Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2010-02-08• • • I. City of Lake Oswego .,d Planning c.omm. ission :MinutesA~1 d(Or~ . . r JJf'' Febr.uaty 8, 2010 (o31J CALL TO ORDER · Vice Chair Julia Glisson called the FebrtJary 8, 2010, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:37 p.rh. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL .Ill. Membersr present were Vice Chair Julia Glisson and Commissioners Adrianne Brockman, Jon Gustafson, Jim Johnson, Russell Jones and Lynne Paretchan. Chair Philip Stewart was excused. Council Liaison Bill Tierney was also present. Staff present were [)enise Frisbee, Director, Planning and Bui_lding Services; Hamid Pishvaie, Assistant Planning Director; Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Support. CITIZEN COMMENT None. iV. COUNCIL UPDATE: Councilor Tierney reported the City Council had adopted a provision that allowed public or private schools with at least 100 students and two grades to have 30% lot coverage. He reported the Council was in the process of fi_nali~i_ng goal setting. They planned to focus on projects that could be accomplished during 2010. He reported that the Second Look Task Force public open house had been well attended. The Mayor had reappointed him to serve as Council liaison to the Planning Commission. He asked the Commissioners to suggest an alternative, more effective, venue to meet and talk than regular Planning Commission meetings. Denise Frisbee introduced Debra Andreades, Senior Planner, as the new staff liaison to the Plann_ing Commission. Ms. Andreades would work closely with Dennis Egner during the transition. Ms. Frisbee encouraged the Commissioners to let her know what they expected of staff and what they felt was or was not working. She asked them to be careful with time demands and clarify their expectations. The Planning Department had budgeted about .5 FTE to the Planning Commission -which was a relatively large amount of staffing resources for a City project -but it was not a full-time position. Ms. Frisbe.e understood from her discussions with Commissioners that they had been so intensely focused on infill standards they had not had the opportunity to hear about larger issues such as Stafford, Foothills, the streetcar, density, economic development and housing opportunities. So she suggested they use one of their two meetings per month to focus on code details and dedicate the other meeting to larger issues. She City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 8, 2010 Page 1 of 10 • • • said staff would arrange to offer the same presentations to the Planning Commission . they offered to the City Council. Ms. Frisbee confirmed that the Planning Department had submitted a budget request that included projects to develop design handbooks for infill and the Lake Grove Village Center, but there was much to do and only twelve planners. The City Council would make the final decision about what the Department was to accomplish this year. She clarified that the six development review planners and the six long range planners met weekly and each group knew what the other was working on. Since the number of development applications had dropped from last year, some development review planners had been assigned to long range projects. Ms. Frisbee planned to arrange for the Commissioners to meet with the City Manager a:fter the City Council established City goals. She asked the Commissioners to suggest dates for another Planning Commission retreat. During the ensuing discussion, Commissioner Jones indicated he wanted to talk about Planning Commission issues again at the next meeting so Chair Stewart could participate. Commissioner Johnson felt the City Council and the Planning Director should resolve staffing issues, not the Planning Commission. Commissioner Paretchan saw the issue as a systemic problem, not a staffing problem, of late notice; backtracking; not involving the Commissioners; and the role of the chair. She suggested they discuss those issues at their retreat. She suggested groups of three Commissioners meet with Councilor Tierney to get up to speed on an issue and then report back to the full Commission. Commissioner Gustafson explained that the Commissioners did not want to feel isolated and be the last ones to know what staff and the City Council were doing. He thought the suggestion, by staff, to alternate· meetings would help. He and Commissioner Paretchan suggested the retreat should be scheduled as soon as possible so the Commissioners -could air their concerns and move on. Commissioner Brockman saw the problem as a · lack of clear direction from the City Council. The result was the Commissioners did not know what their role was. Her experience in other jurisdictions was the Planning Commission did not get involved in setting the agenda, it was managed by staff. She asked for the Deputy City Attorney's advice. Mr. Boone offered to respond to that question in writing. Vice Chair Glisson agreed to arrange the next agenda so the Commissioners could continue this discussion. Ms. Frisbee would try to schedule a facilitator and a retreat for February 1 th or the earliest Monday after that. She invited the Commissioners to send her topics to address at the