Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2008-05-28 (02)• • • I. City of Lake Oswego d Planning Commission Minutes appro'~' MaY, 28, 2008 I' CALL TO ORDER Chair Julia Glisson called the Planning Commission meeting of Monday, May 28, 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 Chair Julia Glisson, Vice Chair Philip Stewart and Commissioners Adrianne Brockman, Mazy Olson and Scot Siegel. Collll1lissioner Alison Webster wa_s excused. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Sarah Selden, Neighborhood Plaimet; Lama Weigel, Neighborhood Planner, Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris Treinen, Administrative Support . CITIZEN COMMENT Commissioner Brockman reported the she had received comments from citizens regarding proposed code updates that she would bring to next Pl~ing Commission meeting. IV. MINUTES Commissioner Brockman moved to approve the Minutes _of April ._14. 2008. Commissioner Stewart seconded the motion and it passed 3:0. Cortlinissioners Olson and Siegel recused. Commissioner Brockman moved to approve the Minutes of ~pril 28, 2008. Commissioner Stewart seconded the motion and it passed 3:0. Commissioners Olson and Siegel recused. V. PLANNING COMMISSION-WORK SESSION Neighborhood _Planning.Process (PP 07-0013/PP 08 .. 0007) -Discussion regarding the relationship of the neighborhood planning process and the community visioning process_. Laura Weigel and Sarah Selden, Neighborhood Planners, presented the staff report. They reported that the City Council had chosen to undertake a community,-wide visioning process that would consider more than just hind use and planning issues. The process City of Lake Oswego Planning Com:m:ission Minutes of May 28,2008 Page I of7 ... was to begin in the fall of 2008, when a series of speakers would frame the process for the citizens through presentations on issues and trends related to visioning topics, and end wdrheftn dthe dr 1 aftdvi.sion 1 .. was cdonsi.dered 1 .. by the City Cothuncil. in Cfall o~1 20Th09. Staffk dhfiad •. a e a re ate tlme me an action p an to present to e City · ounc1 . ey as e or Planning Commission direction about how to coordinate neighborhood planning with the visioning process. They explained that currently, the Neighborhood Planning staff was fully occupied preparing the Palisades Neighborhood Plan for review and working on implementing adopted neighborhood plans. If the Commission recot:nn1ended moving forward on new neighborhood plans ahead of Visioning, staff recommended working on new plans for stable neighborhoods, such as Lakewood or Uplands, that were not as affected by change and redevelopment. They said that Denise Frisbee was· appointed to serve as the visioning project manager. Commissioners Brockman and Siegel urged the City not to wait until the visioning process was accomplished to continue the neighborhood planning process. Commissioner Brockman reported that · citizens were frustrated by the delays in neighborhood planning, and Commissioner Siegel.suggested a neighborhood could start working on their plan while the visioning process was going on. Staff reported they would like to develop a model survey that each neighborhood could use to identify neighborhood-specific issues and prioritize neighborhood planning. This survey may also be able to dovetail with the City's visioning process. They confirmed that the City had just conducted a biennJal survey to track how well the City was doing. Th~y assured the Commissioners that the effort to implement adopted neighborhood plans would not be delayed by the visioning process. When asked, they confirmed there were some • neighborhoods that had not asked f~r a neighborhood plan; but that the Uplands, Forest J-Iighlands, Rosewood, McVey .. South Shore, Country Club-North Shore and Lakewooci neighborhood associations had each expressed interest in developing a plan. Chair Glisson said the neighborhood planning process should move forward· with preparatory plrurinng steps, especially in neighborhoods that were feeling the pressure of chMge. She wondered how long the ''strategic action planning" phase of the visioning process would take and what it would involve. Staff explained they anticipated it could be complete about six months after Council adoption of the vision. Staff explained that they saw visioning as an opportunity to find ways to "heal" the comrtiunity, Which had recently become divided by issues related to the West End Building. Mr. Egner reported that the City had been notified that it was time for periodic review of the Comprehensive Plan. He anticipated the i~s~es of density and affordable housing would be addressed in the review, artd that would impact neighborhood planning. Chair Glisson asked what could be addressed at tbe neighborhood planning level now so the process could continue. Commissioner Brockman urged the Commissioners to focus on planning neighborhoods which were currently undergoing change, rather than more stable neighborhoods, and to do that now, rather than wait for the visioning process to be completed. She said tbe local area plans could be reconsidered later, after visioning guidelines were adopted. Staff suggested that it was better for the City to have an overall strategy for meeting Md ip.tem~ly distributing target density before it considered whether • ·· one neighborhood could reduce its zoned density. