Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2008-04-14 (02)I • • • City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 2008 I. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Julie Glisson called the Pl~ng Commission meeting of Monday, April 14, 2008 to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 380 "A" A venue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL III. Members present were Vice Chair Glisson and Commissioners Adrianne Brockman, Philip Stewart and Alison Webster. Cotnmissioners Mary Beth Coffey, Scot Siegel and Chair Colin Cooper were excused. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Lortg 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. APPROVAL OFMINUTES Commissioner Brockman moved to approve the Minutes of January 28, 2008. Commissioner Webster seconded the motion and it pa,ssed 4:0. Commissioner Brockman moved to approve the Minutes of February 11. 2008. Commissioner Webster seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. Commissioner Brockman moved to approve the Minutes of February 25, 2008. Commissioner Webster seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. V. PUBLIC HEARING New Flood Management Area Mao and Related' Amendments (LU 07-0085) A request by the City of Lak~ Oswego regarding: ' • Adoption of a new Flood M~agern~nt Area Map and City of Lake Oswego Pl®Diilg Comil:lission Minutes of April 14, 2008 Page 1 of7 • Amendments to LOC Articles 50.02 (Definitions) and 50.44 (Flood Management Area) The heating had been continued from March 10 and March 24,2008. Vice Chair Glisson opened the public hearing ~d explained the applicable procedure and criteria. She asked the CominiSsioners to declare any bias or conflict of interest. None were declared. Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager, presented the staff report. He expl~11ed that since the previous hearing staff had prepared replacement flood management area maps that. were more "user-friendly," and showed flood elevations that were consistent with the current Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) base data points. He explained that one benefit of doing that was that the map of the flood management atea along the Willamette River was now consistent with other maps. However, because flood levels were now measured from a new base data point, the maps now showed that the Oswego Lake flood level was at an elevation of 1 07 feet, instead of 103.5 feet. The Commissioners indicated they wanted assurance that the general public would under~d. why the flood elevations had changed. Mr. Egner explained that the new maps were essentially the ·same flood management area maps th11t had been discussed at the public open house, but staff had subsequently improved the scale, incorporated FEMA' s b~e data points and 1996 flood data, and made the maps easier to use and consistent with each other. • Mr. Egner pointed out the March 21st staff memorandum discussed comments and • recominendations submitted by Lake Oswego Corporation representative, Mark Eves. He explained the staff proposed regulations went beyond what FEMA required in the historic flood overflow area (including Lakewood Bay and the vicinity of the dam). He said in those areas, a developer would have to comply with an additional requirement to show the development would not direct flooowater onto other properties. He anticipated that if the dam were improved so it allowed water to flow out of the lake at a faster rate, the flood level would be loWer and the City could reconsider the regulations. He pointed out the supplemental staff report agreed with several proposed code text changes Mr. Eves had suggested, During the questioning period, Mr. Egner clarified that staff had not had an opportllnityto meet with parties who had voiced some general objections to the proposed regulations since the previous hearing and the issuance of the March 21st staff memorandum, but they had met with them several times before that. Vice Chair Glisson recalled that someone had suggested using the lake drawdowr1 period to make changes. Mr. Egner suggested the City adopt the proposed changes to ensure FEMA compliance, and then work with the Lake Oswego Corporation and Foothills owners to determine how to bring about physical flood protection improvements· at the lake and in Foothills. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of Aprill4, 2008 Page2 of7 • -· • • • VI. Deliberations There was no public testitnony. The Commissioners wondered if the City was still in "flood season," and if there was time to postpone adoption of the historic flood overflow area regulations and work on measures that could protect against flooding. · They wondered how to encourage the ~ity and other parties to start working on a solution to flooding right away. Conunissidner Broclqnan stressed that flooding was costly and it was in the general public interest to recon:imend what staff proposed -including the historic flood overflow area regulations, which she said dould be changed later, if that were necessary. Staff advised that a datn in:iprovement project might take years. Mr. Egner suggested the Plal1ning Commission recoiilrtlend LU 07-0085 With the modifications the staff had agreed to. When asked, he indicated that the most effective pressure to cause parties to begin talks to work out a physical solution to fl9oding would be to adopt the entire package of staff-proposed arilendri1ents. Staff confirmed that an effective date could be set, but some amendments could be repealed if a physical solution were found before that date. Commissioner Brockman moved to recommend tu 07-0085 to the City Council with the modifications staff had suggested. Commissioner Webster seconded the motion and discussion followed. The Commissioners wanted to be sure that affected property owners would understand wh_at the ~djusted elev~tions meant. Mr. Egner SUITIInarized that the new maps showed the lake flood level 2.5 feet higher because the base flood elevation had been raised from 101 feet elevation to 103.5 feet, based on the FEMA study. In addition, the new study adjusted the scale by another 3.5 feet so that on the new maps the flood elevation was at a 107 foot elevation. The Commissioners commented that the most important thing for an affected property owner to understand was th~t they were required to build higher than the relative flood level. The motion passed 4:0. Vice Chair Glisson directed the staff to schedule a work session to discuss what could be done to encourage the City, the L~e Corporation and Foothills property owners to move forward with physical solutions to flooding. Mt. Egner anticipated that the staff would describe possible flood protection strategies at that meeting. COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT-WORk SESSION Proposed Revisions to Citizen Involvement Guidelines (PP 08 .. 0001) Sarah Selden, Neighborhood Planner, presented the staff report. She pointed out that . proposed changes to the Citizen Involvement Guidelines included a new Section C(5): Procedure to Amend Boundaries of Recognized Neighborhood Associations. It requited a proposed change to meet three criteria: The atea was to meet bou.ndary characteristics that called fot a representational area with commonalities listed in Section C(1); all properties within the subject area were to be included in a neighborhood association; and the change was to be supported by a vote of a majority of members of all affected neighborhood associations. The proposed changes also reflected the Commissioners' desire ·to use staggered terms to avoid a complete turnover of a neighborhood association board in one election, and to allow a neighborhood association to become less active, but keep its City recogrlition, during times it was not faced with many issues . City of Lake Oswego Planning Coiililiission Minutes of Aprill4, 2008 Page3 of7 The Cortunissiorters suggested the three-step process described in Section C(5) should be made clearer and more understandable for the reader. Staff asked what the interest threshold shoulcJ be to initiate a boundary amendment process.. Was a "requisite • majority" . vote (when allowed by a neighborhood a.ssocia.tion's bylaws) of five ·· households enough, or should there be a requirement to submit a petition signed by those who wanted to be in a new neighborhood association, or signed by a certain number of "parent" neighborhood association members? The Commissioners indicated it still made sense to require a "splinter group" to show that there had been a change that justified separating from a parent neighborhood association, and that they had not requested the change simply because their position had not prevailed in a major neighborhood association decision. The C.ortunissioners considered whether the decision should be made by a vote of neighborhood association members, or determined by the City, based on, applicable criteda.. Sta.ff advised that in either case fmal approval was up to the City Cotiilcil. Commissioner Brockman supported a criteria-based process in which the Planning Commission would consider whether the criteria were met and then forward a recommendation to the City Council. The initiators would have to formally prove there had been a change of circumstances, and the criteria were no lo1;1ger met by .the parent association, but were met by the proposed change. She held that the criteria should drive the decision, not a vote of the neighborhood association. Staff clarified that most areas currently in the county are already included in a City recognized neighborhood association. Vice Chair Glisson observed that although the final decision was up to the City