retreat. Ms. Frisbee reported that the cons1,.1lting firm, Clarion, had been selected for the cod~ audit. The project was to begin soon and be finished by the end of June. Jessica Numanoglu, Associate Planner, would manage the project The Commissioners observed they had been allowed to comment ori arid suggest changes to the draft Request for Proposal (RFP) but they had never seen the final RFP. Ms. Frisbee confirmed the Planning Commission suggestions had been incorporated into the RFP and the staff appreciated them. However the topic of Planning Commission oversight of how staff implemented City Council goals was something to be discussed at the retreat so everyone was clear about it. She planned to send the Commissioners a copy of the contract at the same time it was sent it to the City Council. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 8, 2010 Page 2 of 10 c • • • V . VI. GENERAL ORGANIZATION I SCHEDULE REVIEW The rolling agenda was reviewed and staff pointed out the scheduled hearings that had been noticed for a specific date. It ended with a list of unscheduled items the Commissioners could select from so they had more control over their future schedule. J MINUTE:$ A vote on the Minutes of December 14, 2009 was postponed. VIL PUBLIC HEARINGS j Ordinance 2525. LU 08-0052 -Communitv Development Code -General Housekeeping Amendments. Amendments (Chapter 50) for the purpose of clarifying, correcting, formatting and updating sections. Vice Chair Glisson opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedure and criteria. She asked the Commissioners to declare any bias or conflict of i_nterest regarding the application. None were declared. Staff Report Debra Andreades, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. She corrected the January 29, 2010, Planning and Building . Services Department Supplemental Staff Report #2 to show that Bob Barman had testified as Palisades Neighborhood Association Area 1 Representative and he was a former representative of the Lake Oswego Corporation. She advised that LU 08-0052 was now categorized as a package of "policy light" amendments. A proposed amendment related to the lake setback had been moved to this package from LU 08-Q054 as Mr. [3arman had reql1ested. She related that Chair Stewart had submitted a list of things he wanted discussed and she asked the other Commissioners to let her know what issues they wanted to discuss. Commissioner Brockman, voiced her concern that the process had been extended past citizen's attention ·. spans. She recommended that staff propose Community Development Code (CDC) updates annually. Public Testimony Kasey Holwerda. 315 North Point Road, testified on behalf of the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB}. They had submitted the Memorandum in Exhibit G=-5. They were concerned that .frustrated owners having problems selling historic houses would opt to tear them down instead. More landmarks might be saved by expanding allowable uses from residential and non-profit office use to for-profit office use. Professionals such as attorneys, chiropractors, or realtors, coul<:f use a landmark house for an office. The HRAB proposal was to aHow that on arterial streets, and the Board did not know how or why the amendment had been modified so it also allowed it on collector streets. They had not examined the issue of use of landmarks on collector streets. l' During the questioning period, Ms. Holwerda explained the Board had not yet had an opportunity to study the map that showed landmark locations and street classifications so she did not know how many historic homes were on collector streets. The Commissioners were concerned about the impact on a neighborhood when a house on a collector street was used as an office. . Mr. Boone clarified that the current code allowed an historic house on an arterial street in a residential zone to be used for City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 8, 201 0 \ Page 3 of 10 • • • nonprofit office use under a Conditional Use Pen'nit. The permitting process required a ' site-l;>y-site analysis of impacts. The proposed change was to strike the word, "nonprofit" so the house coUld be used for for-profit office use i_n a residential zone. Barbara Zeller. 3335 Sabina Court, questioned why a change th~t would eliminate the lot depth requirement was in the "poiicy light;' package when it should be in the major policy package. Mr. Boone explained that change was proposed in the major policy package; but it was also shown in the policy light package text because it was part of a code section that had other, "policy light' changes in it. Ms. Zeller and the Commi.ssioners observed the Planning Commission should be careful to identify which changes were "light" and which were "heavy'' so there was no confusion. Mr. Boone Was asked to explain why staff proposed to eliminate the lot depth standard. He described how lot depth was measured and explained how that measurement might show an irregularly shaped lot met the depth standard when it actually did not fit the neighborhood lotting pattern. It was better to use other standards, s.uch as setbacks and lot coverage to get a result that fit. Cheryl Uchida. 