Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2008-02-11 (02).. -. • • • I. CALL TO ORDER City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission and . Commission t~~:z~n Involvemen~p~ February 11, 2008 Vice Chair Julia Glisson called the Planning Commission and Commission for Citizen Involvement meeting of Monday, February 11, 2008 to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 3 80 "A" A venue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL lit Members present besides Vice Chait Glisson were Commissioners· Adrianne Brockman, Philip Stewart and Alison Webster. Chair Colin Cooper and Commissioners Mary Beth Coffey and Scott Siegel were excused. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Sarah Selden, Neighborhood Planner; Laura Weigel, Neighborhood Planner, Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris Treinen, Administrative Support . CITIZEN COMMENT None. IV. MINUTES Commissioner Webster moved to annrove the Minutes of January 14, 2008. Vice Chair Glisson seconded the motion. Since a majority of Commissioners eligible to vote on the minutes were not present, the Commissioners held an interim vote with the final vote to occur at· the next Planning Commission meeting. The interim vote results were that Commissioner Webster and Vice Chair Glisson voted to· approve the minutes a11d Commissioners Brockman and Stewart recused. V. COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT The Planning Commission met as the Commi.ssion for Citizen Involvement (CCI) to discuss citizen involvement guidelines, neighborhood associations, comiriunication tools and support. Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; and Sarah Selc:len a.nd Laura Weigel, Neighborhood Planners, presented the stiff report. They recommended reducing the four cliltent classifications of neighborhood associations to two: "Recognized Neighborhood;' and "Other Neighborhood." They reported that Skylands Commwtity Planning Organization (CPO) was interested in. working toward City City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February II, 2008 / Page I ofli recognition. They reported that some members of the Palisades Neighborhood Association wanted to split that association into two smaller associations. they indicated that there was no established process for doing so. • St~f reported that neighborhoods wanted to know if they were allowed to vote by proxy. Staff said the Citizen Involvement Guidelines did not address that, ancl some people were concerned that people voting by proxy would not be as informed as members who participated in the meeting and voted. Mr. Boone advised that each neighborhood association was a separate legal entity and how a neighborhood association governed itself was not usually a City matter, except that the City did want assurance that e~ch neighborhood solicited all members' opinions about land use applications. Staff indicated that the City did ask each neighborhood association to establish some procedure for elections. Staff reported that some active associations wanted the City to support more than the two mailings pet year the City provided for them. Staff cautioned that it would require more staff time than was currently budgeted, so another alternative might be to give the associations funds to use for that plirpose. They report~d that some associations did not agree with the City's practice of reviewing each newsletter to ensure the information was accwate. They asked if staff should simply mail each newsletter with a "disclaimer" printed on it that specified the neighborhood was responsible for its content. Staff proposed ways to improve service to neighborhood associations, including making the City website more effective and easy for them to. use; offering quarterly outreach Workshops for neighborhood associations; distributing a quarterly newsletter with tips • from staff and updates on neighborhood planrting activities; and creating a "neighborhood association" option on Listserv for distributing neighborhood plaililing news electronically. · Mr. Egner advised the City had more and smaller neighborhood associations than typically found in other jurisdictions. He cautioned that at some point an association might become too small to be very effective. Mr. Boone stressed that· the City was primarily concerned with ensuring that each association gathered opinions about legislative and land use matters from all its members and reported both majority and minority views. Staff clarified that the City required each association to adopt an official procedure for. elections, but allowed each neighborhood to determine what that procedure was to be. During the questioning period, staff reported that the City had twentY . neighborhood associations. They suggested that if the Commissioners agreed the City should allow a neighborhood association to split, the sarile procedure and criteria could be used for that as was used to form a new association. Commissioner Brockman observed that there were 20 neighborhood associations but ortly 18 persons in the audience. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes ofFebruary 11, 2008 Page 2 ofll • • • • Public Testimony Sally Moncrieff, Chair of the Palisades Neighborhood Association, 2643 Riven dell Road,. submitted a document. that· described bow the Association was organiz~d, what they were working on, and how they were trying to involve all Palisades Neighborhood Association (PNA) members.