Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2004-12-13 • PL jUi VI 1C-+,L 7 fi°f LAKE°SiC PATD =I:Ij t , 0 1 : 4 +� City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes " °‘-('-- c-'r; �_ \�. December 13, 2004 �°YEGos I. CALL TO ORDER Acting Chair Daniel Vizzini called the Planning Commission meeting of December 13, 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 Acting Chair Daniel Vizzini and Commissioners Mary Beth Coffey, Julia Glisson, Mark Stayer and Alison Webster. Chair Kenneth Sandblast was excused and Vice Chair Frank Groznik was absent. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Iris Treinen, Administrative Support. • III. CITIZEN COMMENT Ron Hall, 15194 Ouarry Rd., Lake Oswego, 97035, distributed copies of a September 14, 2004 letter from the Waluga Neighborhood Association to the Lake Grove Village Center Advisory Committee. The letter related the Association's opposition to expansion of Lake Grove Village Center boundaries. Mr. Hall explained that the Association wanted the Planning Commission to direct the Advisory Committee to stay within the guidelines of the their charge statement, which would not allow the Committee to recommend expanded boundaries unless the changes were supported by the impacted neighborhoods. He cautioned that it would set a bad precedent to allow a committee to encroach on a neighborhood and to allow zone changes on specific properties outside the prescribed process for a zone change. He said the expansion would conflict with and demean the Waluga Neighborhood Plan. He said the Commission should direct the Committee to issue a clear, written justification that described how the changes would benefit the neighborhood and the Village Center. He confirmed that the neighborhood supported the other aspects of the Village Center planning process. He noted the planning group had never held a vote on the expansion. He reported that the Lake Oswego Neighborhood Action Coalition(LONAC) supported the Waluga Neighborhood Association's position on the issue. He related the Association's request that the Planning Commission ask Ken Sandblast and Julia Glisson to recuse themselves from any Commission discussions or deliberations about expanding the boundaries, and to intervene in the local planning process to ensure the Committee worked within the parameters set in their charge statement. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 1 of 11 Minutes of December 13,2004 Mr. Egner reported that the Advisory Committee had recently voted to remove eleven controversial properties from the Village Center that were between the school and Waluga Park, and they were no longer contemplating a park project on that land. He recalled that it had been the Planning Commission that had initially expanded the planning boundaries when they added the Gregg/Avery property north of Kruse Way, parcels east of Boones Ferry Road, the Fire Station property, and a parcel that closed the gap between the study area and the West Lake Grove boundary. He reported the Advisory Committee had added the Safeco property north of Kruse Way, a parcel on Bryant Road (the owner asked to be included), parcels to the south of the study area, the eleven residential properties between the school and park, and properties just south of Waluga Park. Mr. Hall was concerned that developers of the land north of Kruse Way would not be subjected to the zone change process if the planning group changed the zoning there from Office/Campus to General Commercial. Acting Chair Vizzini anticipated that the lengthy Village Center planning process and related public hearings would ensure there was as much public scrutiny as the zone change process would provide. He urged the neighborhoods to trust the public process. He indicated he felt the Advisory Committee should be allowed to consider all options, including changes to existing plans, as long as they could justify the changes. He observed that the Village Center Plan would not be approved by the City Council unless it had been seriously tested during the process. He recalled the planning group had been charged with doing their best work and making the best case for their recommendations. Mr. Hall explained that the three impacted neighborhoods believed they had an agreement with the City that the boundaries would not be changed. He took the position that neighborhood interests had been diluted by the diversity of interests of those who served on the Advisory Committee. He explained the Waluga Neighborhood Plan anticipated that the area of the school bus barn would eventually be included in the neighborhood boundary so that the neighborhood could have two entrances via Douglas Way and Beasley Street. Commissioner Glisson suggested that the Commissioners discuss the request at a meeting where Chair Sandblast was present. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Glisson moved to annrove the Minutes of October 11. 