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of May 28, 2008 Page 2 of7 ... • • • Coiilmissioner Siegel said he was pleased that. the City Council had not oply embraced the Planning Commission recommendation to guide neighborhood planning, but had expanded it to a broader visioning process·that would serve the entire community. He recall~d the City of West Li® h~d been following their vision in "Imagine West Linn" since 1994. He said staff recommended a realistic visioning process timeline that would also allow existing neighborhood plans to be implemented and the groundwork for new plans could be done. Commissioner Brockman agr~ed. Staff confirmed that was possible. The neighborhood planners said the City was working to implement neighporhood pl~s as fast as the neighborhoods could manage. They said they met with Gleilmorrie, W aluga and Lake Grove planning groups every two weeks, but the Lake Forest group could only meet once a month. Staff confirmed that they were currently discussing how to proceed with the tr~sportation ancl economic studies ~alled for in the Lake Grove Village Center Plan. 'chair Glisson invited some neighborhood chairs .who were present to comment. Barbara Zeller, Chair of the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association, observed there were already recent City survey resll1ts ~d map.y stuclies ap.d task force reports available that described what citizens wanted. She suggested that people would be encouraged to start the planning process for their own neighborhood when they saw more plans successfully implemented. She indicated that the neighborhood planning process steps listed in the staff report were mote appropriate for a neighborhood just begiililing the process. She said their neighborhood plan had been adopted in 1998. She said it had anticipated that the neighborhood would change over time, but it was unfortunate that development since then had resulted in a neighborhood where many residents did not know their neighbors, but they could he~ them. She said that affected their quality of life. 'During the questioning period, she confirmed that most neighborhoods already had a sense of who they were. She indicated that their Association had offered the Infjll Ta,sk Force a written description. She did not see a need for another study, but reasoned that if there was going to be a broader community study, neighborhood planning should not be postponed for it. She stressed the City Council should pay ~ttention to the views the population had already expressed in the most recent City survey. Staff confmiled ·that survey had been presented and considered by the City Council the previous week and the results were available on the City website. They recalled the results were fairly positive and not much different than those in previous surveys. Chris Robinson, Chair of the Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association, explained that residents had a problem with the City talking about preserving neighborhood character, sustainability and livability, but the way the Code was applied to development applications did not promote that. He agreed a visioning process was impo~t to est:lblish communitywide cohesiveness and integration, and to find out what citizens wanted the City to look like in future decades. He suggested the process might be more effective if neighborhood association board rn.embers were invited to participate and provide input, because neighborhood associations currently perceived the City was using a ''top-down" process to address development, pathways, lighting, traffic and sustainability issues. He reported that minimum density and the prospect of being annexed to the City as an R-7.5 zone made no sense to residents of Forest Highlands. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of May 28, 2008 P~ge 3 of7 Cormnissioner Brockman suggested the neighborhood association chairs read the proposed code updates on page 316 of the May 21, 2008 (CDC Amendments, Packet 3) staff report beC~\lSe those changes directly affected neighborhood associations, • Cheryl f!~hi~ft:, a member of the_ Walug~ Neighborhood, said her experience was that "visioning" took a long time. She wondered if the cormnunity was too polarized between Lake Grove and Downtown for it to work effectively. She reported her neighborhood association had just begun the implementation process and they were encountering conflicts· with the Lake Grove Village Center Plan and other plans. They wanted to know "which plan trumped which?" They wanted to know if their association was to be involved in deciding the use of the West End Building. She advised the visioning process was a good thing to do when beginning·the neighborhood planning process, but it would delay the implementation of her neighborhood's plan. Chair Glisson observed that citywide visioning addressed broader issues than the specific issues addressed in neighborhood planning, and the two did not necessarily have to conflict. She said it was important for neighborhoods to know the City was listening to them. She suggested the visioning process might utilize small, facilitated, focus groups to · air feelings, improve understanding, and "heal" the community. She observed a consensus to move forward with neighborhood planning. Staff anticipated they would start helping two new neighborhood associations survey their members and begin the pro~ess by the end of the year. The Commis.sioners anticipated the visioni~g process would be far enough along in time to influence the new neighborhood plans. Commissioner Siegel advised staff to use the selection criteria and not shy away from • working with a contentious neighborhood, but he also cautioned that each neighborhood