· She said the association's large size was a benefit because it was well-organized, enjoyed a large pool of potential volunteers and bad 17 board members and 12 atea managers who were working on their website, local projects, issues and member involvement. She reported PNA meetings were typically well attended and the association was doing a good job of reaching its members. Ms. Moncrieff said they were currently working on an emergency response plan, sustainability, a local park, and the neighborhood plan. She related that a vendor had offered to publish the PNA newsletter because the association was big enough the publisher could anticipate sufficient advertising revenue. She said ~e Association planned to focus on better communication. Mark. Easley, 1921 Woodland .Terrace, a Palisades Neighborhood Association Area Representative, indicated he did not support splitting the PNA. He suggested the City help the association with outreach by hosting and financially supporting a website that all City neighborhoods could use. He predicted the result would be a higher level of participation and it would facilitate "qUick surveys." He noted that people could choose to ''opt in" to receiving communications via ernail, i_nstead of regular mail. Jaliene Hollabaugh, 1685 Cloverleaf Road, Palisades neighborhood Area 9 resident, indicated thaf she favored splitting the association in a manner that would give two or three of the areas aroUn.d publicly owned land a stronger voice in what happened there. She recalled they had been told yea,rs ago to· wait until their neighborhood plan was completed before discussing a split. ·She explained that the plan currently divided the PNA into "areas" and that would make it easier to facilitate a split. She noted Old Town only included 100 homes. Sh~ asked why Palisades Neighborhood Association had been originally made so large. During the questioning period, she explained that her area· did not feel the association gave enough weight to their opinion, and even before the issue of public land came up, they believed they had a communication problem with the rest of the association. She stressed that it was time for the neighborhood to split. David Feathers, 17721 Overlook Circle, Vice Chair of the Palisades Neighborhood Association said "shrinking" the PNA would not be a good thing, and it would set a dangerous precedent. He noted PNA size was the reason the newsletter vendor was able to anticipate e11ough advertising revenue that they could offer the PNA that service at no cost to the association. He atg\led that residents who lived farther away from the school Were still interested in and impacted by its use. He indicated the solution to the perceived conummication problem was to discuss member differences irt an open forum, and the neW PNA board was doing that. He said meetings typically drew over 100 members. He said after the last vote on a land use issue (the result was 90 in favor, and 15 against) the board issued both a majority and a minority statement. City of Lake Oswego Planning Cortiniission Miri~tes of February II, 2008 Page 3 of II Jay Woodworth, 2070 Ridge Pointe Drive, explained that a hill divided of the Palisades Neighborhood Association into east and west. He said he resided on the "east" side where residents were challenged by the prospect of incteasing traffic and safety' issues as · land arO\lnd them w~ developed. He said a split was justified because east side residents (currently the "minority") should have a greater voice ip developments that would affect the east, but not the west side. Mr. Woodworth said he had served on the "old" board, and the "new" board was not fostering goodwill and friendship because they were demanding and impractical. He said that membe.rs should have to attend meetings to discuss issues and vote and proxy voting did not offer sufficient opportunity for that · Martin Heisler, 45 Morningview Circle, who represented the Mountain Park Homeowners Association, relayed questions posed by their new general manager and their board. He said he was President of the Summit at Moqnt~i._ Park, which was one of a n\Ullber of smaller homeowner associations within the larger Mountain Park Homeowners Association. He asked the City to clarify the status and relationship of the large and small associations. Staff clarified that the legal and financial relationship of the smaller and large associations and how they addressed local issues and semipublic comnion areas was not a Corn:mission for Citizen Involvement matter, and the City's interest was to ensure that all the neighborhoods and homeowners associations sufficiently engaged their members before they took a pos~tion on land use matters being considered by the Planning Department or by the Planning Commission. They advised that Mountain Par~ had a unique status in the City system as a homeowners association - not a neighborhood association -but there were steps outlined in the Citizen Involvement Guidelines that Mountain Park could chose to follow if it decided to become an official City neighborhood association too. Becky Salsburg, 17986_ St. C~air Drive. who had served on the Palisades Neighborhood Association, Neighborhood Plan Committee, reported that the committee members had recognized that because the association was very hrrge and divided by Cooks Butte, resid~nts who lived on the side of Cooks Butte that was -less challenged. by new development, were less motivated by common interests and were less likely to attend meetings. She recalled they had intended to recommend splitting the PNA before the p.ew board was elected, but after that the suggestion was set aside. She questioned whether an email survey proc~ss