic consultant (with the cost to be reimbursed by applicants) who would make recommendations to be considered during the pre-application process. He confirmed that the City did not yet have a traffic model (used by Metro and in some other jurisdictions) that would require a specific LOS for specific circumstances. He also suggested that developers might be required to post a weatherproof plan of a proposed development on their site; or the City might post the proposed plan on the City's website. He anticipated that electronic permit approvals would be issued and electronic inspection results would be posted on the website in the future. He acknowledged that although City Hall was cramped for space, there might be ways to configure the departments so the staff was more accessible to the public. He suggested videotaped explanations of the hearings process could be made available to the public and neighborhood associations. Commissioners Webster and Vizzini offered to provide him with examples of material distributed by other organizations describing what to expect during a hearing. Mr. Lashbrook described an idea for a"common sense permit" that would provide a simple process for applications involving a single-family dwelling. The project would be approved if notice had been given to the neighbors; the neighbors and the staff were ok with it; and no one objected in writing during a 14-day comment period. He noted that process resembled the infill alternative review process. He and the Commissioners agreed one staff member should play "devil's advocate" and represent the larger interests of the City. Mr. Lashbrook related Dennis Egner's suggestion to solicit public comments both early and at the end of meetings and study sessions. He said he planned to also discuss the list of ideas with the DRC and LONAC. He advised that the Commissioners - acting as the Commission for Citizen Involvement (CCI) - could recommend ideas to the City Council. The Commissioners generally agreed that it would be beneficial to present the ideas to LONAC and at meetings of other civic groups. Public Comment Sherri, Finnigan, 128 Condolea Dr., Lake Oswego, 97035, related that she had served on the Planning Commission from 1989 through 1995, when that body met twice a month, but a planning session was rare because the Commissioners were kept busy deciding variances and conditional use permits. She reported that the LONAC executive board had recently discussed public experience at hearings for two residential care facilities and they planned to request that the Planning Commission be made responsible for deciding conditional use permits. She explained that they did not believe the DRC understood the conditional use process. She indicated she supported the idea of a City traffic engineer because if the City was the client, the traffic expert might make a greater effort to present a clear and understandable report. She indicated she favored the idea of educating neighborhood representatives about the hearings City of Lake Oswego Page 5 of 7 Planning Commission Minutes of February 23,2004 process and having a staff representative (other than the staff person assigned to help the developer) at the neighborhood/developer meeting. She observed that many people simply did not understand the land use process. She reported that developers sometimes did not report issues raised by neighbors at the meeting. Mr. Lashbrook clarified for Ms. Finnigan that state law required all cities to have a CCI, but it did not require them to have a Planning Commission. Ms. Finnigan endorsed the ideas for improving public involvement listed in the staff report. John Pullen, 18 Britten Ct., Lake Oswego, 97035, agreed that the Community Development Director had presented excellent ideas. He reported that people who wanted to testify at a hearing found it frustrating when they attended a hearing and heard that the applicant had been granted a continuance at the last minute. He opined that the DRC was allowing too many continuances. Mr. Boone recalled that the DRC had empowered the chair to grant a continuance outside of a meeting so the applicant would not have to have his entire team at the meeting in case the continuance was not granted. He observed that unless there had already been one hearing where interested parties had testified, there was no way for the City to know whom to notify in the event of a continuance. He suggested an interested person might call the staff prior to the hearing, or the City might put such notices on its website. The staff advised that although state statutes required a decision to be made in 120 days, if the applicant requested a continuance in writing that time would not be subtracted from the 120-day period. However, the DRC chair, or the mayor, could decline to grant the continuance. They confirmed that the applicant could withdraw the application, but that could mean they would have to restart the entire process and address any Code changes that happened since the application was first filed. Mr. Pullen explained that people resented DRC authority to grant Conditional Uses because the DRC consisted of architects and landscapers and not persons who understood land use regulations. He said they would prefer to see the Planning Commission make Conditional Use decisions. Commissioner Vizzini opined that the underlying problem was not which body was more likely to deny or approve a conditional use application, but that people did not understand that the decision was to be based on specific criteria and their testimony and evidence had to address that criteria. Matt Finnigan, 128 Condolea Dr., Lake Oswego, 97035, indicated he supported the process to improve public involvement. He suggested that the ideas be presented to the Chamber of Commerce as well as LONAC. City of Lake Oswego Page 6 of 7 Planning Commission Minutes of February 23,2004 V. OTHER BUSINESS LU 03-0079, Findings, Conclusions and Order —Permitted Uses in the Waterfront Cabana Zone Commissioner Vizzini commented that the Findings highlighted important issues for the City Council. Commissioner Stayer moved to adopt LU 03-0079, Findings, Conclusions and Order. Commissioner Webster seconded the motion and it passed with Vice Chair Groznik and Commissioners Coffey, Stayer, Vizzini and Webster voting yes. Chair Johnson and Commissioner Sandblast were not present. There were no votes against. Long Term Care Housing The Commissioners wondered whether the time and care with which they had crafted locational criteria for long term care facilities was for naught in the light of the public's rejection of two recent applications for residential care facilities. Mr. Boone recommended they wait to decide whether to consider changes to the regulations until after the DRC decided one of the projects that had been remanded to them. He recalled the public had been concerned about the design of the Avamere project and about residential use (instead of commercial use) and the design of the 2" Street and B Avenue project. Vice Chair Groznik observed that the public attitude seemed to be at odds with trends toward infill development, affordable housing and density requirements. He suggested the Planning Commissioners consider that during periodic review of the Comprehensive Plan. VI. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business before the Planning Commission, Vice Chair Groznik adjourned the meeting at 8:24 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Iris Treinen Senior Secretary City of Lake Oswego Page 7 of 7 Planning Commission Minutes of February 23.2004