should understand that zoning and density were citywide decisions that the visioning process might influence. · Co.mmissioner Brockman stressed that residents wanted to enjoy a back yard without a neighbor's wall five feet from the property line; and Commissioner Siegel said they wanted their children and grandchildren to be able to live in the same community. Neighborhood Plan Format The staff repo~ outlined a streamlined neighborhood planning process. It asked what components a neighborhood pl~ should include and how it should relate to the Comprehensive Plan. Staff explained that the goals and policies in adopt¢d neighborhood plans became part of the Comprehensive Plan (as Special District plans), and many neighborhood plan action measures. required the City to seriously consider implementing those changes. They recalled that neighborhoods had. once been encouraged to format their local plan to mimic the Comprehensive Plan. However, staff currently endeavored to make neighborhoods aware of the goals and policies that were alr~!l..dy in the Comprehensive Pla11 and guide them away from inserting redundant or conflicting policies, ot policies that addressed citywide issues in their local area pl~. When asked, staff advised that if a neighborhood plan had different tree-related regulations than the Tree Code, that inconsistency was.confusing and difficult to administer; They explained that periodic updates of the Comprehensive Plan might have results the neighborhoods City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of May 28,2008 Page 4 of7 • • • • did not anticipale; and if neighborhood policies were part of the Comprehensive Plan it was hatder for the neighborhood to update them when neighborhood conditions changed . SUUT suggested the neighborhood planning process could define the neighborhood and what its residents wanted, and fashion an action plan and timeline. They said -if there were unique neighborhood characteristics that were not addressed through the Comprehensive Plan, new gol!ls and policies could be added when the neighborhood plan was adopted. The Commissioners wondered if that would protect a neighborhood from development (such as lot partitioning) the neighborhood did not want. Mr. Boone advised that a lot partition was a minor development, however, a zone change or conditional use application was a major devdopinent, which had to be consistent With the Comprehensive Plan. Staff confirmed a neighborhood co~ld have ·their own special overlay district code to implement their own unique development standards if the City Council wa.S willing to adopt it. When asked if Comprehensive Plan policies overrode neighborhood plan policies~ they advised that local plans and the Comprehensive Plan were supposed to agree. They said it was possible to streamline neighborhood plans so they did not focus on goals and policies, and to e<h:tcate neighbors about what policies were already in the Comprehensive Plan. The Commissioners stressed the importance of ensuring neighborhoods not to expect their local area plan to do something for them. it actlially , could not do. · The Commissioners all generally agreed local neighbors should be ed~cated to understand how the Comprehensive Plan already protected them. The neighborhood planning staff confirmed they tried to help neighborhood planning groups become familiar with the Comprehensive Plan and they asked planning committee members to specify why they believed ex_isting Comprehensive Plan poliCies could not address their neighborhood's needs. They reported the last two neighborhood plans they had worked on were much less repetitive than previous pla,t1s. However, the Palisades Neighborhood had done extensive background work and created a long descriptive section in their draft plan that the Commissioners would see at an upcoming work session. They e~plained it had taken a great deal of staff time to write that section of the plan. Mr. Egner explained the staff now proposed to use a standardized model plan to guide and streamline the local planning process. He asked the Commissioners to discuss what components should be in it. The Commissioners generally favored separating the neighborhood planning process into a preparation phase of background and strategizing activities (see Steps 1 - 4 of the modified planning process on page 6 of the staff memorandum) and a later phase to consider whether some policies were necessary that might have to be adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. Staff said they planned to present selection criteria for neighborhood plans for Planning Coiillnission consideration at the end ofthe Sl.ittlitler. They anticipated the Palisades plan would be ready to present soon. Mr. Egner said he believed staff could help two more neighborhoods start the preparation phase of their new plans While the City was kicking off the visioning process. Chair Glisson and the Neighborhood Planning staff anticipated , that as the visioning process progressed, it would highlight what neighborhoods needed to address in their local plans. The Coiilinissioners thanked the neighborhood chairs for their input. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of May 28, 2008 Page 5 of7 Community Development Code 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 sectio~s. ' Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager, had prepared Packet 3 of Con:ununity Development Code Amendments. The Commissioners invited the neighborhood chairs in the audience to comment on proposed updates to Article 50.77, Application Requitements Related to the Pre-application Conference and Neighborhood Contact a,nd Notice. Chris Robinson, Chair of the Forest llighlands Neighborhood Association; "asked bow the process worked. Mr. Egner explained that two years ago the Comniunity Development Department had made an administrative decision to notify the neighborhood association chair and allow two trained neighborhood association representatives to attend each pre-application conference. He explained that the applicant paid for the conference, which was their opportunity to discuss their development concept ancilearn what critical issues the application had to address. Mt. Robinson suggested the applicant should be encouraged to discuss their concept informally with the neighborhood association chair before the collference, so they would not exit the pre-application conference believing that the code allowed a certain number of lots on the site when neighborhood residents would actually oppose allowing that many. The Comrn:issionets suggested the proposed provisions should speCify the applicant was • to propose three alternative meeting dates within a ten-day time frame and allow the neighborhood association chair adequate time to find out if one of the meeting dates the applicant s"uggested would be "Workable." Although Mr. Robinson said he had never had a problet:n with that, B3rbara. Zeller, Chair of the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association, said her experience was that sometimes none of the proposed dates were "workable.'' Chair Glisson and Commissioner Siegel suggested in that case the " neighborhood association chair should then propose one or more alternative dates within a seven-day period. Ms. Zeller asked staff to ensure a copy of the adopted neighborhood plan was given to each applicant before the pre-application conference because some developers dici not seem to know there was such a plan. She also suggested the provisions that excluded Sundays and legal holidays as proposed meeting dates should also prgscribe holidays that were not necessarily "legal" holidays. Cheryl Uchida said that sometimes more than one neighborhood association could be affected by an application and that staff should allow representatives from all of them at the pre-application conference. Mt. Egner cautioned that too many participants might distract the group from the prim;uy purpose of the conference, which was to inform the applicant about what they needed to submit with the application. He said staff would allow the neighborhood association chair to invite another representative, who could be from another neighborhood association. He said neighborhood associations who wanted to change the ad.ministnitive policy could speak to the Community Development Director ~~ • City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of May 28,2008 Page 6 of"! • • • VI. Commissio11er Brockman a!)kec,l the neighborhood officials to examine the proposed updates to Article 50;79, Types of Development and Review Criteria for Each Type of Development on pages 323 -336 of Code Update -Packet 3. She cautioned those provisions could allow certain decisions to be made by staff, and an appellant would have to pay a fee to ;;tppeal. Chair Glisson asked the neighborhood chairs to email. any additional cortunents and questions to staff. The Commissioners examined changes proposed to Article 50;55, Parking, which allowed an applicant to ·opt to determine the illimber of required parking spaces by a parking study. Staff asked what a parking ~tudy should consider; if it should conform to International Traffic Engineering (ITE) standards; and who should perform the parking study. Commissioner Siegel observed that a parking study could be prepared by a "qualified professiomd," who <;lid not necessarily have to be a "qualified traffic engineer." Comnrissioner Brockman observed that although parking requirements were established according to the use, not all uses were ·listed. Commissioner Siegel suggested that whether or not to allow parking requirement reductions because of a parking study was a "policy" issue. Mr. Boone recalled Commissioner Brockman was concerned about parking "spillover" that could happen Wider the numerical method of calculating required parking. He said that method set the minimum requirement, and the maximum allowed parking would then be I25% of the minimum requirement. He explained the concept was to accommodate the average parking need, even though the use might generate overflow parking at certain peak times. He cautioned that to plan to accommodate I 00% of parking needs I 00% of the time could result in a "sea of Qllutilized parking spaces" and affect the streetscape. Commissioner Brockman said sometimes a business kept it costs down by minimizing parking space and asked its staff to park on neighborhood streets. She held that the affected neighborhood shoul~ have an opportunity to coll1fileilt oil the applicant's study. Chair Glisson closed the work session. OTHER BUSINESS -PLANNING COMMISSION None. VII. OTHER BUSINESS -COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT The Commissioners were to examine proposed Commission for Citizen Involvement Guidelines up<;lates at the next meeting .. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Planning Coinrtlission, Chair Glisson adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:00 .. p.m. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of May 28, 2008 · Respectfully submitted, (}----~ ~-[/02 Iris Treinen Administrative Support Pag;e 7 of?