15190 Quarry Road, submitted written testimony (Exhibit G-6). She asked the Planning Commission to consider modifying the code definition, "Congregate Housing" because when the Waluga Neighborhood opposed allowing a low-income, senior housing facility on Oakridge Road the definition had become the legal "sticking point." She explarned that she had no definition to recommend, but wanted the Commissioners to clarify what Congregate Housing was so the issue did not come up again. Ms. Uchida also asked the Planning Commission to consider changing the code to address parking problems when church attendance increased. It currently called for one onsite parking space for every four seats at maximum capacity or one space for each five occupants. River West Church had purchased another church's property in the Waluga Neighborhood and attendance had increased to more people than Ms. Uchida believed the facility could hold. The result created overflow parking problems. Neighbors were impacted by on street, often illegal, parking. Mr. Boone advised thal the currently proposed CDC amendments packages did not propose either of those specific changes. He clarified that the parking requirement was based on the maximum capacity of the building. William R. O'Neill. 16731 Greenbriar Road. testified on behalf of the Lake _Oswego .Corporation. They wanted the proposed height amendments in Loc 50.22.030, Oswego Lake Setback, to match the Lake Oswego Corporation height limitations. The proposed amendments would allow a boathouse or wall that was not on Lake Oswego Corporation property to be taller than the Corporation allowed on their own property. Vice Chair Glisson suggested he discuss those changes With staff so the Planning Commission could consider them when they examined the related amendments. / I Carolyne Jones. 2818 Poplar Way, was concerned that the City was addressing natural resources -particularly waterfront resources -in an inequitable manner. She said she was speaking about the impact the proposed special lakefront zone and sensitive lands restrictions had on property owners. She listed some of the issues, as the top-of-bank plus buffer setback from seasonal streams, storrriwater drains and ditches; pervious surfaces; and stormwater discharge. She stressed the Clean Water Act was intended to apply to all public waters in the state and all waters were considered public, not just streams. She said she knew for a fact that there were lakefront boathouses containing toxic chemicals such as gas and oil. They constituted a water hazard. She related that after she learned about the Palisades Neighborhood Plan for a pilot project to study City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 8, 2010 Page 4 of 10 • • • lakefront property she had unsuccessfully advocated adding such a project to the Glenmorrie Neighborhood Plan during the re-write. City planners told her they could not do that. She suggested the City resolve the issue of a difference between privileges and immunities of water resource owners just as it resolved inequities between private and public schools. She said she was asking the City Council to set this change aside unt_il that could be done. Erin O'Rourke:-Meadors. 5261 Coventry Court. testified on behalf of the forming West Lake Neigh-borhood Associatfon. She explained that because the organization was not yet a recognized City neighborhood, the City did not send it notices and had not sent it the CDC amendments packet. She had finally seen a copy the previous Friday and discussed it with representatives of the three homeowners associations in the neighborhood. She agreed that "policy lighf' amendments went beyond "housekeeping." She questioned whether the City had adequately communicated what was proposed with neighborhoods. It would have been better to break up the voluminous document into segments that neighborhood representatives could read, understand and offer meaningful comment about. She related people were frustrated with the way public open houses were conducted. She preferred the Affordable Housing Task Force approach. They had invited representatives from all neighborhoods to meet with them to discuss the subject. She saw the current process as a staff-directed process, without adequate neighborhood input and dialogue. She indicated the summary did not provide enough details about why each change was needed. She explained that her neighborhood would have wanted to share their experience with and concerns about accessory and temporary structures and uses. She recalled Ms. Uchida's testimony about church parking and suggested reviewing parking requirements whenever there was a change of occupant to ~nsure that the use complied with the parking standards . The Commissioners asked if the parking standards were revieWed whenever the occupant of a facility with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) changed. Staff advised ownership was not a factor. Parking standards were based on the type of use and the capacity ofthe building (the number of seats at maximum capacity). If a church that had an existing Conditional Use Permit wanted to buy and use adjacent property or renovate the interior space to add seating capacity that would be considered an expansion of the CUP. It was subject to another