Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2008-01-14 (02)·~ 'a ( I • • • City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes January 14,2008 · I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Daniel Vizzini called the Planning Commission meeting of Monday, January 14, 2008 to order at 6:08 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL III. Members present were Chair Vizzini, *Vice Chair Colin Cooper and Coilli_Iljssioners Mary Beth Coffey, Julia Glisson, Scot Siegel and Alison Webster. Staff . present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Pl~ng Manager; Paige Goganian, . Associate Planner; Sarah Selden, Neighborhood Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Janice Bader, Administrative Support . CITIZEN COMMENT None. IV.. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Glisson moved to accept_the Mi~utes of November 14,2007 after t_be draft was corrected to clarify two statements and an attribution. Commissioner Webster seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. Commissioner Coffey abstained and Vice Chair Cooper was not present during the vote. Co111mlssioner Glisson moved to accept the Minutes of November 26, 2007. Commissioner Siegel seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. Chair Vizzini recused and Vice Chair Cooper was not present during the vote. V. PUBLIC HEARING LU 07-0029-Evergreen Neighborhood Plan Amendments A request from the City of take Oswego anc:l the Evergreen Neighborhood Association for Commwrity Development Code text afilendments to the Downtown Redevelopment District Design Standards, specifically related to a two-part traiftc study (LOC 50.65) . City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes ofJanuary 14,2008 Page 1 of7 Th~ EvergreeQ. Neighborhood Association had proposed the changes. The hearing was continued from November 26,2007. Chair Vizzini opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedure and criteria. Sarah Selden, NeighborJ:tood Pl31;111.er, presented the staff report. She pointed out the staff report suggested alternatives to the two-part traffic study included in the dra,ft Evergreen code amendments. These were recommended by the Evergreen Neighborhood Association, but the Commissioners and staff had not supported the proposal. She suggested the Code could be strengthened by clearer and more specific development standarqs regarding when a traffic study and traffic mitigation Were requited during the development review process. She said the City's current administrative practice was to require a traffic study when staff saw a need for one. She said staff recommended tha,t anY additional traffic study standards should apply citywide and differentiate between developments that had smaller and larger impacts. She said an a<Jclitional approach would be to monitor traffic in key downtown neighborhood locations, as recommended by the 2006 Transportation Management Plan for Downtown Neighborhoods. She noted traffic col.ints could be conducted every three to five years and inform up<Jates to the Comprehensive Plan and the Transportation System Plan (TSP). Ms. Selden said a thitd alternative could be to develop a better overall process for prioritizing and funding neighborhood improvement projects, such as those related to trails and pathways and traffic calming. She note<J that each neighborhood had its own ''wish list," but funding was the challenge. She reported staff was looking for a better process to recommend, and they might suggest asking neighborhoods to fortn Local Itnprovement Districts (LIDs) to fund small transportation improvement projects. The existing City code contains Standards for an LID process, however that progra,rn was not widely used. She advised that City policy was to require an applicarit to pay 50% of the cost of a Neighborhood Traffic Management Program project. Ms. Selden advised the Planning Commission to recommend the Evergreen implementation plan to the City Council -without the part that called for a two-part traffic study -and allow staff to continue to work on a citywide approach to neighborhood traffic management. During the questioning period, she confirmed staff had sent a copy ofthe staff report to the Evergreen Neighborhood Association chair and staff would work closely with Downtown neighborhoods to. find ways to fund their priority projects. Staff said that they were exploring options to address and fund neighborhood dem_ands for small, local projects such as those identified in neighborhood plans; projects to implement the Traffic Management Plan for Downtown Neighborhoods, and projects envisioned in the Trails and Pathways Master Plan. They acknowledged that a neighborhood had to want a local project enough to help pay for it through an LID ot some other cost-sharing mechanism. No one present came forward to offer public comment. Chair Vizzini related his experience in helping set up LIDS and offered to provide staff with additional informative material. He said that a city could offer matching funds to encourage people to form an • • LID to accomplish a project they wanted. Staff indicated they planned to look for a way • to better coordinate how different City departments and advisory boards and different City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission l\1iil.utes of January 14, 2008 Page2 of7 • • • funding programs dealt with such projects and funding. They said they were planning to recommend projects to the Budget Committee for consideration in funding in the next budget cycle. Chair Vizzini noted the existing Capital Improvement Plan listed projects the Planning Conunission could help prioritize for fun,ding. Commissioner Siegel moved to close the public hearing; modify LU 07-0029 as staff had recommended -without the two-part traffic study recommended by the neighborhood; and recommend that the City Council approve LU 07-0029 as modified.