Council, the "push" for a change came from residents. She asked if staff should start the process at the request of the "splinter" group or the neighborhood association. Vice Chair Glisson and Commissioner Webster suggested the process should start with the "parent" association giving its blessing to the proposed change, which would then be vetted during the rest of the process. However, Commissioner Brockman cautioned that the parent association might not agree with the proposed change, and she observed they would have an opportunity to make their case at a public hearing. Staff asked i_f the <:;ommissioners wanted the proposed change to first meet the criteria, and then be supported by a neighborhood associa.tion vote. Commissioner Webster suggested setting a ininimUiil threshold of support for initiating the process to ensure it was worth going through the hearings process. Commissioner Brockrtuiil observed staff could initially discuss the merits of the proposal with the splinter group, but she acknowledged there should be a "groundswell" of support for the change. Vice Chair Glisson agreed there should be some showing of significant support. Mr. Egner suggested that after the boundary criteria were met, a threshold of support of a certain size, area or number of petition signers could be req11ired. Staff advised that the City had neighborhood associations with membership ranging between 1,540 and less than 200 households. They asked if five households in ail area of 100 houses were enough to initiate a proposal. The Commissioners reasoned that initiators who demonstrated their proposal had enough Support would also ·be demonstrating that they could handle the rigors of forming and maintaining a new and City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Mm.utes of Aprill4, 2008 Page4 of7 • ' .• • • • active neighborhood association and a new volunteer board. Commissioner Brockman did not favor requiring a petition. Commissioner Webster suggested reqUiring a showing that a relative percentage of area households supported it. Vice Chair Glisson asked staff to constd~r whether a show of support of a percent~ge, perhaps 10% of a 1 ,500-household neighborhood associ~tion, might be appropriate. · The Con;unissioners.thenexamined Section C(4): Procedure to Remove Recognition, and considered whether this section should clarify what "Failure to remain organized and actively involved" meant. Staff advised the City had never removed recognition, but in 2007, the Planning Commission hac:l discussec:l · the need to "prote<::t" ~ dorm~m neighborhood association from losing recognition by giving it a status that imposed very minimal requirements until some "hot button" issue invigorated them. They pointed out the c:lraft bad been fasl:rioned so that the mpst critical "iapse" would be to not address iss-ues that affected the neighborhood. Staff advised the City woUld give a neighborhood association adequate warning of potential deactivation. The Commissioners examined Section E: Evaluation of Continuing Citizen Participation. they agreed to the staff suggestion to schedule the aili1U,al CoiJliilcission for Citizen Involvement (CCD/City Council joint meeting the same day the Council considered the revised Citizen Involvement Guidelines. Commissioner Brockman reported that neighborhood associations had explained to her they had not sent a representative to a recent CCI meeting because they had not seen issues they were interestec:l in on the agenda, She saw a need to emphasize that other issues could be raised at CCI meetings. The other Cotrunissioners agreed to add the following paragraph to this section: The Comm:ission for Citizen Involvement will hold at least one meeting ann:ually to evaluate the CCI program. Notice shall be given to all neighborhood association organizations anc:l other organizations with an interest in community involvement. The agenda shall clearly state that citizens can raise issues not on the agenda which relate to eel mc:t.tters. " Citizen Comment CatolVne Jones, a Glenmorrie Neighborhood Association board member, explained that her Association was not swe they wa.riied ··to -take ·on the task of adding Sky lands (which hc:t.d very large lots) or Mary's Woods (which had relatively small lots) to their neighborhooq, and those two other neighborhoods might not want to be incorporated into Glenmotrie, either. She also suggested creating Cit.i_?:en Involvement Guidelines for Commimity Pl~ing ·organi?:~tions (CPOs). Staff explained that the County controlled CPO requirements, but some City neighborhoods that included some coijllty lanc:l bad fashioned bylaws that met both City and Cou,nty requirements. They also reported that Slcylands and Foothills area property owners were each working to fomi a City- recognized neighborhood association . City of Lake Oswego Planning