Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2004-06-28 LusbDucjirm rU r LI LJr1E )11‘ City of Lake Oswego T O (--- at-_) 1 ( 1 Planning Commission Minutes .,0,4r5:1.:10,°:„--1":// June 28, 2004 I. CALL TO ORDER CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Frank Groznik called the Planning Commission meeting of June 28, 2004 to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 380 A Avenue Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Commission members present were Vice Chair Groznik and Commissioners Mary Beth Coffey, Daniel Vizzini and Alison Webster. Commissioners Kenneth Sandblast and Mark Stayer were excused. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Susan Millhauser, Associate Planner; Debra Andreades, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Iris Treinen, Administrative Support. III. CITIZEN COMMENT None. IV. GENERAL PLANNING—WORK SESSION P 01-0002, Lake Grove Village Center Implementation Advisory Committee Update Susan Millhauser,Associate Planner, updated the Commissioners regarding the work of the Lake Grove Village Center(LGVC) Implementation Advisory Committee. She reported that since the Committee had last reported to the Planning Commission (in January 2004) they had completed Task 1, except for defining"mixed use," and they were working on Tasks 2 and 3, to review existing regulations and to suggest zoning and design standards. She said they had identified "hot topics" and were holding work sessions to consider options to address them. She reported they were constantly updating their draft Consensus Summary and a draft zoning map and committee members were soliciting feedback from their constituents. She related the Committee had formed a subcommittee to suggest architectural design standards that would reflect "village" character. Members of the Committee then discussed aspects of their work. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 1 of 8 Minutes of June 28,2004 Julia Glisson, the representative from the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association, discussed the June 24, 2004 draft Consensus Summary. She reported that Committee members had agreed the plan should provide a transition in the town center from larger- scale buildings along Boones Ferry Road to smaller-scale buildings adjacent to the neighborhoods. They had also agreed to require parking at the rear or side of a lot, or along the street where there were commercial or mixed-uses if the street was wide enough. She related that Committee members were still considering methods to address maximum height in a manner that would avoid a "canyon-like effect" along Boones Ferry Road, but they generally agreed that there should be a minimum height limit that would convey pedestrian scale. She reported they were considering whether to continue to allow three-story buildings along Boones Ferry Road; they were considering a requirement to step development back as its height increased; and they were discussing whether to tie allowable height to lot size, so that taller buildings had to be on larger lots. Ms. Glisson reported that the Committee wanted to see varied building heights and rooflines along the corridor. Lang Bates, a Committee member and architect, explained that a minimum height limit was a generally recognized urban planning tool used to create a sense of"human scale." He said it was typically a factor of the building-to-building separation distance of buildings across a roadway. He advised that such a regulation would help ensure that the Boones Ferry Road corridor did not look like McLaughlin Boulevard. Ms. Glisson reported that the Committee was discussing what uses to limit and how to distribute them on larger and smaller streets based on the intensity of use. She reported they had agreed to prohibit "big box" retail (single use larger than 35,000 sq. ft.) because their size, parking needs, traffic generation and target market would not reflect "village" character. She reported they might decide to limit "auto-oriented uses," but had not yet defined that term. She anticipated that the Committee would suggest some sort of community facility project because that was a high priority for the neighborhoods. She pointed out several "opportunity sites" on the map that featured large lot size, and good access and visibility. The sites were the Wizer's shopping center parcel; a portion of the elementary school property; the Pacific Lumber and Mercantile Village parcels; and land in the northwest corner of the intersection of Boones Ferry Road and Kruse Way. Ms. Glisson reported that although the planning group wanted to apply design standards that promoted the "village" concept, they might not want them to be as restrictive as those adopted for the West Lake Grove Design District. She said they wanted to see a gateway entry at each end of the corridor and a central commons public gathering spot. She said they might hold a community design contest to find the right image to promote the town center. Ms. Glisson reported they were discussing regulations to protect the natural resources within the District, particularly its Douglas fir trees, and they were discussing incentives to encourage development using "green streets" techniques. She said they envisioned a day-lighted creek through Mercantile Village. She explained that the Committee City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 