HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2020-07-27 PM APPROVED: 08/10/2020
� F
'1."`
� �s , CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
~ Planning Commission Minutes
o
July 27, 2020
°QFGor'
1
2 1. CALL TO ORDER
3 Chair Heape called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. This was a video conference meeting
4 held via Webex.
5
6 2. ROLL CALL
7 Members present were Chair Rob Heape, Vice Chair Christian Pape and Commissioners
8 Dave Beckett, Joel Fischer, Jacob Semler and Philip Stewart. Commissioner Kim Whitman
9 was excused.
10
11 Staff present were Scot Siegel, Director of Planning and Building Services; Evan Boone,
12 Deputy City Attorney; Evan Fransted, Associate Planner; Erik Olson, Senior Planner; and Iris
13 McCaleb, Administrative Assistant.
14
15 3. CITIZEN COMMENT
16 None.
17
18 4. MINUTES
19 4.1 July 13, 2020
20 Commissioner Fischer moved to approve the action minutes of July 27, 2020, as written.
21 Commissioner Beckett seconded the motion and it passed 6:0.
22
23 5. COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT (CCI) — GENERAL UPDATES
24 None.
25
26 6. PUBLIC HEARING
27 6.1 Community Development Code Amendments Related to Seasonal Restaurant Enclosures
28 (LU 20-0019)
29 A request from the City of Lake Oswego for amendments to Chapter 50 (Community
30 Development Code) for the purpose of allowing seasonal (Nov. 1 —April 30) restaurant
31 enclosures on private property in commercial zones. Staff coordinator was Evan Fransted,
32 Associate Planner.
33
34 Chair Heape opened the hearing. Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, outlined the hearing
35 procedure. No financial conflicts of interest were declared, and no one challenged any
36 Commissioner's right to consider the application.
37
38
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of July 27, 2020 Page 1 of 5
APPROVED: 08/10/2020
1 Staff Report
2 Mr. Fransted provided an overview of the staff report. He noted that the Planning
3 Commission (Commission) received an update in January and directed staff to proceed
4 with drafting proposed amendments. In February, staff met with two Focus Groups —
5 affected neighborhood associations and restaurant owners. The Commission also held a
6 work session in July and directed staff to review the Comprehensive Plan and
7 Neighborhood Plans to determine if proposed changes met existing policies and criteria
8 and to look at standards from other jurisdictions.
9
10 Mr. Fransted reported that there was little information available from other jurisdictions
11 about seasonal restaurant enclosures on private property, most were relevant to
12 enclosures in the public right-of-way. He indicated that the proposed amendments
13 addressed existing policies and criteria in the Comprehensive Plan and neighborhood
14 plans as shown in the staff report. In regards to parking, Mr. Fransted advised that
15 currently outdoor dining did not require additional parking and enclosing the outdoor dining
16 area for six months out of the year would not have an impact on parking or the street
17 system. He recalled that seasonal entrance vestibules had been previously discussed, he
18 advised that they were typically fairly small, not attached to the outdoor dining area and
19 their main purpose was to prevent cold air from blowing into the dining area.
20
21 Mr. Fransted explained that staff was proposing a two-path process:
22 Ministerial (smaller seasonal enclosures)
23 • 400 sq. ft. or less
24 • 12 feet in height or less
25 • Located at least 20 feet from frontage, residential use, public open space, or public
26 access easement
27 • If abutting a residential use, sight-obscuring fence or wall a minimum of six feet in
28 height would be required.
29 • Staff decision, no public notice and not appealable to Development Review
30 Commission (DRC).
31 He pointed out that this option provided clear and objective standards and a building
32 permit could be issued.
33
34 Minor Development Review (all other seasonal enclosures)
35 • Must meet specific Commercial Design Standards to ensure the enclosures
36 integrate into the primary building.
37 • Staff decision and did not require a hearing before the Development Review
38 Commission, unless it was appealed.
39 Mr. Fransted explained that the proposed review process was streamlined compared to
40 the current code. He clarified that overlay design standards did not apply except for
41 dimensional standards in the Lake Grove Village Center Overlay and the Southwest
42 Employment Area Overlay. He noted that Chuckie Pies and Bamboo Sushi, the two
43 businesses that had previously had a pre-application conference for installing a seasonal
44 dining enclosure, would be required to go through this process because they were within
45 20 feet of a public access easement.