· Commissioner Webster seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. Chair Vizzini abstained and Vice Chair Cooper was not present. Chair Vizzini announced a short break and thereafter reconvened the meeting. LU 06-0025 ~ Lake.Grove Village Center Plan and Code Amendments A request from the City of Lake Oswego regarding the Lake Grove Village Center Plan (Proposed Ordinance 2454) and amendments to the Community Development Code needed to implement the Plan (proposed Ordinance 2455). The hearing had been· continued from October 9 and 23, 2006; November 13 and 27, 2006; December 11, 2006; January 8 and 22, 2007; February 12 and 26, 2007; March 12 and 26, 2007; April 9 and 23, 2007; May 14 and 30, 2007; June 11, 21 and· 25, 2007; July 9, 19, and 23, 2007; August 13 and 27, 2007~ September 10 and 24, 2007; October 8, 2007; November 14, 2007. The Commission reviewed the first draft of the Findings, Conclusions & Order on December 10, 2007 . The Planning Commission had previously closed oral and written testimony. They considered draft Findings, Conclusions and Order prepared by staff; staff drafted refinements of the draft Plan, Code and Appendix; and a rough draft of a letter of transmittal to the City Council prepared by Chair Vizzini. They generally agreed the letter could serve as a kind of "executive summary'' and highlight key issues the Planning Commission had addr~ssed. They recalled the Planning Commission had refined, restructured and reorganized the plan recommended by the Lake Grove Village Center Advisory Committee and addressed issues raised in testimony. However, they had not significantly changed underlying concepts, including the compromise between the business community and residential neighborhoods related to access and circulation in the corridor and a, land use transition from the central core to the neighborhoods. Chair Vizzini said he planned to add a discussion of "Applicability" and. "Adjustments;' to the letter. Staff and Chait Vizzini noted the Planning Commission had made the "triggers" more realistic, so minor changes wo~ld 110t trigger full compliance with the overlay district. Chair Vizzini recalled that the Commissioners had agreed that some things,_ such as height, could not be .an adjustment, but that the .Adjustments section offered property owners some way to redevelop when they might otherwise not be able to comply with all of the requirements and accuse the City of ''taking" their property. Commissioner Siegel said it was important for the City CoOilcil to understand the draft plan and code applied the concept of"design-based zoning.'' City ofLake Oswego Planning Commission Minut~s of January 14, 2008 Page 3 of7 Staff recalled the Coinmissioners had closely e:l{a.tnined how the proposed zoning would actually apply to potential redevelopment in specific locations, and they had also • addressed redevelopment along Kruse Way and proposed a northern Village Center "gateway" there. Mr. Egner reported staff wa.s scheduled to meet the following Wednesday with former members of the Lake Grove Village Center Advisory Committee. Chair Vizzini anticipated the new plan and code would allow Village Center redevelopment to happen slowly, over time, as th~ Advisory Committee anticipated and which was more acceptable to the existing business community. The Co1P1Ilissioners suggested the transmittal letter should relate that the Planning Conuilission had organized the hearings process in a manner that offered all intere~ted parties and all points of view an opportunity to be heard. They pointed out the plan encouraged formation of a business improvement district that would require the support and participation of businesses. *Vice Chair Cooper joined the hearing after completion of interviews for new Planning Commissioners. Staff Report Ms. Goganian referred to the December 14, 2007 (l.liltracked) version of the draft Plan and the January 11, 2008 versions of the Base and Overlay Code and Appendix. She highlighted changes a,nd co!Tections staff had made to the draft documents since the last meeting. She pointed out they had added the Kruse Way "Village Gateway'' project to the project table and draft plan. They had followed the Commissioners' direction and fashioned language that explained the Access Management Plan required a Traffic Safety Analysis and an Economic Impacts analysis; that reflected the Commissioners' desire to • have adequate width (12-foot wide) sidewalks along Boones Ferty Road