Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2008-01-28 (02)• • • City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes January 28,2008 I. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Colin Cooper called the Plailriing Commission meeting of Monday, January 28, 2008 to order at 6:05 p.m. in the Counci~ Chambers of City Hall, at 380 ''N' A venue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL III. Members present were Vice Chair Cooper and Commissioners Julia Glisson, Scot Siegel, Philip Stewart and Alison Webster.· Commissioners Adrianne Brockman and Mary Beth Coffey were excused. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Plaiuiing Manager; Sarah Selden; Neighborhood Planner; Laura Weigel, Neighborhood Planner; Evan 1;3oone, Peputy City Attorney and Iris Treinen, Administrative Support . CITIZEN COMMENT None. IV. NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR Commissioner Glisson nominated Colin Cooper to serve as Chair of the Planning Commission. Coilllllissioner Webster seconded the nomination and it passed 5:0 Chair Cooper nominated. Julia Glisson dto serve~ as Vice_ Chair of !he Planning Commission. Commissioner Webster seconded the nomination artd it passed 5£0. V. APPROVAL OF MlNU!ES VI. Vice Chair Glisson moved to remove a sentence and approve the Minutes of December 10. 2007, as amended. Commissioner Coffey seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. Commissioner Stewart recused himself. PUBLIC HEARING (continued from December 10, 2007) LU 07-0088 .... Planned Development O~erlay and Open Space Amendments. A request from the City of Lake Oswego for an amendment to Aitlcle 50.17 (Planned Development Overlay) and Article 50.46 (Park and Opert Space). Proposed amendments set conditions (Citywide) for the use of the planned development process on small parcels City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 2008 Page 1 of8 (75,000 square feet or less) and provides the standards under which open space would be designated. Chair Cooper opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedure and criteria. He asked the Commissioners to declare any conflicts of interest. None were declared. l)en~is Egner, Long Range Planning Manager, presented the staff report. He asked the Commissioners to discuss some issues presented in the staff report and then continue the hearing to allow staff to consult with the Infill Task Force. He said the proposal called for two types of changes: waiving the 20% open space requirement for planned developments (PDs) under 75,000 sq. ft., lll)d limiting setbackadju~tments in order to ensure dwellings were adequately separated. He recalled the Commissioners had asked to see case studies so they could better understand how the proposed changes would have affected those developmtmts. Mr. Egner distributed a table describing ten recent Pbs. He pointed out that the two largest projects had almost 40% open space, and the two projects that were .small enough to be subject to the proposed changes each had about 20% open space. Although almost all of them had setback adjustm~nts, one of the largest and one of the smallest were the only projects approved with setbacks adjusted to less than five feet. Chair Cooper observed those two R-5/R-7.5projects also had the smallest lot sizes. Mr. Egner clarified that two developments that had been offered as examples in the original staff report were not in the case studies because they were not PDs, but the result • of serial partitioning. He asked if the Commissioners wanted to use the Metro title 13 • map to establish where the proposed overlay would and would not apply. He advised that the Title 13 map protected . more land than the City's Resource Protection (RP) and Resource Conservation (RC) Pistricts would after they were updated. He said the lnfill Task Force had agreed to the concept, but they had not yet actually seen the Title 13 map. The Commissioners discussed how to direct staff. Chair Cooper wanted to know if the primary problem to be solved was the quality of open space, or, the perception that · smaller lots were incompatible with a neighborhood. He indicated,rhe did not yet have enough informatic:m to know if the proposed changes would help or hinder quality development. He said he favored the concept, but he worried about unintended consequences. He hoped the Buildable Lands Inventory would help the Cornrnissioner~ understand the sizes and types of potential developable parcels and which ones might need to be developed as PDs. Mr. Egner confi:t:med staff was preparing a preliminary version of the Inventory. Vice Chait Glisson said she wanted to hear the lnfill Task Force's position on the map. Public Testimony Peter Klaebe, Rosewood Neighborhood Association, reported his association board had discussed the issue. . He suggested the Planning Coi11lllissioners meet with the Development Review CollUI1issioners to hear from the DRC what "tradeoffs" they were · often asked to make in actual land use cases. · • City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 2008 Page2 of8 • • • Carolyn Krebs, 16925 Denney Court, described the Lake Forest Neighborhood as "ground zero." She said the neighborhood had experienced aiJ.d anticipated they would experience marty more small PDs that protected patches of ground that did not have much natural resource value. An example was Ford Place, which had four lots and a 20% open space tract. She said they wanted very small PDs to be better quality development, which would feature larger lots, where there would not be a need to adj1lst side setbacks. She said the Infill Task Force had discussed allowing exceptions for PDs oil only the higher classifications of resource-.significant land shown on the