HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2020-10-26 PM APPROVED: 11/23/2020
O0� � 0
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
Planning Commission Minutes
u AWN
October 26, 2020
()REGOr'
1
2 1. CALL TO ORDER
3 Chair Heape called the meeting to order at approximately 6:30 p.m. This was a video conference
4 meeting held via Zoom.
5
6 2. ROLL CALL
7 Members present were Chair Rob Heape, Vice Chair Christian Pape and Commissioners Dave Beckett,
8 Joel Fischer, Jacob Semler, Philip Stewart and Kim Whitman.
9
10 Staff present were Scot Siegel, Director of Planning and Building Services; Evan Boone, Deputy City
11 Attorney; Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager; and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Assistant.
12
13 3. CITIZEN COMMENT
14 None.
15
16 4. COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT (CCI)—GENERAL UPDATES
17 None.
18
19 5. PUBLIC HEARING—CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 12, 2020
20 5.1 Community Development Code and Comprehensive Plan Amendments to Subareas I and I-A of the
21 Marylhurst Campus (LU 20-0016)
22 A request by The Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary to amend the Lake
23 Oswego Community Development Code and the Marylhurst Area Special District Plan in Volume II of the
24 Comprehensive Plan in order to add affordable multi-family dwellings as a permitted use in Phases I and
25 I-A of the Campus Institutional (CI)zone on the former Marylhurst University Campus site. No actual
26 development is proposed at this time. The property is located at 17600 Pacific Highway. Staff
27 coordinator was Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager.
28
29 No public testimony was accepted at this meeting. Written testimony was due by 5:00 pm on Monday,
30 October 19, 2020. Any rebuttal of the written testimony submitted by the deadline, above, was due by
31 5:00 pm on Wednesday, October 21, 2020 (only rebuttal was allowed; no new testimony was allowed
32 during this period).
33
34 Ms. Numanoglu reported that the following exhibits had been submitted: F-8 (testimony from the
35 applicant), G-12, G-124 through G-125 and G-214 through G-217; during the rebuttal phase only one
36 response was received from the applicant, Exhibit F-9. She advised that the issues raised were very
37 similar to what was heard at the last public hearing related to traffic, several comments requesting that
38 Subarea 1-A not be included in the site and suggestions that the site be reduced to an even smaller area
39 where the existing dormitories were expected to be removed. She stated that the applicant was
40 requesting to withdraw Subarea 1-A from the site in response to testimony received; she clarified that the
41 applicant had originally included that subarea because it formed a convenient boundary, but was never
42 anticipated to be built on. She indicated that the change would reduce the site from 50 acres to
43 approximately 40. She said staff did not object to the removal and that it was not feasible to develop.
44
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of October 26, 2020 Page 1 of 4
APPROVED: 11/23/2020
1 Ms. Numanoglu explained that because the site area was being reduced, the applicant also submitted a
2 revised traffic analysis, Exhibit F-8. Ms. Numanoglu pointed out that the trip cap did not change
3 because of the 15 buildings in the subareas, only one was in Subarea 1-A and it was not included in the
4 square footage the original trip cap was based on. Ms. Numanoglu reported that the applicant had also
5 submitted revised draft code amendments, which staff reviewed and confirmed removed all
6 amendments related to Subarea I-A. She advised that none of the comments submitted cited any
7 applicable policies or criteria that proposed amendments didn't comply with. She stated that removal of
8 Subarea I-A had no effect on compliance with applicable policy or criteria. She noted a correction on
9 page 3 of the supplemental staff memo - under staff recommendation it incorrectly refers to the removal
10 of Subarea 1 —it should have been Subarea I-A.
11
12 Questions of Staff
13 Commissioner Fischer asked how the proposed amendments related to affordable housing and House
14 Bill 2001. Mr. Siegel indicated that the proposed amendments did not apply or relate to House Bill
15 2001, the code amendments related to multifamily affordable housing in larger projects of at least 20
16 units. House Bill 2001 (middle housing)applied to single-family zoning and small forms of multifamily
17 housing (duplexes, quadplexes, cottage cluster development). Commissioner Fischer was concerned
18 about segregating lower income individuals to one area. Mr. Siegel indicated that this location actually
19 dispersed affordable housing because the two existing multifamily developments that were subsidized
20 were located in the Lake Grove area. Mr. Boone advised that while factually correct, this issue was not
21 a criterion.
22
23 Commissioner Stewart recalled concerns brought up in testimony with substandard streets and similar
24 improvements. Ms. Numanoglu confirmed that streets and onsite circulation would be addressed with
25 the development application.
26
27 Mr. Boone asked the applicant's representative whether they wanted to submit final written argument.
28 Ms. Debbie Cleek indicated they would like to move on to deliberations.
29
30 Deliberations
31 Commissioner Beckett observed that there was no available real estate for affordable housing elsewhere in
32 the city and the proposal would provide more affordable housing in an area that would result in little conflict
33 with neighbors.