CUP analysis and review of the increased use. But a new church that purchased an existing church facility was not subject to review if the type of use was not changed and the capacity of the building had not changed, The CUP treated an accessory use such as a church bible school as part of the primary, church use, but if the church leased pa_rt of the site to a daycare provider or used part of it for school use, two Conditional Use Permits would be necessary: one for the church use and one for the sbhool u~e. even if they had the same owner. There were many mixed-use church sites like that in the City. The current Code described how the parking requirement on a mixed-use site was to be calculated. As an alternative, the code allOWed the applicant to use a parking study to show the number of parking spaces that would actually be needed if the school operated Monday through Friday and the church held services on Sundays. Mr. Boone explained a related, "policy heavY," issue was how to address a site where the primary use had morphed into an accessory use. An example of that was primary use gas stations that nowadays were also gtocety stores. · Ms. O'Rourke-Meadors recalled her neighborhood had been frustrated with how staff had interpreted the code when a neighborhood restaurant that had served wine and beer became more like a bar that served food. That was why she objected to codifying City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 8, 2010 Page 5 of 10 • • • current staff practices as "housekeeping" measures. She urged the Planning Commission to include neighborhoods in the process so they would understand it and support it. The Commissioners agreed that it was a challenge to compare the proposed amendments with the current code, but they advised that the full code was accessible online. Vice Chair Glisson announced a short break and thereafter reconvened the hearing. The Commissioners decided to begin going through the proposed amendments that evening, leave the hearing open to additional testimony, and later revisit anything that was flagged in a package;of related minutes anc:l testimony staff would provide to them. Staff explained they would be taking notes so they could draft the code changes the Commissioners decided on, but it was important for the Commissioners to ultimately bring their different viewpoints together and find consensus on each topic in order to forward a Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council. Definitions -Article 50.02-005 Mr. Boone reported that he had started reconci_ling recently ac:lopted code changes related to sensitive lands and flood management with the older code. He would alert the Commissioners when they came to a provision that had already been changed or when they came to one that would be incorporated into the code when the City Council adopted the lnfill amendments. One of those items was the new limit on Bay Windows. Another was that Basement was defined iri the new Flood Management amendments so there was no need to address it in the housekeeping amendments. Fire Code had been defined in another ordinance ypdate. Accessory Building. The Commissioners postponed their discussion of whether play structures were Accessory Buildings to when they discussed accessory structures in the "policy heavy" package. Alley. Mr. Boone explained that even if a First Addition Neighbors/Forest Hills Neighborhood Association (FAN) Alley was just a walkway today, it was still called Alley because the FAN R-6 zone required garages to face alleys. Cluster Development. The definition Cluster Development was proposed to be removed. Staff explained the definition had been in the code for many years and permitted Cluster Development outright in any zone, but there had never been any standards to regulate it unless it was part -of a Planned Development (PD). Commissioner Jones had read a favorable newspaper article about clustered development. He suggested leaving the definition in the code as a "place market." Staff explained that would lead people to continue to think it was something they could propose. Mr. Boone advised that if the Commissioners wanted to allow clustered development outside a PD they also had to determine how to regulate it. Commissioner Johnson reasoned that it would be easy to put the definition back in the code when there was a future need for it. If it remained in the coqe the code ayditors would find t_he code contained a definition of a type of development that was not connected to any standards. Flag Lot. Commissioner Brockman observed this definition should be reconciled with the infill amendments. Commissioner Paretchan reminded staff that the graphics had to be reconciled too . City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 8, 2010 Page 6 of 10 • • • Courtyard. Staff explained this definition called for some textured material or pavers and one or more of the elements of landscaping, fountain, arbor, and outdoor furniture because those things were especially important in a commercial area courtyard.