Title 13 map. She said resources might be better protected on private lots than 'm a subdivision where the developer had set aside an open space tract and then cleared the buildable lots. She explained that developers would see more value in lots that contained natural resources, and larger lots would better protect those resources. Chair Cooper agteed that a house on a lot with trees was more valuable than a house oil a lot with no trees, but he was not sure that developers would remove fewer trees than they saved if they did not have to set aside open space on PDs under 75,000 sq. ft. When asked, Mr. Egner confirmed the Tree Code was an effective tool to protect trees. Ms. Krebs recalled the City Council had never adopted recommended changes to the Tree Code. She said the majority of natural resources were on private lots and it was insufficient to try to protect them only in open space tracts. She explained it was iro.porUu:lt to prevent ''biowdowns" by protecting an entire grove of trees, not just those few trees in an open space tract._ Jim Bolland, 804 5th Street, stressed that the impact of small PD lots was not because they were smaller than the zones' minimum'lot size, but because they were much SII1aller than adjacent lots. He said the impact of small PDs with very small lots was greatest in the Rosewood and Lake Forest Neighborhoods, where they might be next to existing houses on 15,000 to 20,000 sq. ft. lots. He recalled the Infill Task Force had observed the most commonly adjusted setback was on the side, and tear yard adj1lstments typically created a privacy issue. He said Ford Place featured an open space that was a bran1ble patch that no one took care of. He said a developer would tend to choose to place the tract in an area that he could not build oil arty'Way. He recalled that after a developer and the ·Forest Highland Neighborhood had discu$sed a new development, they had agreed that serial development would bave tlle best result for all parties. He observed that stands of trees were most likely to be intact along rear yards. He said the fufill Task Force might re.commend an overlay zone that would also affect how subdivisions were laid out. l\1r. Egner clarified that staff was preparing to propose provisions that directed placement of open space. He anticipated the updated resource maps would protect RC areas in back yards, but he advised that the Metro map protected more ~eas. He said he would show the InfiU Task Force both sets of maps. Commissioner Siegel said the quality of the open space was a factor to consider. He suggested that even if there were no significant resources on a site, the proposed development should be designed and landscaped to fit the visual corridor or trail system it was part of. Mr. Bolland observed that small PDs , often did not have an active-enough homeowners association to properly maintain open space. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of January 28,2008 Page 3 of8 Commissioner Stewart suggested open space might be. used as recreational area if there were ho natural resources to protect. Mr. Egner recalled open space was typically used to protect trees or buffer a roadway. Ch~r Cooper recalled th~t River Run E~tates had no • natural resources to protect, so the open space was positioned along a boulevard and the association once considered making part of it an active use area. Mr. Boone read aloud the Code definition of open space: Open space is land to remain in a natural or landscaped condition for the purpose of providing a scenic, aesthetic, appearance and/or protecting natural processes, providing passive recreational uses and/or maintaining natural vegetation, pen'nanently reserved by common ownership among owners of the development, dedicated to the public or other appropri_~te me~s for use of general p\lblic. Mr. Egner advised all PDs were currently required tO set aside 20% open space, and that members of very small homeowners associations tended to be lax in maintaining open sp~ce tracts. Mr. Boone saw an issue of who was to be liable if a homeowners association did not maintain ail active use a:rea. Commissioner Stewart said that it would have been better if the Carman Oaks development had retained the roadside buffer, but used some of the open space area that did not preserve trees to make more space between houses. Mr. Egner related the Infill Task Force was scheduled to meet the following Thursday and again in two weeks and staff would ask them to discuss the issues. Commissioner Webster moved to close the public hearing and continue LU 07-0088 to • February 28, 2008. Vice Chair Glisson seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. VII. WORK SESSION Neighb~rho<!d Plan_ lmpi~!Dentation. Update and discussion on implementation of existing neighborhood plans. Laura Weigel, Neighborhood Planner, presented the staff report. She advised there were 20 recognized neighborhoods in the City and seven of them had adopted plans. Some of them already had related implementing Code. She reported she wa,s working with the Waluga, Lake Forest, Lake Grove and Gleilniotrie Neighborhoods to help them implement their plans. She said staff had asked each of them to form an implementation committee and identify neighborhood plan goals and ~ction me~sures that might have already been implemented or might be about to be implemented by the City through infill regulations, the Lake Grove Village Center Plan, the Community Forestry program, the City arborist, or other revisions to the Community Development Code. The committee would then prioritize the remaining ~spects of the plan and staff would help them develop a strategy for implementing them, whether that was by code changes, working with