2 of 8 Minutes of June 28,2004 supported the concept of mixed-use development, but they wanted to use incentives, rather than regulations, to encourage it. She said they felt that housing could be above or in the rear (particularly near the neighborhoods) on a mixed-use site. She said they hoped that R-0 zoned land would remain R-0 to preserve existing housing units. Ms. Glisson indicated that they wanted to create connected sidewalks and pathways that would encourage people to park at the rear of one business and then walk to other businesses. She pointed out areas along the edges of the town center where the boundary still had to be defined. Mr. Bates explained that Committee members had found it a challenge to work within the Boone Ferry Road Corridor Plan because it divided the Village Center and the neighborhoods; it presented a challenge to access both sides of the roadway; and it was not pedestrian friendly. He reported a general consensus to further investigate "turning intersections" that would facilitate U-turns. He illustrated how that could be achieved within the existing width of the right-of-way and he advised that the median could be designed according to "green street" concepts so it would also help to manage storm water runoff. He listed four types of vehicles that would not be able to maneuver the U- turn. He noted the proposal would provide pedestrians with more opportunities to cross the roadway. Carolyn Krebs, the Lake Forest Neighborhood representative and member of the Architectural Design Subcommittee, related that Subcommittee members wanted to allow diverse architectural design styles and features that would provide variety to the village center. She presented a series of photographs and pointed out types of architectural elements that could present "village" character and pedestrian scale. She said the Subcommittee would need more time to consider design elements. Mr. Egner reported that the Committee had decided to keep the "General Commercial" zoning designation for commercial areas along the highway and not use "Business Corridor." He also anticipated that the recommendations would implement the prohibition against new "drive-through"businesses that were already in the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association Plan. He pointed out the draft zoning map had been modified so that the "Village Mixed Use" designation did not zone out some existing auto-oriented uses at corners and that the R-0 designation had been reinstated in most areas. Mr. Egner noted that "Village Mixed Use" would serve as a transitional zone. Ms. Millhauser anticipated the Planning Commission would hold another joint work session with the Committee in the fall. She advised that the project website tracked planning progress. Vice Chair Groznik thanked the staff and the Committee for their work. He then invited public comments. Public Comments Nick Bunick. 1575 Viewlake Ct.. Lake Oswego. 97034. related his experience as a developer in Westlake and areas along Kruse Way and Meadows Road. He stated that his family owned property at the corner of Kruse Way and Boones Ferry Road that was currently zoned Office Campus (OC). He explained that he had found it was almost City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 3 of 8 Minutes of June 28,2004 impossible to compete with the national company that controlled most of the developed and undeveloped commercial office property along Kruse Way. He said his family currently had the opportunity to develop their site for a 25,000 sq. ft. Barnes & Nobel bookstore that would likely average 38 feet in height. He said the use would be an asset for the City, and the business would not compete with any current existing business on Boones Ferry Road. He related that he planned to install a water feature near the intersection. He asked that the site's designation be changed from OC because that zone would only allow 6,000 sq. ft. of retail use. He reported that he had also presented his request to the Committee. Mr. Egner recalled an earlier version of the draft plan had suggested the site be designated "Business Corridor" (similar to General Commercial). He recalled the Committee had worried about the wide range of uses that GC zoning might allow on the site. He advised that the Community Development Code limited the Bunick site and the two adjacent parcels to a combined total of 20,000 sq. ft. of retail use. He explained that even though one adjacent property had already been developed with no retail use, that owner and the owner of the third parcel would have to convey to the Bunick's their rights to retail use if he was to be allowed to use all 20,000 sq. ft. in his development. Glenn Gregg. 10415 SW Terwilliger Place, Lake Oswego, 97034, stated that he owned the undeveloped parcel next to the Bunick parcel and that the Gregg and Bunick/Avery parcels totaled approximately 4.6 acres. He said the parcels could serve as the location of a gateway into the community. He said that he wanted to be allowed to use his site for offices, retail, or for a combination of the two uses. Cathy Shrover. 