2004. Commissioner Coffey seconded the motion and it passed with Commissioners Coffey, Glisson, Stayer, Webster and Acting Chair Vizzini voting yes. There were no votes against. Chair Sandblast and Vice Chair Groznik were not present. Commissioner Coffey moved to approve the Minutes of October 25, 2004. Commissioner Glisson seconded the motion and it passed with Commissioners Coffey, Glisson, Stayer, Webster and Acting Chair Vizzini voting yes. There were no votes against. Chair Sandblast and Vice Chair Groznik were not present. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 2 of 11 Minutes of December 13,2004 V. PUBLIC HEARING LU 04-0055—Variance Amendments A request by the City of Lake Oswego to amend the Community Development Code, Article 50.68, revising the standards and classifications for variances. The proposed amendments broaden the definition for what types of variances can be processed as Class 1 variances. For example, current standards limit Class 1 variances to no more than a 20% change in a setback; the proposed amendments to the Class 1 variance would allow up to a 50% adjustment to the setback provided there are not negative impacts on the neighborhood or street. Staff coordinator was Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager. Acting Chair Vizzini opened the legislative hearing and explained applicable procedure and time limits. He asked the Commissioners to report any conflicts of interest. None were reported. Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager, presented the staff report. He explained the proposed amendment applied standards that ensured a variance did not produce a result that was incompatible in scale and character with neighbors and pedestrians along the street, or that would affect the privacy of immediate neighbors. He said the proposed standards were based on Residential Infill Design Review (RID) standards. He advised that adoption of the amendment would mean the City could allow larger variances under the Class 1 process as long as the result would not harm neighbors. He pointed out the proposal increased the allowable Class 1 variance limits for setbacks, floor area ratio (FAR), lot coverage, building height (in order to achieve roof pitch), and accessory building size. Mr. Egner said that the primary focus of the new standards was the extent to which the changed site would impact the neighbors. He explained, for example, that if an owner wanted to expand the size of a bedroom in an existing house, but the expansion was more than currently allowed by the Class 1 process, it would be very hard for him to use the Class 2 process because he would have to demonstrate that the smaller bedroom was a hardship. He said the proposed amendments would mean that if the bedroom expansion did not harm anyone, it could be allowed. He recommended that the Planning Commission recommend the changes to the City Council. Stephen Lashbrook, Community Development Director, related that the staff regularly encountered cases where a home remodeling plan that was supported by the neighbors could not be approved because it did not meet variance standards. He assured the Commissioners that the new Code language would still apply criteria and involve the neighbors. He added that the new standards might also offer an alternative to an owner who might otherwise tear down an existing house and construct the largest new house allowed under the Code. Mr. Lashbrook reported that staff was aware of several developers whose plans were not approvable under the current Code who were waiting for the changes. Acting Chair Vizzini asked if the proposed increases to allowable limits would be applied citywide or if the process would consider differences between neighborhoods. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 3 of 11 Minutes of December 13,2004 He stressed the importance of ensuring citizens understood the process. Mr. Boone advised that the standards would consider how a requested change related to the scale and character of the neighborhood as "scale" and "character" were defined by that neighborhood. Staff clarified that the amendments would not change standards that limited the size of secondary dwelling units. However, they observed there were many other kinds of accessory buildings - some on very large lots — that could be allowed to be as large as 1,200 sq. ft. as long as the building did not negatively impact the scale and character of the neighborhood or the privacy of properties within 300 feet. Staff clarified that the process under the new standards would be the same as under the current Class 1 standards, but the criteria would be different. They noted Class 1 variance notification was to the neighborhood association and to properties within 300 feet, or further, in order to notify 50 properties, but the RID review process only required notice to properties within 100 feet. Mr. Boone explained that a variance application would be considered a Minor Development, and it could be reviewed and approved by staff and appealed to the Development Review Commission. He said the staff considered comments from neighbors when they made Class 1 decisions, and they could decide to take an application directly to the Development Review Commission (DRC) for review if they felt that was appropriate. Staff clarified that the filing fee would be the same as the current Class 1 variance fee. They anticipated that it would take