could be established that would ensure broad enough outreach. Cheryl Uchida, 15190 Quarrr Road,. Secretaryffreasurer of the· Waluga Neighborhood Associatio~, wondered if a few neighborhoods -negotiating together - could negotiate a lower printing cost for newsletters ·than the City reported cost She stressed volunteers in the Waluga Neighborhood made an enonno\lS effort to keep the mailing list updated, published two newsletters a year, and passed out informational flyers. She added they were ''tired." She doubted an email .. based COI.lliilunication process would work well in her neighborhood where many people either did not own a computer or did not access their email regularly. She recalled there had been times when City staff wanted the association to edit the content of a draft newsletter, but the association bad • • insisted on no change. She reported it took two trips to City Hall to put out a newsletter. • City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 11, 2008 • • • ' She reported the association currently had art updated mailing list with over 500 addresses, including addresses of business property tenants who did not live in the neighborhood. She thanked Planning Department staff for helping Waluga with their newsletter. She reported that a part of the Waluga neighborhood along Waluga Drive bad previously split off and joined the Lake Forest Neighborhood after they differed with the rest of the Waluga Neighborhood Association regarding traffic calming on Quarry Road and Albertson's development. She recalled her neighborhood had icitiallych~lep.ged the split, but subsequently decided to let them make the change. She said the Waluga Neighborhood Association had learned over time that it was most effective to join together with other adjacent associations to find common ground on issues before they took a position on them, because there was strength in nu.mbers. During the questioning period, Commissioner Brockman suggested adding a neighborhood section to each monthly issue of Hello LO! to promote outreach and reduce the cost to neighborhoods. Ms, Uchida said she wou1d discuss that with her bo~d, and she suggested the City also ask Lake Oswego Neighborhood Action Coalition (LONAC). When Commissioner Brockman asked if the CCI should be a separate body -not the Planning Commission acting as CCI -Ms. Uchida, cotrlirrned that was her personal . opinion. When Commissioner Brockman· asked why there were not more representatives · from associations present at the CCI meeting, Ms. Uchida said it was likely not due to apathy but because working people wanted to spend available time with their families and felt they could rely oil their neighborhood representatives. Others present recalled that one of the City's neighborhood associations had scheduled their own meeting that evening, and some present speculated that Lake ·Grove and Lake Forest members might be tired after spending so .much time at meetings on the Village Center Plan. Mike Hall, 2080 Ridge Pointe Drive, Palisades Neighborhood Association Area 11 Representative, argued that no matter how small a neighborhood was, there would be diversity of opinion, so that was not a sufficient reason to split the association. He said the new board was more active. They had been Working hard since they had been elected in July, and they just needed toe foster dialogue that wot~ld encourage the entire neighborhood to trust each other and work together .. He said they all were impacted to some extent by what happened at public facilities hi the neighborhood. Discussion Staff asked if the Commissioners wanted to recommend a process for splitting a neighborhood association and incorporate it into the Commission for Citizen Inyolver:nent guidelines. Commissioner Webster wanted to know the circlJII1stances under which the Palisades Neighborhood Association boundary was originally established, and what had changed since then. She suggested that if a neighborhood split were proposed, the potential new neighborhood should first have to meet City criteria for forming a neighborhood and then be supported by majority vote of the entire original association. Commissioner Brockman agreed there shot~ld be a process and the criteria should be met first -whether the group wanted to split, or modify boundaries. However, she suggested the application then be reviewed and approved by a City he~ngs body, instead of by an association vote, because some areas, like· her own, were so diverse that they might be City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes ofFebtuary II, 2008 P!!.ge 5 of II able to agree to ask for recognition, but would likely not be able to agree on a specific plan. Commissioner Stewart suggested the process should also address what was necessary to merge part of a neighborhood with an adjacent neighborhood. Mr. Egner • agreed to fashion criteria and a. related process for Planning Commission examination. He anticipated it would consider factors such as whether the area was divided by a major street or tQpography; whether there had been a change in circumstances; or if there was a problem with representation. He advised the City Col.incil Would make the fmal determination of whether or not to recognize the neighborhood. Vice Chair Glisson sugge$ted considering wh~t common interest$ held the area together. Comn::tis$ioner Webster suggested leaning toward keeping a neighborhood together unless there was a good reason not too, because it might not be beneficial to allow a neighborhood to get too small. Others recalled that a developer h~d fonned Mm,mtain Park