16727 Babson Place. Lake Oswego, 97035, Chair of the Lake Forest Neighborhood Association, thanked the Committee for their hard work. She said her Association did not want to see three-story(flat-roofed)buildings and they would prefer to see two-story (gabled) buildings that could function as if they had three stories. She pointed out that even though the Committee believed the West Lake Grove Design District (WLGDD) regulations were too restrictive, those regulations had not been strong enough to prevent development of the all-brick (similar to Kruse Way) buildings the WLGDD Advisory Committee had wanted to avoid. She cautioned the Committee to ensure their vision was actually implemented. She also recommended that the Committee work with the board of the Lake Grove Fire Station, and advise the board that their site might be included in the town center. One of the Committee members related that someone was discussing the town center with the Lake Grove Fire District board. The discussion then turned to the time line and budget. Commissioner Vizzini was concerned that the Committee might be slowed and become burned out working on design details and considering changes to the Boones Ferry Road Corridor Plan. He added these issues could be worked out in a later phase of the process. Vice Chair Groznik saw the importance of taking the time to create a viable plan. He observed the planning group had reached consensus on many aspects and they were making progress. The staff observed that the Committee's suggestion for the median could be made City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 4 of 8 Minutes of June 28,2004 consistent with the corridor plan. They advised, however, that there was no budget for the required technical studies. Commissioner Vizzini expressed concern that the suggested changes would impact traffic flow and safety and would not meet City, regional and state tests for transportation corridor plans and the standards for the current classification of Boones Ferry Road as an arterial street. He suggested that the Committee could insert its recommendation for re-modeling the Boones Ferry Road Corridor Plan as a Recommended Action Item so that effort would not delay the planning process. When an audience member asked what an "arterial street" was, he explained that the Street Classification System categorized streets in standard ranges of speeds and volume. Commissioner Vizzini also stressed the City had housing and employment targets to meet. Mr. Egner advised the housing and employment targets were applied to the entire City, including downtown and the Foothills District, and the City had some flexibility about where they were met. Vice Chair Groznik announced a five-minute recess and thereafter reconvened the meeting. P 02-0007.Lakefront Zoning Debra Andreades, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She addressed the high number of variance requests for lakefront properties and the pattern of redevelopment around the lake. She pointed out that the consultant to the City and the Lake Oswego Corporation had produced a Lakefront Zoning Study, which examined properties in the area from the lakefront to two blocks out from the lake. She noted that most variances were requested to side yard setbacks on lots zoned R-7.5, and that zone had the largest percentage of lots that were smaller than the minimum required by the zone. She suggested that since the lots had been platted before there were any zones, perhaps one new zone could be created that better fit lake area properties. She discussed Code changes that might be used to address the constraints of topography, other natural features, the floodplain and irregular and undersized lots. Commissioners examined the locations of undersized lots highlighted on maps on pages 9 and 10 of the consultant's report. It was noted that many Planned Developments (PD's) included more open space and smaller lot sizes. The Commissioners and the staff then focused on the lake setback. The staff advised that the Lake Oswego Corporation owned an inner ring of land around the lake and the City Code required a lake setback that created a second(25-foot wide), un-zoned ring of land around the lake where no development, except boathouses, were allowed. They observed that structures could be placed closer or had to be placed further away from the water line depending on whether the property line was located in the water or on land. They related that the Lake Oswego Corporation was willing to consider allowing more types of uses on their property than docks and boathouses, as long as someone else's view was not obstructed. They suggested that the lake setback might be moved from the property line to the water line or the 100-year flood line. They recalled that lakefront owners sometimes felt that their "front yard" was lakeside and their back yard City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 5 of 8 Minutes of June 28,2004 was the street side. They said their experience demonstrated that the Code needed to be clearer regarding what was allowed within the lakefront setback. They reported that property owners wanted to know why they could not get closer to the lake when they saw a large amount of land around the lake that they could not build anything on. The Commissioners discussed how the Infill Standards and Sloped Lot Standards might be applied to lake properties. They wondered if the Infill Standard that allowed a lower house to take up more of its lot might be reversed on the lakefront side of lots to encourage taller houses that were separated by sufficiently wide side yards to allow a view of the lake