the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) or S01Ile other means. They would create a related process and timeline for implementation and then identify potential funding sources for implementation projects. She reported that Lake Grove definitely wanted to create an overlay zone to implement their plan. City ofLake Oswego PlaQiling Commission Minutes ofJanuary 28, 2008 Page'4 of8 • • • • • Mr; Egner recalled the Commissioners had favored a more structured process for new neighborhood plans wherein the City issued a charge statement to the neighborhood, selected the committee, and gave them clear direction. However, he suggested it might be important for the neighborhoods that already had a plan and wanted to implement it to continue their self-directed, neighborhood-based approach. During the ensuing discussion, Vice Chair . Glisson stressed that some structure was necessary, because a charge statement, even one the neighborhood produced, would clearly describe the process and goals for the committee. She said everyone should understand that the neighborhood was to identify and involve all stakeholders in the discussions. She also recommended selecting alternate representatives to ensure all stakeholder groups had a voice. She recalled that had worked well during the Village Center planning process. Ms. Weigel confltmed that staff asked neighborhood associations to ensure that all stakeholder groups were represented, but if people were reluctant to devote the necessary time to participate on the con1mittee, the process would involve them in other ways: through one-on-one interviews, surveys, focus groups and other forms of public O\ltreach_. She clarified that half ofthe Waluga committee were board members and half were not. Chair Cooper agreed that a charge statement was useful and Commissioner Webster added that neighborhoods needed a framework tha:t allowed them to accomplish what they wanted as long as it was on track with City goals. Staff agreed that a, fol'Il!alized work program was a good idea because it made City expectations cleat. They reported that neighborhoods were concerned that their planning process would be interrupted or changed if the City Council began a communitywide visioning process. Chair Cooper and Commissioner Webster said it was not necessary to stop neighborhood planning during the visioning process. They recalled neighborhood plans were "llving, breathing" documents that could be modified over time to reflect current reality. As an example, they recalled the Lake Grove Village Center Plan had replaced the Boones Ferry Corridor Pla.n. Commissioner Siegel referred to the 14-step implementation process outlined in the staff report. He suggested that after the committee had revised priorities based on neighborhood association feedback in Step 3, they should brief the Planning Coinmission or City Council, because that would flag common issues shared by neighborhoods that should be addressed citywide, and perhaps become citywide, City-funded projects. Ms. Weigel agreed and said staff would bring those to the Planning CoinmiSsion or City Cooocil when they identified them. She asked if neighborhoods were to be allowed to add new policies or Recommended Action Measures (RAMs) duri_ng the implementation process. The Coiili_Ilissioners were not inclined to prohibit that across the board, because neighborh~od plans were living docl.iments and should be allowed to change to reflect current thinking when the neighborhood believed the relevance of their plan had changed, or when new issues arose. They indicated they would be sensitive to a neighborhood's need to change and consider what they proposed. They asked staff to keep them aware of any citywide issues . City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of Jain1aty 28, 2008 Page 5 of8 Mr. Egner made a brief PowerPoint presentation and explained the project funding process. He explained that the ·capital Improvement Plan (CIP) was the "wish list" of projects that the City Council chose from when they funded projects in the budget. • Sources of funds were the General Fund, special dedicated funds (such as utility fees), transportation system development charges (SDCs ), and grants. He indicated that some projects were paid for by developers. He said citywide projects such as public facilities projects usually . took priority over stand-alone neighborhood projects. TAB recommended local pathway projects for funding each CIP cycle, and there was a small neighborhood enhancement fund. He said staff was considering a way to set aside a percentage of the budget to .fund local neighborhood projects and other ways to fund them on the local level, such as Local Improvement Districts (LIDs) or special area assessments, where the residents who benefited from the projects paid for them. He said another 111eans of funding trails and pathw1;1ys would be a citywide bond measure. Ms. Weigel advised that neighborhoods paid for half the cost of the traffic calming devices they requested. Staff confirmed that LIDs had not been used in recent years. They concluded that creative ways of funding projects had to be foqnd in order to bu,ild them. all. When staff anticipated a communitywide visioning process would take a year, the Commissioners recalled they had recommended "visioning lite." Staff explained the City Council was interested in a broader community vision that included the school district. They confirmed that they would keep the visioning process in mind as they continued to wor:k with the neighborhoods that were already working on implementation plans. Public Testimony Peter Klaebe, Rosewood Neighborhood Association/Community . Planning Organization (CPO), said the 14-step process was too detailed, bot a good planning tool. H~-asked'tlie City to help ''speed things along;' for the rest of the neighborhoods. He explained that the Rosewood plan had been finished two years ago, it did not call for any legislative code changes, but it was "on hold." Carolyn Krebs, Lake Forest Neighborhood Association, was concerned that the 14- Step process required so many tasks and so many meetings that people would be reluctant to serve oil the committee. She said her Association was already challenged to find people willing to populate its board and attend monthly meetings. She said volunteers did not have the technical krtowledge or expertise to develop a charge statem~nt, and create a matrix a11d a strategy.