about the same amount of staff time to administer the new standards as it was taking to administer the current standards. They observed the process would be quicker if the request was supported by the neighbors and the neighborhood association. Staff noted that if an owner wanted to add a second bathroom under the current Class 2 variance process, he would have to show that he needed to add another bathroom and that he had looked for alternative locations on the property where he could add that bathroom without a variance. Mr. Boone recalled the recent history of Code provisions regarding smaller variances started in 2000 when Class 1 variance standards were created to make it easier to get a variance that did not harm anyone. He said the City's experience since then was that the result of a Class 1 variance was rarely controversial, did not have a significant impact, and there was no need for a design solution, such as RID review. He confirmed that both the applicant and an opposing neighbor would have to make their case by addressing the criteria in the case of a dispute. He observed that a Class 2 variance request was more likely to be contentious because that process balanced impact on the neighbors with the applicant's right to a reasonable opportunity to develop. Mr. Egner said the Class 1 process assumed the variance result would not harm any party and it allowed conditions to be imposed to assure that. Mr. Egner then discussed two letters in the record. The December 13, 2004 letter from Carol Radich, Evergreen Neighborhood Association, Neighborhood Planning Committee, requested additional language that would provide that the staff was to also consider any special neighborhood design criteria. He noted that was already a provision in the RID process. He said the staff would insert such language in the amendment if the Commissioners agreed. He pointed out that in her December 13, 2004 email, Laura Rvbowiak. 761 Briercliff Ln., Lake Oswego, 97034, stated that a 25% adjustment was more than sufficient for a variance to setbacks. Mr. Egner City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 4 of 11 Minutes of December 13,2004 explained the current threshold from the Class 1 to the Class 2 variance process was 20%, and the proposed threshold was 50%. For example, if the side yard setback was 10 feet, and an owner desired to expand a bathroom, current Class 1 standards would allow the room to encroach by two feet, but the proposed standard would allow it to go out five feet, as long as that would not harm the neighborhood. Public Testimony John Pullen, 18 Britten Ct., Lake Osweeo, 97035, presented written testimony He anticipated that the wording of the amendment would make it harder for a neighbor to challenge a variance and he said it reduced the neighbor's legal protection. He indicated he did not favor adding mitigation possibilities. He held the proposed increase in limits for Class 1 variances were too large. Fred Miller. 1400 Lee St., Lake Osweeo, 97034, related that he was planning to convert his carport to a garage after the new standards were adopted. He explained that under current standards he would have to reduce the rear wall of the garage by six inches, but under the proposed expanded Class 1 variance limits he could build a reasonably sized garage. He said another problem for him was that the existing carport was legally nonconforming because it projected too far out from the plane of the house, but there was no room on his corner lot to move it around. He anticipated he would have to seek a Class 2 variance to resolve that issue. He asked how the proposed amendments might affect the garage appearance standards. Mr. Boone advised the Commissioners that the front projection of the garage would not currently qualify for a Class 1 variance. Acting Chair Vizzini asked if the issue of the front plane could be addressed by moving the garage back under relaxed Class 1 limits. Mr. Miller explained that would not improve the appearance of the house because the garage door would be too close to the front door. However, he anticipated his neighbors would find the new garage less of an "eyesore"than the existing carport. Mr. Boone observed that the situation described by Mr. Miller highlighted the distinction between a variance and RID review. He explained the staff had found that small additions typically did not qualify for RID review because they could not be justified as "equal or better design" than what would be permitted under the zone. However, a carport-to-garage conversion was more like new construction and might qualify for RID review to solve the garage placement problem. He explained the qualifying test for RID review was whether the applicant could show the proposed change was equal or better than that permitted under the zone's standards. He noted that that it was usually a challenge to meet that test for an expanded bathroom. Lynne Paretchan, P.O. Box 309, Lake Osweeo. 