storefronts; and that anticipated that the landscape strip would be used for storm water management facilities and it could be narrowed if on-street parking were provided. She confirn:1ed that the documents still recommended an 82-foot wide right-of-way, but acknowledged that would be subject to revision, especially at intersections. Ms. Goganian pointed out she had simplified the symbols on the Parking Facilities and Access Coordination Map and simplified the illustrations of Boones Ferry -Typical Street Sections so they included all the conceptual elements in a street section, but did not specifY the sidewalk dimension. She advised that each streetscape type specified minimum standards for sidewalks. She said the documents reflected the Coinmissioners' desire to require a miiiiint.un 12 .. foot wide sidewalk along the Boones Ferry Road storefront window segment, but allowed itto be narrowed in order to make room for on- street parking. She recalled they wanted the $idewalk there to be within the public right- of.,way, not in a,n easement. Ms. Goganian pointed out that she had added an illustration of a street section that included on-street parking. She pointed out illustrations now showed a stormwater planting zone. She noted the documents now specified that the Crunpus environment along Boones Ferry Road had to have a 12-foot wide sidewalk and buildings were to be positioned at the street. She advised that the City Engineer bad the authority to make the final determination of the design of a roadway. She indicated that staff had re-dated, but • City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of January 14, 2008 Page4 of7 • • • .-,· ... not changed, the draft Base Zone ~endtnents. Chair Vizzini commended staff for their work. He suggested they circulate· the draft documents to other City boards and commissions and solicit their comments. Mr. Egner indicated that the City Attorney's office and full Phmning Department staff were to accomplish a technical examin~tion of the documents before they were presented to the City Council. When the Commissioners discussed the best way to present the proposal to the City Council, staff confirmed they planned to give the CoUAci.lors hard copies of the final draft documents, ~d a CD containing the ''tracked" (change history) versions. Commissioner Siegel suggested they also provide the Councilors with a summary of the original Boones Ferry Corridor Plan and the Advisory Committee version of the plan. The Commissioners then discussed the draft findings. Mr. Boone advised the purpose of . findings was to show that the proposed changes were based on Comprehensive Plan policies. He reported that no section of the proposal conflicted with Comprehensive Plan policies. Mr. Egner advised that staff bad addressed issues that were not related to Comprehensive Plan policies or criteria in a staffreport to the City Council, instead of in the findings document Chair Vizzini commended staff for listing and addressing each issue raised in testimony by the Lake Grove Commercial Association. Commission Discussion The Commissioners examined draft language for transportation-related Finding 14 and agreed with Cottunissioner Siegel that they could not say for certain that the integrated combin~tion of design . strategies would "ensure" safe and convenient access to businesses, but the traffic safety and economic impact analyses would determine that. Chair Vizzini recalled the Commissioners' · upderlying assumption was that center · medians alone would not accomplish that, so that strategy had to be used in concert with othet strategies. He noted that was a primary reason the plan called for additionaJ studies. The Commissioners then agreed to modify Finding 14 to indicate that an integrated approach using a combination of design strategies was required to ''provide'' safe and convenient access to businesses. · The Commissioners acknowledged .that they could not conclude that the plan's impact on the capacity of Boones Ferry Road -which h~d a functional classification of Major Arterial -was "negligible," even though they hoped that was the case. Mr. Egner advised that the plan would not comply with Comprehensive Plan policies if it significantly 'impacted Boones Ferry Road. However, he explained that staff bad based this conclusion on a consultant's report that concluded that Boones Ferry Road intersections would continue to function at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS). Ms. Goganian noted that the related finding also said that the corridor was going to fail by 2015 if it remained in its current configuration. Commissioner Siegel observed tbe subsequent studies the draft plan ca1led for would also examine that. Chair Vizzini recalled that the Commissioners anticipated that the tesu1t of all the changes would be to make the corridor more efficient and increase its c~p~city to handle traffic. The Commissioners then generally agreed to change the language irt the conclusion to simply say that the plan would not affect the functional classification ofBoopes Ferry Road as a Major Arterial . City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of January 14,2008 Page 5 of7 The Commissioners