· She hoped staff would come to the neighborhood committee with solutions to their concerns, as they had for the Lake Grove Village Center Advisory Committee. She did not see the plan as a "living document" that people could ''tweak" during the implementation process, because allowing ''edits'' to the plan would stretch out the process. She said that should be a separate process and the current plan should be implemented ~ its approved form. She asked that the proposed process be streamlined as m11ch 1;1s possible. • Comroissioner Webster suggested the neighborhood should be able to "twe~" their plan , • to "fix" a specific problem so the pla11 would work for them. Ms. Weigel confl.lllled staff City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 2008 Page 6 of8 • • • • woUld give Lake Forest and other neighborhoods that asked for it the assistance Ms. Krebs asked for. She related that Lake Grove had decided to do the work themselves . Mr. Egner said staff could find creative ways to involve stakeholders in the Lake Forest Neighborhood. They might work with a core group of board members and solicit p\lblic input at a few public workshops. Coillrtlissionet Webster advised that adequate notice was an important association responsibility. She suggested utilizing email. Vice Chair Glisson cautioned that if the process were not representative, the Planning Commission would hear about it at the hearing of the plan. Chait Cooper observed that the Planning Department had already a,dded. neighborhood planners to help the neighborhoods. Cheryl Uchida reported that the Waluga Neighborhood was very diverse and included multifamily units .and businesses, but they did their best to communicate with all stakeholders, even going door-to-door to identify them and add them to the mailing list or pass out flyers. She cautioned that there were still many people who either did not own a computer or did not read email. She said the City only paid for two newsletters a year. She urged. the Planning Commissioners to become fa,miliar with their own neighborhood plans. She said neighborhood volunteers were "tired" of meetings ~d the thought of forming another committee was daunting. She said they regularly talked about implementing their plan and it was pa,rt ·of the agenda of every annual meeting. She reported that staff had made it easier for them to decide where to stilrt on their priority list. She said their plar1 was a,lso being implemented through other ·means, including neighborhood participation in the pre-_application process, tree cutting permits; and a traffic calming project they accomplished through TAB, but they wanted some policies and RAMs to be incorporated into a code overlay because they ,had learned their plan could not be the basis for land use decisions. Chris Robinson, Chair of the Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association, agreed the neighborhood planning process should be streamlined. He indicated. that the visioning process was critical because neighborhood plans would be driven by the vision of what they wanted to protect, instead of development. He explained that vision was not designating unincorporated area,s of the neighborhood as R-7.5 when they were annexed into the City. He said if the community had to accept higher density the process should be slowed down until the community formed its overall vision. He explained that his neighborhood association had become frustrated and "died" a,fter they worked hard on their plan but the City sacrificed neighborhood character and decided what the density ovetlay was to be. He said with periodic review of the Comprehensive Plan coming up, this was the perfect time for the visioning process. Mr. Egner heard in public testimony the need for mote flexibility in the process and an urgency to move forward more quickly. Commissioner Siegel suggested S\lpplementing the neighborhood association mailing resources so they could notify people of meetings and dtaft plans. Chair Cooper said there was a need to make it clear that neighborhood associations would have the benefit of staff assistance and they did not have to do it all on their own. Vice Chait Glisson stressed neighborhoods should endeavor to solicit support from all stakeholders . City ofl.ake Os\Vego Planning Commission Minu~es of January 28, 2008 Page 7 of8 VIII. OTHER BUSINESS -PLANNING COMMISSION LU 07-0029-Evergreen Neighborhood Plan Code Amendments Vice Chair Glisson rnoved to accept LU 07-0029(a)-1661 Supplemental Findings. Conclusions and Order. Commissioner Webster seconded the motion ~d it passed 5:0. IX. OTHER BUSINESS-COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT Staff announced that the Commissioners would meet as the Commission for Citizen Involvement on February 11,2008. X. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Cooper adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:00 p.:rn_, / City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of January28, 2008 Respectfully submitted, ' n~ ~rein en Administrative Support Page 8 of8 \ • • •