97034, said she was the Chair of the Blue Heron Neighborhood Association. She reported that the neighborhood association had discussed the proposal at their last general meeting and voted unanimously to oppose expanding Class 1 variances. She noted the homes in their neighborhood included a lot of older cottages that were being remodeled, and the amendment would allow owners to bring their structures closer to the street and the neighbors, and would make the neighborhood feel much tighter over time. She worried that the proposed language (e.g., "scale" and "character") was too broad and subjective and could be City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 5 of 11 Minutes of December 13,2004 manipulated by developers. She observed the increased Class 1 limits more than doubled the amount of allowable setback. She said if the Class 2 hardship requirement was too hard to meet, it should be fixed. She said that RID standards should be applied to existing Class 1 variance dimensions. She said the Code should be clear enough to address the issues so that neighbors would not have to spend their time challenging or appealing an application. Jim Bolland. 804 Fifth St.. Lake Oswego. 97034, stated that he was the Chair of the First Addition Neighbors (FAN) Association. He said that the proposed amendments would allow development to expand further than FAN had anticipated when they created their neighborhood plan. He said the neighborhood planners had envisioned what would "fit" in the neighborhood and agreed to allow small-percentage ministerial adjustments. However, the overall effect was that structures in FAN today appeared to be taking up more than the 35% lot coverage allowed by the zone and the Association felt that to allow larger increases would result in incompatible development. He noted that current standards already allowed a 3,000 sq. ft. house on a 6,000 sq. ft. lot. He reported the neighborhood felt that the recently adopted Infill Standards were working, except for the lot coverage standards. He recalled that there had been no consensus on the Infill Development Task Force to relax setbacks. He acknowledged that minor problems - such as how to address carport conversions - should be fixed. However, he cautioned the City not to allow variances that would result in almost zero lot lines, and not to use one R-7.5 template in all neighborhoods. He said the differences between Class 1 and Class 1+ variances and the meaning of"compatible" should be more clearly defined. He recalled several contentious applications (Mountain West, Avamere, and the Forest Hills school project) that the staff found compatible even when the neighbors did not. Jeannie McGuire. 144 Wilbur St., Lake Oswego. 97034. stated that she was speaking for herself, and not the Old Town Neighborhood Association. She explained that she supported the proposed amendments because they would allow an owner to expand an existing small house instead of tearing it down. She recalled a property in her neighborhood had been sold to two successive owners who had been unable to get approval from the City to accomplish that. She related that one owner did not want and could not afford to build a large house to live in during retirement years. She said she believed the remodeled house would have been compatible with the neighborhood. She clarified for the Commissioners that the owners wanted to add a second story to a portion of the existing one-story house. Bob Needham. 1000 Schukart Ln.. Lake Oswego. 97034. advised that the purpose of a variance was to address an extreme situation. He cautioned the City not to make it too easy to get one because that would eventually change the community. He explained that if adjacent neighbors were allowed to reduce their side yard setbacks so houses were ten feet apart, that created a different community than one where houses were 20 feet apart. He said the impact of relaxing standards impacted people beyond 300 feet, such as passing drivers. He said that citizens depended on zoning to preserve their community, and they depended on consistent interpretation of the standards in spite of changes in city staff. He acknowledged that might create a problem for applicants who wanted to convert their carports,but it would preserve the community. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 6 of 11 Minutes of December 13,2004 Deliberations Acting Chair Vizzini closed the public hearing and the Commissioners began deliberations. Commissioner Webster recalled that the amendment would change the standards, but not the process. She asked the staff to respond to testimony that some terms needed to be better defined. Mr. Lashbrook advised that in spite of differences in perception between individuals, the process would still require a decision to be based on findings. Mr. Boone recalled other processes where decisions were based on discretionary standards. The DRC often examined the "compatibility" of a use, and the Class 2 variance process required comparison of what the applicant was requesting with what was enjoyed on similar properties. He noted that staff decisions could be appealed to the DRC and those decisions served to guide future applications. He anticipated the staff would define "scale and character" differently in different neighborhoods, based on neighborhood guidelines. Commissioner Glisson suggested instead of making the large leap from a 