then considered Commissioner Siegel's suggestion to add a finding that if it were found in the design process that there was not enough room in a constrained •. roadway section for all street elements, the sidewalk was to be given higher priority than _ the median. The draft transmittal letter also explained that position. Commissioner Siegel recalled another reason for reducing a median was to reduce pedestrian crossing distance. He recalled the Planning Commission had heard testimony from people who were concerned about the safety of pedestrians crossing Boones Ferry Road and from people who objected to the median, and then the Commissioners had agreed that during the engineering process the median design was to be tailored in different parts of the corridor to fit its intended function at that location. At intersections the median had to be sufficiently wide to allow U-turilS and in other parts of the corridor the median should be a minimum width in order to minimize pedestrian crossing distance. Commissioner Siegel suggested adding a finding that explained that the use of center medi~s limited potential conflicts ~d> had been shown to improve safety and traffic operations; and that the design of medians should lhnit-pedestrian crossing distances and meet other intended functions of the plan. Vice Chair Cooper agreed that the findings should emphasize the importance of a pedestrian environment. Mr. Boone advised that the suggested finding had to be related to the draft plan •. The Commissioners looked at plan language that recommended an 82-foot right-of.,.way and specified that sidewalks were to be 12 feet wide. They recalled that they had specified the sidewalk width in order to prioritize the pedestrian environment, but they worried that during the engineering design process professional engineering standards might require a .-· certain width median where the roadway was too constrained to accommodate both the sidewalk and median. Commissioner Glisson recalled the Advisory Committee agreed that the median could be reduced as a "last resort." Commissioner Siegel suggested it was better to be more sp~cific in the pl1:111 about how to deal with the conflict than to leave it to the Development Review Commission to decide individual variance requests. Commissioner Webster agreed. The Commissioners looked for an appropriate place to add such language in tl).e Action Measure related to Design Direction for Boones Ferry Corridor Improvements where there was a Constrained Street Cross.,-section. Staff cautioned that medians could likely not be narrowed at the intersections and Commissioner Webster cautioned there might be good safety a,nd engineeri:ng reasons to compromise on sidewalk width. Chair Vizzini then observed a consensus to place gtJiding langtJage to give priority to pedestrian facilities in both the Traffic and Safety Analysis and Economic Impacts Analysis sections in order to guide those studies; and to remove the last two sentences of the Constrained Street Cross-Section section that indicated that it Was unlikely a median would be widened with redevelopment and for that reason it would be beneficial to reduce median width as a last resort. He observed that the Commissioners had changed the draft Plan so they did not need to create a neW findi:ng. Vice Chair Cooper moved to recommend that the City Council adopt LU 06-0025, including the Lake Grove-Village Center Plan as it had been amended by the • Commissioners during their discussion that evening, and to recommend the City City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of January·l4, 2008 Page 6 of7 j • • • Council approve LU 06-0025-1657 Findings, ConchiSions & Order as amended during that evening's discussion. Commissioner Glisson seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. Chair Vizzini recognized staff for the "remarkable amount of work" they had done and for their guidance during complicated policy discussions. He observed that the Advisory Committee had also worked hard and they had provided the Planning Commission with a good plan to start with. He thanked former Planning Commission members and the coJllii}unity for their i_nvolvement in the process and the information they h~d provided. He said he would complete the draft transmittal letter. Chair Vizzini and Coltlttlissionefs Coffey and Glisson volunteered to answer questions at the January 24, 2008 public open house. Chair Vizzini asked s~ff to provide attendees with an overview of the history of the Lake Grove Village Center planning process and a summary of the draft plan and code. VI. OTHER BUSINESS -PLANNING COMMISSION This was Chair Vizzini's last Planning Comrilission meeting. The other Commissioners thanked him for his service and guidance al)d his ~fforts to involve the cOmm\lD.ity. VII.. OTHER BUSINESS -COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT None . VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no fu.rther business before the Planning Commission; Chair Vizzini adjourned the m~eting at 8:35p.m. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of January 14, 2008 Respectfully submitted, Janice Bader /s/ Janice Bader \ Administrative Support III Page 7 of7