46
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of July 27, 2020 Page 2 of 5
APPROVED: 08/10/2020
1 Questions of Staff
2 Commissioner Beckett asked if there were examples of seasonal dining enclosures in
3 other suburbs in Portland. Mr. Fransted said that Tualatin had some, but their regulations
4 didn't go into the level of detail that was being proposed. Mr. Siegel advised that staff
5 looked at other jurisdictions where seasonal enclosures were allowed on private property
6 and found that it wasn't addressed in their code possibly because their code allowed them
7 as temporary structures. Commissioner Beckett also referred to the three neighborhood
8 associations in opposition to the proposed amendments and the use of plastic windows.
9 Mr. Fransted said there were several examples of enclosures in Portland, however he
10 wasn't sure they were currently up. Mr. Siegel advised that under this concept a seasonal
11 enclosure was not more than 6 months, whereas a temporary structure was 14 days or
12 less and a permanent structure was more than six months. Staff explained that restaurant
13 owners wanted to add flexibility to their patio seating, to provide an option to customers
14 preferring to sit where there was more space, and to offer a space for specialty events
15 with larger groups; proposed amendments were before the Commission because currently
16 applicants ran into a number of hurdles ranging from the vinyl windows and materials not
17 allowed by the code and the seasonal nature of these enclosures.
18
19 Commissioner Fischer asked if it were a permanent structure (such as the Windward) with
20 a seasonal enclosure, would it be approved under current code. Mr. Fransted stated that
21 it would be difficult to say, there were several factors to consider. Commissioner Fischer
22 stated that while the enclosures were supposed to be temporary, they looked permanent,
23 he questioned if it was a way of avoiding normal building restrictions and building codes.
24 Mr. Fransted advised that these weren't temporary, but seasonal.
25
26 Testimony
27 Lisa Shaw-Ryan, 370 First Street. Lake Osweao, 97034, introduced herself as a long-time
28 resident and business owner in Lake Oswego, and former neighborhood association chair.
29 She stated that she was the owner of Chuckie Pies. She explained that the process
30 started a while ago for her (prior to the pandemic) and that outdoor dining was a
31 component when she negotiated her lease at the Windward; discussions included
32 extending the awning similar to the restaurants at Bridgeport Village, which had several
33 different types of seasonal enclosures. She explained that after the first year she was
34 looking at extending the awning, but after realizing that it would be an expensive,
35 significant process with the City, she started looking at custom outdoor enclosures that
36 were designed to be removable; she emphasized they would be using the same outdoor
37 dining space they currently had, the number of tables and use remained the same and the
38 number of customers would be the same or less than what they saw in the summer. She
39 indicated that they wanted the flexibility to use the space year round, to seat a larger
40 group, she commented that the restaurant business was difficult with very narrow margins.
41
42 Commissioner Semler asked how long she anticipated using the enclosure within the six
43 month window. Ms. Shaw-Ryan stated that having the flexibility of the six months was
44 important, it would also depend on the weather— November, December and January were
45 the most trying with visitors coming in town for the holidays.
46
47 Commissioner Stewart questioned what time of year they would start putting furniture
48 outside. She said that April would be typical, people were wanting to sit outside and they
49 would put away around October because the awning didn't extend far enough.
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of July 27, 2020 Page 3 of 5
APPROVED: 08/10/2020
1
2 Ms. Shaw-Ryan stated that it was important that accurate information be represented —
3 that they would be using the same footprint, same amount of seating, it was seasonal and
4 temporary and would not be kept up year round.
5
6 When asked about parking, Ms. Shaw-Ryan stated that she believed they would be using
7 the same number of parking spaces during the proposed time for outside dining
8 enclosures as during the summer.
9
10 Chair Heape noted that the following testimony was submitted after the staff report was
11 distributed:
12 Exhibit G-3 Email from Bob Clemo in favor, 07/16/20
13 Exhibit G-4 Email from Brian Williams in favor, 07/17/20
14 Exhibit G-5 Email from Scott Buth in favor, 07/20/20
15 Exhibit G-6 Letter from Waluga Neighborhood Association against, 07/26/20
16 Exhibit G-7 Email from Joseph Buck in favor, 07/27/20
17
18 Deliberations
19 Commissioner Beckett appreciated the concerns of the neighborhood associations, but
20 was in favor of the proposal and believed it would also help spread people out more and
21 keep businesses viable, especially during the pandemic.