and that several other neighborhoods had formed to protect themselves from an adjacent business district. They observed that Palisades would be tremendously impacted by Stafford area development. They suggested every part ofthe Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) should be in a neighborhood. The Commissioners discussed other parts of the staff report. They generally favored the simplified neighborhood classification system. They also indicated they felt that a neighborhood that was inactive should be allowed to remain "dormant'' until an issue developed that motivated the members to become more active again. They suggested that some neighborhoods that had been especially active recently might want to give their members a respite from frequent meetings. Commissioner Brockman recalled LONAC had disctissed "continuity problems" after complete new boards were elected and the • previous, experienced, board members were gone. She suggested allowing staggered, two-year; terms might keep $Orne experienced board members on the board after an election and might result in involving more members in their association. Vice Chair Glisson agreed that would foster continuity, while mixing new and old opinions about issues, Mr. ·Egner suggested allowing a mix: of one and two-year terms. Mr. Boone said the City currently required aililual elections, but if was up to each neighborhood to decide the terms of their board members. He advised that if the Planning Commission decided the City should mandate staggered term$, the Commissioners 1 needed to provide the rationale showing Why that requirernent was likely to result in better representa,tion. :He reiterated that the City's interest was ensuring that neighborhood boards fulfilled their responsibility to ~~bmit all positions, including minority positions, to the City during legislative and land use hearings. He observed that some CCI Guidelines "encourage'' inl)tead of mandate. When asked, he clarified that a neighborhood could exist outside of City recognition, but recognition gave them status to testify as a neighborhood and incorporate their plan into the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Brockman moved to _recommend that the City add a criterion for neighborhood recognition that requited an association to have :tW()-year~minimum, staggered terms for memb~rs of their board of directors. Commissioner Webster seconded the motion and discussion followed. Vice Chair Glisson observed th~t would not prevent a board member from vacating his/her position in mid-tetiil. Commissioner • Brockn'lan clarified the change would set a minimum two-year term, but would allow City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes ofFebruary 11, 2008 Page 6 ofl1 • • • three-yeat terms, if a neighborhood wanted that. Cortlrtlissioner Stewart suggested that one-year terms might make it easier to convince people to commit to serve on a board, and suggested allowing a board member to automatically exte11d hi_slher one-year tenn for one more year. Mr. Egner suggested requiring that a specific percentage of board positions carry ovet to the next year. Colilrtlissionet Brockman agreed that Would help ensure continuity of gained knowledge and perhaps greater participation. Commissioner Webster suggested requiring one-year terms but recommending that terms be staggered so the entire board and its agenda did not change after an election. Vice Chair Glisson suggested specifying that at least 50% of board positions were to be staggered. Commissioner Brockman withdrew her motion. Vice Chair Glisson moved to recommend to the City Council that CCI Guidelines be changed to· recommend that neighborhood association boards establish a minimum of two-yearterms_ofservice.ontheir board ofdirectors_and sche4u1~ ~lections so that at least 50% of board positions were staggered terr:ils. Cotntnissioner Brockman seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. The Commissioners then discussed the issue of proxy voting. Commissioner Brockman did not favor allowi_ng proxy voting becau$e she worried that it would destabilize the neighborhood planning process if some members wete allowed to vote against a plan the · p_lanning committee had worked hard on and reached consensus mi. She said not a1lowing proxy voting would mean that members would have to attend meetings and learn the pros. and cons before they voted on issues. Commissioner Webster observed that people led busy lives with schedules that might conflict with neighborhood meeting schedules, and they were used to voting by mail in other elections. She said it Would be fait to allow them to vote by alternative means if they could not attend a specific meeting. Mr. Egner asked if the Commissioners wanted to differentiate between allowing proxy voting in elections and votes regarding a land use position. Commissioner Webster was not sure proxies should be counted in land use votes. Vice Chair Glisson also was not sure. She agreed with testimony that email could be "abused," and perhaps should not be used in voting, but she said it was a good method of communication~ She recalled that neighborhood representatives on the committee that drafted the Lake Grove Village Center Plan used email as one means of comrtnirticating with their constituents, but many busy neighbors trusted their representative to be their voice ancl vote on the committee, and represent them at land use and pre-application meetings. Cominissioiler Stewart stressed the CCI should encourage people to attend neighborhood meetings if they wanted to vote on the