·. It was easier to specify that in the code than to have to work it out as conditions in each land use approvar Commissioner Paretche1n agreed features like that were important i_n a commercial courtyard, but she questioned specifying what had to be in a residential courtyard. She observed the requirements had little meaning because they did not specify how much was required. One shrub could satisfy the requirement for landscaping. Vice Chair Glisson observed the Commissioners were not ready to make a final decision about this yet. Congregate Housing. Commissioner Brockman recalled Cheryl Uchida had asked the Planning Commission to consider how to define Congregate Housing. Mr. Boone explained that was not proposed in the current amendments package. The City Council had directed the Planning Department to work on the Congregate Housing code and present it as a separate issue. Live/Work Building. Ms. Andreades noted that Chair Stewart questioned why the definition, l,.ive/Work Building limited the number of employees who did not reside in the unit to two employees instead of tying the limit to the maximum occupant load the Building Code allowed. He suggested that if traffic was the issue, a traffic study could be required. Commissioner Johnson advised this was a good definition· because it set the • limit of impact a home occupation could have on a residential neighborhood before the use had to move to a commercial ?One. He noted the definition was currently being used in the West Lake Grover residential district and in the Downtown Redevelopment Design Di~trict ancl the proposed a_mendment would make it generally applicable. Staff related th,at a commercial zone condominium project on Second Street closely resembled a Live/Work Building because the ground floors were used for commercial space and each unit had an internal door to access the residential unit above. Commissioner Paretchan questioned whether the two-persc:;>n limit was enough staff for a use like a coffee shop, especially in a commercial zone. Mr. Pishvaie explained most of t_he Second Street units had one sma_ll room for commercial activity -usually without kitchen equipment -and itmight not accommodate a use like a coffee shop, but it could serve C:lS professional office or studio space. He clarified that the City did not apply commercial parking standards and require extra parking spaces for employees in Live/Work Buildings. Vice Chair Glisson and Commissioner Johnson indicated they preferred to keep the proposed definition and enforce · it, because to allow more nonresident employees would start to create compatibility problems with surrounding residences in residential zones. Commissioner Jones agreed. Vice Chair Glisson reasoned that if this definition was to be generally applied to both residential and commercial zones it should continue to fit the residential zone it was currently allowed in. She recalled that the Lake Grove Village Center Plan applied parking requirements to its mixed-use developments. Ms. Andreades clarified t_hat Live/Work Buildings in the West Lake Grove R-2.5/W zone were limited to one employee who did not reside in the same building. The two-person limit, applied to Live/Work Buildings in other commercial zones. The West Lake Grove zone also restricted Live/Work Building business activity to 700 square feet on the first floor. An area that small would likely not accommodate many more employees. Commissioner Gustafson indicated he supported the Live/Work Building definition because it allowed someone to live where they worked. Commissioner Jones suggested the Planning Commission look into fashioning requirements to address the noise problem. Mr. Pishvaie advised the current CDC did not require soundproofing between two different uses. Commissioner Gustafson City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 8, 201 0 Peige 7 of 10 • • • re~dvised that the Uniform Building Code applied standards related to sound transmission between units ahd uses, but it did not go as far as people might expect. Mr. Boone said staff would find out how th~ UBG addressed sound transmission and look at what might be done to apply it. However, if the Planning Commission decided to discuss changing construction standards that would be beyond the scope of the notice of the hearing. Vice Chair Glisson suggested that should not be addressed during the current process, but it shou_ld be put on the list of things for the Planning Commission to look at in the future. Mr. Boone clarified for Commissioner Paretchan that the R-2.5/W zone did not define the term, "Live/Work Building," but used "Live/Work Zone" as a title and specified the business could only employ one person who did not reside in the same building. He had made a note that the draft should say that a Live/Work. Building could have two non- resident employees unless the underlying ?one had a more stringent restriction. Vice Chair Glisson and Commissioner Paretchan asked staff to examine how making this provision generally applicable would work in the context of each zone and then report back. Lot, Flat/Lot, Sloped. Staff explained that whether a "lot" was categorized as flat or sloped was actually detertnined by the grade change across the structure's footprint. The entire lot might have both flat and sloped portions, but if the change in grade within the footprint was 1 0 feet or less\ it was classified as a Flat Lot; otherwise it was