22
23 Commissioner Fischer agreed that seasonal enclosures would provide additional space,
24 but was concerned about using the pandemic as a reason; he held that the design looked
25 permanent, like a structure and whether they were wanted for six months out of the year.
26 He expressed concern that the applicant would not have to go through development
27 review to extend the footprint of a building. Mr. Siegel clarified that the building design
28 standards being proposed were specific to seasonal dining enclosures and the design had
29 to complement the building it was attached to.
30
31 Commissioner Semler commented that a permanent look that complemented the existing
32 design was better than a less attractive alternative.
33
34 Vice Chair Pape said that one of the things that was driving his support of the proposal
35 was that it was on private property. He shared that he had traveled throughout the United
36 States and abroad and seasonal structures were common in many European cities. He
37 was concerned about future buildings and whether they would be designed with this type
38 of structure being added on and unintended consequences.
39
40 Commissioner Fischer reiterated his concern about this being a way for a commercial
41 building to have more square footage and bypass the normal building process.
42
43 Chair Heape observed that restaurants were designed for peak demand and he didn't see
44 parking increasing beyond peak demand because of the enclosure and that it might
45 actually be less. Regarding the environmental impact of a seasonal enclosure (vinyl and
46 heating), be believed that businesses would be cognizant and would take measures to
47 minimize the environmental impact.
48
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of July 27, 2020 Page 4 of 5
APPROVED: 08/10/2020
1 Commissioner Stewart recalled the testimony from Ms. Castle at a previous work session
2 (regarding environmental impacts) and noted that we didn't have cold winters as seen in
3 other parts of the country and it was not a long season; when we occasionally saw cold
4 weather below 20 degrees or snow, if a restaurant was even open, they probably wouldn't
5 be using the seasonally enclosed space because people would not want to sit in a
6 temporary enclosure. He also didn't think it would take a lot of energy to heat 400 square
7 foot space for a few hours a night six months out of the year compared to the rest of the
8 restaurant.
9
10 Commissioner Beckett pointed out that he had seen heaters outside to keep people warm
11 without enclosures and that with an enclosure it might take less energy.
12
13 The Commission discussed timeframe options for seasonal enclosures, but no changes
14 were made, it was observed businesses would self-regulate timeframes.
15
16 Commissioner Beckett moved to recommend the City Council approve the proposed
17 amendments to the Community Development Code (LU 20-0019), as prepared and for staff to
18 return with Findings, Conclusion, and Order on August 10, 2020. Commissioner Semler
19 seconded the motion and it passed 5:0:1. Commissioner Fischer abstained.
20
21 7. WORK SESSION
22 7.1 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (PP 19-0004)
23 The Commission reviewed the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan focusing on incentives
24 for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. Staff coordinator was Jenny Slepian, Sustainability and
25 Management Analyst.
26
27 Commissioner Fischer moved that Chair Heape, Vice Chair Pape, and Commissioner Beckett
28 represent the Planning Commission on a subcommittee to work on Electric Vehicles Goal 3
29 (EV3) with Commissioner Stewart serving as the alternate. Vice Chair Pape seconded the
30 motion and it passed 6:0. Ms. Slepian acknowledged that the work of the subcommittee would
31 likely last through the first few months of next year. There were no action items.
32
33 8. OTHER BUSINESS
34 8.1 House Bills 2001 and 2003 (PP 19-0008)
35 The Commission received a monthly update on the State rulemaking for House Bills 2001 and
36 2003. Staff coordinator was Erik Olson, Senior Planner. There were no action items.
37
38 8.2 Nomination/Election of Chair and Vice Chair for Fiscal Year (2020-2021)
39 Commissioner Beckett moved to elect Rob Heape as Chair and Christian Pape as Vice Chair.
40 Commissioner Stewart seconded the motion and it passed 6:0.
41
42 9. SCHEDULE REVIEW
43 Mr. Siegel reviewed the updated schedule.
44
45 10. ADJOURNMENT
46 There being no other business, Chair Heape adjourned the meeting at 8:48 p.m.
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of July 27, 2020 Page 5 of 5