issues. Commissioner Brockman observed that if they could not ~ttend, they could send a letter, or another representative to share their position, instead. Vice Chair Glisson invited public comments regarding proxy voting. Bob Barman, 14450ak Terrace, said he was like many others and had obligations that sometimes conflicted with the neighborhood meeting schedule. He held they should not be disenfranchised because they col!ld not attend a meeting. He reported that it was typical for 80% of Lake Oswego Corporation member votes to be by prozy. He asked why only the 20% present in a meeting room should be allowed to rnake the decision. He City of Lake Oswego Planning CoDUilission Minutes of February 11, 2008 Page 7 of II added that in a democracy, all were allowed to vote, no matter what their level of knowledge, and it was the responsibility of the neighborhood association to try harder to inform them. He said people trusted their more-informed friends to guide and represent • them in good faith at Lake Oswego Corporation meetings. He acknowledged the proxy system could potentially be abused, but he worried that not allowing proxy voting would result in increased apathy, because people would wonder why they should bother to pay attention. Vice Chait Glisson agreed that a proxy voting system could be abused 1lllless there was also a good communication system in place that kept members well infotmed and gave them trust in their represent~tives. She suggested the Planning Commission could recommend leaving the decision up to each neighborhood, or recommend conditions that had to be in place before a neighborhood adopted a proxy System. Ms. Moncrieff explained that even'th()Jlgh. I:>alisades Neighborhood Association bylaws allowed proxy voting, the association had never conducted an election or made a land use decision using proxy votes. All those decisions had been made by hal).d vote at m~etings. She said the members understood that. She said they also used other means to inform members, but they did not use electronic means to conduct surveys or ~ake decisions. Other neighborhood representatives stressed that it was important for a neighborhood to make strong efforts to inform and involve members in the planning process, but when people could not attend meetings, they should still be able to participate in voting. One stressed that he often voted by proxy in investment-entity-related decisions. The representatives said electronic means was good for distributing information, but not for surveys or voting, because some people could not use it. They added that proxy voters • were not necessarily uninformed voters. Commissioner Brockman said she could agree to not prohibit proxy voting if neighborhoods wanted it. She suggested tracking how well it worked. ·Palisades Neighborhood Association representatives clarified that they had never had to use proxy votes to decide a vote because their meetings were typically very well attended and counting proxy votes -even if they all voted the same way -would not have changed the outcm:ne. They explained that they tried to inform all members; they documented every action; and they had asked the City to assign neighborhood-planning staff to ensure that everything was done fairly. Commissioner Brockman stressed that in Oregon's local and national elections everyone was mailed a ballot, and a neighborhood should follow that example. Commissioner Webster suggested the Commissioners table the discussion, take no 3ctiop. to change Commission for Citizen Involvement Guidelines, and allow each neighborhood to decide whether they wanted to allow proxy voting. Commissioner Brockman suggested the City monitor how well proxy voting worked. the Commissioners then discussed the newsletter issue. Commissioner Webster recalled that a vendor had offered to publish the Palisades Neighborhood Association newsletter because they had a large membership. She said such an arrangement might not be offered • to smaller neighborhoods. Vice Chair Glisson recalled hearing that email communication City of Lake Oswego Plaiining Commission Minutes of February 11, 2008 Page 8 of 11 • • • l wot1ld not work for some people. Commissioner Brockman asked if each neighborhood could have a section in Hello LO! each month. Staff observed that publication was generally used as the City Administrator's means of informing the public, but they offered to talk with Public Affairs staff about adding a new section for neighborhood announcements. Commissioner Webster suggested adding a disclaimer that each neighborhood controlled the content of its section. Commissioner J3roc1anan suggested the neighborhood section could refer readers to the neighborhood website, or some other place to get more information. Commissioner Webster said if space were an· issue, neighborhoods could be given Hello LO! space on a rotating basis that was coordinated with their meeting schedule. Commissioner Brockman suggested that staffask each neighborhood to fashion their own communication strategy. The staff report described an option to simply give neighborhood associations m.oney to spend on coll)IIlunication activities, and aliow them to purchase what they needed themselves. However, staff recoiilinended against this option because there was a cost savings to the neighborhoods in having the City provide copying/mailing services, the City would be providing neighborhood mailing lists that encompass the entire association, and staff would be infortned of neighborhood association activities published in the newsletters. Staff clarified that the other option