Corrimission Minutes of Aprill4, 2008 Page 5 <>f7 VII. PLANNING COMMISSION-WORk SESSION Neighborhood Plan Implementation Follow up to the implementation framework for adopted neighborhood. plans discussed on J~\1~ Z8, 2008. \ Laura Weigel, Neighborhood Planner, reported that staff had conveyed the Planning Commission requ~~t to the neighborhood e1s.sociations that they strive for the most effective outreach when developing their implementation strategy, and that they check in with the Planning Commission during the process. She anticipated that Lake Grove and Glenmorrie would be the first ne!ghborlwods to presept updates to the Planning Commission. The Commissioners commended staff for the process they had fashioned. · Community Development Code Amendments (PP 08 .. 0002) · Update on proposed text amendments to Lake Oswego Code (LOC) Community Development Code (CDC), Che1pter 50 to clarify, correct and update sections. Dennis EgJJ.er, LoQg Rapge Planning Manager, discussed the second packet of proposed CDC amendments. However, the Commissioners decided to e:x:a..roipe $1d discuss Packet 2 at their next hearing. • Commissioner Brockman reviewed her notes regarding Packet 1 at!d offered her comments and questions. She was concerned about allowing so many exceptions to height, and about not counting a garage in lot coverC1ge. Staff explained that .in 2003 the • method for measuring height had been changed from the midpoint of the roof (h.Cllfway up the roof), to the top of the roof. Exceptions were allowed to allow some roof forms to extend upward another six feet to provide variation to the roofline. the exceptions could not take up more than a certain percentage of the roof area or one elevation. Staff related that upcoming inJi,ll recommendations addressed how garages were counted in lot coverage. They agreed with Commissioner Brockman that it would bt! a good idea to plan a tour of the community to compare what .had been built urtder old and new height standards. They clarified that staff had proposed .the update -that would mean the Front Setback Plane did not apply to flag lots -but it w~ inconsistent with an upcoming Infill Task Force recommendation to requite flag lot accesses to be built as smal.l streets. They said they pl8,1Jlled to coordinate the two recommendations. They clarified that what was the ''ftont" of a flag lot was currently determined at the tillle the flag lot was created, but the infill recommendations would require the house to be oriented toward the access "pole." Commissioner Brockman explained she wante4 some limitations on the height of the flag lot ho11se to assure neighbor's privacy. Mr. Boone advised that a flag lot ho11se was limited to a height of either 22 feet, or the average hei~t of the houses Within 100 feet of the flag lot development, ot base zone height. Staff clarified one sectioiJ. of the code that offered height bonuses on constrained lots in Old Town. Commissioner Brockman suggested that dog day care should not be allowed in the • Neighborhood CommerCial (NC) zone or Mixed Commercial (MC) zone because barking 'city of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of April14, 2008 Page 6 of7 .• • • • would impact residential neighbors. Staff noted the proposal allowed them there when the use was "fully conducted within the building,'' but they Suggested dog day care could be a Condition~ Use i11 those ZOJ1es. Commissioner Brockman suggested expanding the list of specific uses that were to be considered "professional office" uses. Staff explained how the relationship between commercial building height and the. required setback from residential uses was calculated. They confirmed that driveways were allowed to be within a setback, but designated parking spaces could not be. They explained how the height limit was applied by finding aggregate height in the Campus Research & Development (CR&D) zone and the development standards gave the developers the same rights they had in. the Col.lnty before the area was annexed~ Commissioner Brockman suggested that ''Repair and Processing" uses were potentially noisy and they should be required to have more screening. She was also concerned about ensuring that parking standards provided adequate parking. Staff announced that Hattiid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager, and Jonna Papaefthimiou, Natural Resources Planner, would be present at the next meeting to address sensitive land amendments. VIII. OTHER BUSINESS -PLANNING COMMISSION IX . X. None. OTHER BUSINESS -COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT None. ADJOURNMENt There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Vice Chair Glisson adjourned the meeting at 8:20p.m. Respectfully submitted, i2~~ Iris Trei11en Administrative Support City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2008 · Page 7 of7