20% limit to a 50% limit, the allowable limits might be expanded in smaller increments. Mr. Boone agreed that could be a policy decision. He explained that after the staff found that the 20% limit was not working, they had discussed allowing an almost automatic variance up to 20%, and then imposing a higher burden on applicants who wanted to expand to between 20% and 50%. However, public comments had indicated citizens thought three types of variances were too many. So the staff proposed to combine Class 1 and Class 1+ variances and added an administrative rule that design. options were not considered initially. Mr. Egner recalled the staff had first considered allowing larger percentage increases for minor variances if they could be justified by certain tests and conditioned by design adjustments that made them compatible. He acknowledged the staff had not considered that the changes could potentially strain relationships between neighbors. He said the staff intended to find a way to allow reasonable adjustments that would not be a problem for anyone. He suggested another approach might be to further modify the criteria. Acting Chair Vizzini recalled testimony that the definitions and language needed to be tightened, in addition to concerns about expanding the allowable limit for smaller variances. He recalled the Planning Commission had previously studied variance issues and unsuccessfully recommended changes to variances to the City Council. He commented that he heard the same concern in that evening's testimony as he had heard in 2000 when the Planning Commission worked on variances: to make it easier to get a variance essentially created a market for variances that would change neighborhood standards by fiat. He recalled the infill examination process showed that neighborhoods were not all the same, and some were almost completely developed and would be more impacted by expanding the variance limits. He indicated that he hoped some way could be found to address minor variances that would work citywide. He suggested the City might begin with a smaller set of allowable adjustments and analyze the results before allowing expanded adjustments. Mr. Boone related that he sometimes had to advise the staff that even though the neighbors and the neighborhood association did not oppose a request, they could not City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 7 of 11 Minutes of December 13,2004 grant a variance because it did not meet the criteria. He asked if a variance should be easy or hard to get. He recalled that the City had granted variances for decks, in order to allow a size that would accommodate full-sized furniture. He recalled the City had granted a variance in order to allow an owner to have a formal dining room instead of an informal dining room. Mr. Boone said the City had granted variances to allow an owner to enlarge a small bedroom in a house that generally had larger rooms, or where similar properties had large bedrooms. He said those variances had been granted under the standards that applied at the time of the requests. He advised that the staff currently compared square footage instead of interior configuration. He said the Class 1+ category was intended to provide a lesser standard than Class 2, so the applicant would not have to meet Class 2 hardship criteria if the result would not make a difference to anyone. However, if the neighbors were concerned about design or privacy, the variance might not be granted. He advised that since 2000 the standard for hardship had been tightened. He recalled testimony about successive property owners in Old Town who could not expand the same existing house, and he suggested the Commissioners needed to decide what was the purpose of a variance. Mr. Boone advised that if they decided it was to relieve hardship and provide an owner with an opportunity for reasonable use under the zone standards, that it could result in greater impact to the neighborhood. Or, they could decide that if the design was compatible with the neighborhood the change should be allowed. He recalled the Old Town case showed that even when the neighborhood association supported a change, the existing standards meant the variance could not be granted. He suggested the standards needed to be changed. He pointed out that the RID process ensured a new house was compatible with the neighborhood, even if the proposal did not meet the zone standards. He asked why a harder test should be imposed on a remodel than on new construction. Mr. Egner clarified the RID standards were an alternative way to meet the Code, and not a type of variance. However, they also applied criteria related to compatibility with the street and the neighbors. He acknowledged that the City had only heard a few RID cases so far. Acting Chair Vizzini suggested that people might be wary of a process in which they had to negotiate directly with their neighbors. Commissioner Webster observed the proposed amendments would not grant a variance automatically and the process would allow each opponent to present their case regarding the compatibility of the proposed change so issues could be addressed. She noted the staff decision could