considered a Sloped Lot. The proposed amendment would codify the current practice of including a projecting deck in the footprint area across which the grade change was measured. The deck was already countea ih the lot coverage calculation if it was over 30 inches above grade. Staff advised the last sentence in the Lot, Sloped definition had been moved to the Building Height definition in the Planned Development ordinance amendments. · Commissioner Brockman observed someone might position a deck in a manner that would change the lot category from flat to sloped in order to be allowed more height. She asked the Planning Commission to wait until they discussed building height to change this definition. Lot Size or Lot Area. Staff explained they had inserted the yellowed narrative-here to clarify that the Flag Lot provisions used a special method to determine lot size. I Open Space. The Commissioners postpon~d this discussion until Jeff Kleinman could be present because he had recommended some changes. Masonry. Chair Stewart had. advised the term, "veneer' should be removed because decorative material less than 2:..inches in depth was not industry stande~rd definition. The Commissioners observed the proposed definition did specify that Masonry does not include veneer. They would discuss this further when Chair Stewart was present. Public Facility, Minor. Commissioner Brockman wanted to know who decided if school improvements met the definition in (e) and qualified as Public Facilities. Adding a swing set might generate noise or more traffic that impacted neighbors. Staff advised that (e) was ex_isting code, The decision was a ministerie~l decision by the City Manager (staff). A Minor Public Facility was an outright permitted use in most zones. Commissioner Brockman was concerned this was a discretionary decision that requited no notice. Commissioner Johnson observed it could be appealed. The Commissioners asked staff to put this on their list of things they encountered that required no notice that they wanted to discuss later. Mr. Boone advised that this. code amendment meant that whether a sewer, storm drain or water system was a Public Facility or not would be City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 8, 201 0 Page 8 of 10 • • ) • b<:~sed on its function, not whether it was under private or public ownership. Commissioner Paretchan asked what statute or regulation or other place in the CDC this was based on. Mr. Boone said he would talk to the Engineering staff to find out what issue this was supposed to address. Public Transportation Facilities. Staff proposed to remove "bridge" from this definition, because a bridge was considered part of the street and there was no need to call it out. Commissioner Paretchan asked why a street was not a Public Transportation Facility. Commissioner Jones suggested a street was a ''system," not a "facility.;' Vice Chair Glisson recalled streets were referred to as "facilities" in other contexts. Mr. Boone agreed to research that question. The Commissioners asked staff to explain how the CDC updates and Comprehensive Plan updates would be timed. Mr. Boone indicated the City would have to accomplish periodic review before it updated the Comprehensive Plan. He anticipated the Planning Commission""recommended 1 CDC updates and some other, non-CDC, code updates would re<:~ch the City Council at about the same time. When asked, he clarified that the Planning Commission was considering changes to land use provisions in the Community Development Code (CDC) in Chapter 50. Engineering staff was going to propose non- CDC updates to Chapter 42 ,that were engineering, not land-use-related, decisions. Some of the engineering c,hanges would correlate Chapter 42 code with the Chapter 50 code changes the Planning Commission was considering. The Commissioners had been unaware Of the parallel, non•CDC amendments effc:>rt. Staff clarified the non-CDC amendments were not yet on a City Council agenda. They confirmed they planned to keep the Commissioners informed about what the City Council was doing in the future, even if it did not directly involve the Planning Commission . Commissioner Brockman moved to continue LU 08-0052 to February 22. 201 0. and leave the record open for written testimony. Commissioner Gustafson seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. · Ordinance 2526, LU 08-0054 -Community Development Code -Policy Related Housekeepin-g Amendments. · Amemdmerits (Chapter 50) for the purpose of clarifying and updating various code provisions. These provisions had peen identified as having policy implications. Commissioner Brockman moved to continue LU 08-0054 to April 26, 2010. Commissioner Gustafson seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. VIII. OTHER BUSINESS-PLANNING COMMISSION None. IX. OTHER BUSINESS-COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVMENT None . City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of Febru(iry 8, 201 0 Page 9 of 10 • •• • X . ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Vice Chair Glisson adjourned· the meeting at 9:30 p.m. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 8, 2010 Respectfully submitted, &: c£iV lrisMc~ Administrative Support Page 10 of 10