was that each neighborhood a,ssociation would be given a specific budget and the City would. continue assisting them with the printing and mailing. Commissioner Brockman agreed the City should let neighborhoods determine the ways they wanted to communicate and give them the money for it, as long as their process was designed to teach all members. She recalled it was typical now for organizations to offer their members the ability to opt to receive electronic col11Illunications instead of "snail mail." Staff said they were developing training materials to use in neighborhood outreach Workshops, and would suggest that. Vice Chair Glisson advised that it was irnpottailt to identify the authors of newsletter articles because the members should be able to see whose opinion it was. St~ confirmed they were no longer requiring that newsletters be edited for content accuracy, but provided suggested edits for the neighborhood's consideration and also required them to include the editor's name and contact information. They said they could also require that individual authors be identified. The neighborhood representatives indicated that it was important to find a Wl:!.Y to protect individual privacy when neighborhoods devdoped aJ1 email database, so someone would not use it to spam members or for some other kind of abuse. They reported that a resident who was a policeman had objected to the neighborhood keeping a databl:!.Se thl:!.t connected his email address with his name and physical address. They wondered if it would be better if the City maintained the email system and controlled email privacy. Staff advised that emails from the City were public records, but there were ways to send emails that hid all the other recipients' email addresses from each individual recipient, and people now had the ability to use a ''throw-away" email address to receive mailings. Commissioner Webster suggested giving each neighborhood association their own link from the City website, and making website content "printable," so members who opted out of"snail mail" could easily print a copy. · City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes ofFebruary 11, 2008 Page 9 of 11 Vice Chair Glisson said it made sertse for the Planning Department website to tell people where they could go to get neighborhood information. She also liked the idea of outreach workshops. Mr. Egner said they would ask the Information Technology (IT) staff what would be involved in having the City host individual neighborhoods' websites. Ms. Selden clarified that the City's n~ighborhood association website provided a link to individual neighborhood associations and that they preferred not getting involved with managing email lists. She said the City wanted the neighborhood associations to use the web as a source· for information and a tool for reachii1g ou,t to their neighbors. They said they already planned to send a staff email newsletter to all neighborhoods that contained information ·and "tips." They pointed out that Commissioner Siegel had emailed a suggestion to send out a supplemental survey to ~1 neighborhoods that would help determine the effectiveness of the CCI program, and he had ilot specified what means should be employed to do that. One of the Palisades Neighborhood Association representatives said he had more in common geographically, politically, and with regard to zoning and development concerns, with lakefront owners, and he suggested a "lakefront" neighborhood association should be formed to include properties located within two blocks of the lake. He recalled that Country Club residents wanted a height restriction to prevent tall homes in their area, but that limit did not work well ~ong North Shore slopes. He added that North Shore owners were more comfortable with very small side yard setbacks, because they wanted more spacious backyards. Vice Chair Glisson closed the CCI discussion. Staff was to . propose changes and draft an update to the CCI Guidelines for future CCI consideration . VI. PLANNING COMMISSION= WORK SESSION Community Develo_pm~~~:t_Code (CDC) Amendments _(PP _08~0002) Update on proposed text amendments to the Lake Oswego Code (LOC) Chapter 50 (Community Development Code) for clarifying, correcting and updating sections. The Coii1Il1.issioners agreed to postpone this discussion to when they could schedule more meeting time for it. Mr. Egner explained the update was so latge that staff had divided it and would present it in three parts. The Commissioners planned to begin consideration of the updates by determining which were "housekeeping" change$ ap.d which were substantive changes that could have more impact and required more public vetting. Commissioner Brockman suggested staff also present them to LONAC and alert the local newspape_r. Vice Chair Glis~;on suggested they also alert the neighborhoods that the Code updating process had begun. Staff invited each Commissioner to highlight items they saw as potential issl!es for staff. They anticipated that some proposed CDC updates might conflict with proposed Infill changes and it would be better to wait until the final drafts of both proposals were ready before holding hearings. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 1 L 2008 Page 10 ofll • • • • • • • VII. ADJOURNMENT . . ,·- There being no further btlsiness before the Pl~Iig Commission, Vice Chair Glisson adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:50 p.m. City ofLIIke O~wego Planning Commission Minut~s ofFebruary 11, 2008 Respectfully submitted, g~ Iris Treinen Administrative Support . Page II of II