be appealed to the DRC. Mr. Boone advised that if the staff became aware of any controversy related to a variance request or RID review they automatically sent the case to the DRC for review so the process could be completed within the 120-day deadline. Acting Chair Vizzini suggested that "neighborhood," "compatibility," and "negative impact" should be defined for the benefit of all parties. He asked if the "neighborhood" was 300 feet, or the association boundaries. Mr. Boone explained that he had used broad language in order to allow all parties of interest to say what the impact was. He explained that the RID process also left"neighborhood"to be defined by all parties who perceived an impact. He said that could include an entire neighborhood association, or even several neighborhood associations. In the RID process the applicant had to work things out with anyone who had a problem with the proposal. Mr. Boone recalled the Commission had previously approved Community Development Code updates that City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 8 of 11 Minutes of December 13,2004 ■ required a pre-application conference for a variance request and that recent procedural changes now allowed neighborhood association representatives to participate in the pre- application conference. He said those changes meant an applicant should hear all the issues related to their application prior to actually filing the application. He said he did not think it was necessary to define "neighborhood." But he agreed that if the Commissioners did define the term that would ensure the applicant would be aware of all whom he had to deal with. Commissioner Webster observed that the amendment was intended to address small changes. However, Acting Chair Vizzini worried that the cumulative effect of the expanded limits would be to change the underlying zone. He suggested the amendment should have a "Sunset clause" to ensure it could be re-examined at a future date. He asked the staff to discuss the proposal with the neighborhoods and report back. He asked them to suggest more options, if that was possible. Mr. Lashbrook offered to ask Planning Department staff to give him an estimate of how many people left City Hall without filing an application. Commissioner Webster moved to continue LU 04-0055 to February 28. 2005. Commissioner Stayer seconded the motion and it passed with Commissioners Coffey, Glisson, Stayer, Webster and Acting Chair Vizzini voting yes. There were no votes against. Chair Sandblast and Vice Chair Groznik were not present. Acting Chair Vizzini then announced a short break in the proceedings and thereafter reconvened the meeting. VI. GENERAL PLANNING —WORK SESSION P 04-0011 —Transition from EastEnd Commercial District(EC) Zone Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager, reported that neighborhood leaders were concerned about what heights the City would allow at the edges of the EC Zone where it abutted residential neighborhoods. He distributed a copy of LOC 50.11.015, Site Development Limitations. He pointed out that allowable height and setbacks in the EC zone varied according to proximity to a residential zone and stepped down from 60 foot height and zero setbacks as they approached residential zones. He advised that allowable heights in the adjacent residential zones were 28 feet (flat lot) to 35 feet (sloped lot) in the lower density residential zones, and 35 feet (averaging 32 feet) to 50 feet (averaging 40 feet) in the denser residential zones. He pointed out EC development could be up to 40 feet high next to Old Town and up to 60 feet next to a higher-density residential zone, and was required to step down to 35 or 45 feet next to lower-density residential zones, depending on the distance to the zone. He explained that the Code specified 120 feet as one distance increment because that was the typical depth of an older lot. He explained that the staff interpreted the setback section to mean that an EC development had to be within 25 feet of a residential zone for the 25-foot required setback to apply, and that properties "adjacent to a residential zone" included those diagonally across an intersection. He clarified that public right-of-way could not be counted in the distance measurement. He also recalled that in previous discussions about downtown, the Commissioners preferred to address issues during a Downtown Town Center planning process. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 9 of 11 Minutes of December 13, 2004 Mr. Egner and the Commissioners examined the Zoning Map and discussed how allowable height varied within some EC parcels (such as the Safeway property) depending on proximity to a residential or mixed-use zone. Mr. Bolland related that FAN and the Evergreen Neighborhood Association had discussed how to deal with edges where residential met commercial. He reported that FAN had found that the 35-foot height limit in the R-6 zone was working well. He related that the neighborhoods had met with the developer of the Marsee Bakery property and they could support his plan to lower the building to 35 feet toward the townhouses in the rear and raise it along A Avenue. He reported that after Block 136 was built it seemed to be too tall along A Avenue, so when the same developer designed Block 138 they lowered it a few feet toward A Avenue and First Street. He related his neighborhood was concerned that there was an area along B Avenue where buildings could be as high as 60 feet. He said they felt that was too high to be just across the narrow street (C Avenue pavement was 18-feet wide) from the residential use (R-2). Mr. Bolland clarified for the Commissioners that the actual right-of-way of C Avenue was 60 feet wide, but the neighborhood plan policy was not to widen streets. Mr. Boone advised the right-of-way was not counted in the distance measurement that determined allowable height. Mr. Bolland observed that a building there would be set back 20 feet from the right-of-way. He related that FAN wanted the City to create a Downtown plan (besides the Downtown Design District Plan). Mr. Bolland reported the FAN and Evergreen neighborhoods were working with the staff and a contractor to create a traffic-calming plan for downtown neighborhoods. He confirmed that his neighborhood was comfortable with the zone changes that had already been made that changed portions of the EC zone to R-2 and created a multifamily buffer between the EC Zone and lower-density residential use. However, the neighborhood had not pressed for R-2 on both sides of C Avenue at that time and that left the possibility of 60-foot high buildings on one side of the street. He said the neighborhood also favored the height restrictions placed on multifamily structures. He confirmed that more rezoning was not necessary now. Mr. Egner confirmed that "form- based zoning" (controls on building shapes and mass) might be a concept to explore in order to make EC buildings relate better to residential areas. Acting Chair Vizzini observed the Code seemed to allow heights to step up as the topography stepped down. He also asked if height averaging should be allowed on sites where heights had to vary to meet the Code. Mr. Egner advised that buildings could be higher on very large EC sites. Mr. Bolland anticipated that abutting neighborhoods would not support allowing heights over 60 feet. He recalled they had opposed a proposal for a four-story building at 2nd Street and B Avenue. He confirmed for Commissioners that the property at the southeast corner of 2nd Street and C Avenue had been sold. He said he heard there might be an office building there. He reported the developer of five new row houses did not favor allowing 60-foot high buildings nearby. Acting Chair Vizzini saw a need for the community to decide now what was to happen over the next 30 or 40 years. He recalled cities that were once viable and affluent that had declined over the years. He asked whether Downtown was to serve as the commercial core of the community, or if the core should be elsewhere and Downtown City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 10 of 11 Minutes of December 13,2004 ■ should remain the true "old town." He said a height limit there could drive the development market elsewhere. Mr. Bolland observed that the community was not inclined to assume there would be ongoing urbanization of the area. He recalled cities in New Jersey that had not changed their downtown zoning for many decades, but remained viable and successful. He asked the Commissioners to be sensitive to the fact that his neighborhood was tired of fighting against development proposals, but the need to do so would only increase unless the issues were resolved in a Downtown plan. Mr. Egner advised that the Planning Commission workload meant that other projects needed to be finished first, including the Lake Grove Village Center Plan. Acting Chair Vizzini anticipated the Planning Commission would include work on the Downtown area in a future work plan. VII. OTHER BUSINESS Stafford Area Mr. Lashbrook reported that the staff was tracking development and Measure 37 claims related to development in the Stafford area. He said they anticipated that the only remaining control on the size of residential lots in the area would be availability of water and septic system suitability. He reported that only one Stafford-area claim had been filed to date and the owner had not specified what he would have done under more flexible regulations. He also reported that the City of Lake Oswego had not received any claims. Acting Chair Vizzini reported the City of Portland had received two Measure 37 claims. Communication from Wilma McNulty Staff circulated a communication from Wilma McNulty and reported that they had forwarded her suggestion to a traffic consultant. January Meeting Mr. Egner noted that at the next meeting the Commissioners would meet as the Commission for Citizen Involvement. He asked them to suggest topics to be discussed at the meeting. One topic of interest was the role of LONAC in land use planning. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business before the Planning Commission, Acting Chair Vizzini adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Iris Treinen Administrative Support III City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 11 of 11 Minutes of December 13,2004