from the street. They observed that the rear wall plane standards that applied to the down slope side of houses on sloped lots might be applied also to the lakefront elevation of lakefront lots. The Commissioners asked if development should be allowed to be closer to the street if the highest mass of the building were pushed toward the lakeside. They asked if the classification of the street should be a factor in applying those setbacks. The Commissioners also asked if separation between buildings should be set in a manner that created view cones. When the staff reported that neighbors did not typically oppose a request for a variance, the Commissioners wondered if there was a lakefront culture that meant that residents were willing to accept close quarters in order to be on the water. The staff suggested that the reason they saw fewer requests for a variance to height might be because people assumed a setback variance was easier to get. They noted the Infill Standards allowed six-foot exceptions to the height limit for certain elements. Mr. Egner recalled the proposed Sloped Lot Standards applied rear wall plane and landscaping requirements to structures over 35 feet high on lots that sloped up from the street. He noted they allowed additional height up to 45 feet. The Commissioners questioned whether those standards would adequately address street side properties in the lake area. The staff reported that owners requesting variances often explained they had to build a larger house to justify the expense of the land. Mr. Boone observed that some owners of substandard lots argued that they had to obtain a variance to enjoy "reasonable use similar to like properties." Some Commissioners took the position that the owner of a substandard lot should have to build to Code on it, or consolidate lots in order to build a larger house. Mr. Boone reminded the Commissioners that if an owner could not build a house under the Code he could opt to go through the alternative residential design review process. However, he suggested that a new Class 1.5 Variance process might be more suited to requests for variances that stemmed from a plan for a small house addition. The Commissioners then discussed a staff suggestion to create a Lakefront Zoning Advisory Committee (LZAC). They considered whether the participants should represent neighborhoods or the consultant's focus areas. They decided the Committee should consist of twelve members, including eight lakefront property owners, one lake easement holder, and a builder, developer and realtor. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 6 of 8 Minutes of June 28,2004 The Commissioners saw a need to create a community vision for the lake. Mr. Egner observed that if the current redevelopment pattern around the lake continued the entire area would look like Lakeview Boulevard. The Commissioners wanted to know what the Lake Oswego Corporation envisioned for the future. They wanted to know if the current development pattern was acceptable to the lakefront community. They wanted to determine whom the lake was to serve — the lakefront community, or the broader community. Mr. Egner reported that at a well-attended public meeting, where the consultant presented the Lakefront Zoning Study, the participants had voiced many different perspectives. The Commissioners asked the staff to continue to solicit public input. They suggested the Chamber of Commerce might want to discuss the question. Some Commissioners recalled that the City Council had not adopted Planning Commission recommendations regarding citywide changes to the variance process because they were concerned about how that would impact the lakefront community. Staff agreed to draft a work program and present it at the next Commission meeting. P 04-0007. Variances and Adjustments Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, distributed copies of reports and findings from 1999 and 2000, when the Planning Commission discussed changes to the Variance process; his written analysis of the variance process; and information that described how the staff had interpreted variance factors since 1999. He also included material that described criteria used by the City of Portland. He asked the Commissioners to review the information before the next work session. He related that the Development Review Commission would also discuss the matter. V. OTHER BUSINESS LU 04-0002. Sloped Lots Commissioner Vizzini moved to anorove LU 04-0002-1547. Findings Conclusions and Order. Commissioner Coffey seconded the motion and it passed with Commissioners Coffey, Vizzini, Webster and Vice Chair Groznik voting yes. Commissioners Sandblast and Stayer were not present. There were no votes against. Future Meeting Agenda Mr. Egner suggested that the Commissioners conduct a"mobile"meeting on July 12, 2004, and travel to look at sites in the Portland metropolitan area. The Commissioners decided to elect new officers just prior to the bus tour. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 7 of 8 Minutes of June 28,2004 VI. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business before the Planning Commission, Vice Chair Groznik adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, td)--:-7,------,,,L,.e.),-4"...A.---x----- Ins Treinen Administrative Support III City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 8 of 8 Minutes of June 28, 2004