34
35 Commissioner Whitman expressed his appreciation for the applicant's proposal creating affordable housing
36 and for the staff's work and was in support of moving forward with the proposal.
37
38 Commissioner Stewart was in support of the proposal. He noted that the development goals and objectives
39 being proposed didn't guarantee the project would be sited at the exact location being discussed. He noted
40 that of the 14 buildings, 5 were historical and appeared to be in good condition but others may not be and
41 someday may be developed—the potential was there for it to happen. He noted that changes could be
42 made while preserving integrity of what's there. He recalled that there was a comment about height—in his
43 observations the average height seemed to be two to three stories—but there was one that was four stories
44 (east side)on the campus which would allow a 45 foot height limit. He commented that the campus setting
45 was great opportunity for housing, a beautiful scenic location that would be a great place to live.
46
47 Vice Chair Pape was not in total opposition but he was concerned specifically with rezoning of the entire
48 parcel albeit removing Subarea I-A and the cemetery left approximately 40 acres. He observed that the
49 traffic reports pointed to the building of affordable housing, but noted that there was nothing to prevent
50 additional development of residential or commercial. He indicated that the rezoning development of 75-100
51 units of affordable housing should be specific to that area rather than the entire site. Commissioner Semler
52 shared the same concerns as Vice Chair Pape, especially with the possibility of a development proposal
53 changing.
54
55
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of October 26, 2020 Page 2 of 4
APPROVED: 11/23/2020
1 Mr. Siegel clarified that there were three controls in the buildout or reuse of the campus, in addition to the
2 development standards:
3 1. Trip cap
4 2. Sensitive lands districts around the perimeter of site
5 3. Historic landmarks
6
7 Commissioner Stewart was concerned about having too many constraints or limitations—care and
8 maintenance of the campus was likely somewhat of a financial burden with the possibility of not all of the
9 buildings being used or usable (his opinion). He observed that certain locations would be viable potential
10 sites and others would not. He stated that assuming the integrity of campus was maintained it was leaving
11 a handful of sites that could be redeveloped. He added that depending on the master plan and the way the
12 code was written it could control the number of housing complexes being developed.
13
14 Commissioner Semler asked if there was anything keeping the applicant from demolishing the buildings
15 without landmark status. Mr. Siegel stated that there were no regulatory restrictions, that it would be market
16 driven. Ms. Numanoglu added that non-historic buildings could be torn down today, multifamily was not the
17 driver, they could build congregate care or an office building—they were permitted outright elsewhere on the
18 campus. Ms. Numanoglu confirmed that the applicant would have some flexibility in siting with future new
19 development; if multifamily was limited, then the use would be constrained to a smaller subset, but as the
20 code amendments were proposed they could develop in any suitable location.
21
22 Mr. Siegel stated that the recommendation had to ultimately address the Comprehensive Plan, applicable
23 policies and criteria and any recommendation that would change the geography would need to be related to
24 a Comprehensive Plan policy to inform and advise the Council as to the reason of their decision. Mr. Boone
25 advised that the proposal could be modified but the question was whether the current proposal met all the
26 applicable criteria— if it did not and a lesser version would, then it could be modified with an explanation of
27 why a modification was appropriate to address the Comprehensive Plan policies.
28
29 Vice Chair Pape explained that while the applicant didn't have plans to sell the property, their organization
30 size was dwindling; he was concerned that if the entire 40 acres was rezoned, it would provide a massive
31 increase in value to the Marylhurst Commons and what that could mean in five to ten years.
32
33 Chair Heape indicated that his primary concern had been the 45 foot height, but staff had pointed out that it
34 was already allowed by code. He was also concerned about traffic but the trip cap that was put in place
35 would resolve any concerns with traffic impacts. Lastly, the size, but 75-100 multifamily units met all the
36 criteria.
37
38 Chair Heape moved to approve LU 20-0016 based on the findings. reasons and conclusion in the staff
39 report and of the Commission's deliberations and subject to no additional conditions. including removal of
40 Subarea I-A. Commissioner Stewart seconded the motion and it passed 5:2 with Vice Chair Pape and
41 Commissioner Semler voting no.
42
43 Staff to prepare Findings, Conclusions and Order for consideration at the next meeting on November 9,
44 2020.
45
46 6. OTHER BUSINESS
47 6.1 House Bills 2001 and 2003 (PP 19-0008)
48 The Commission received an update on the State rulemaking for House Bills 2001 and 2003. Staff
49 coordinator was Erik Olson, Senior Planner.
50
51 Mr. Olson noted that two updates were provided this month because the final hearing for likely adoption
52 of rulemaking, minimum compliance and model code requirements was expected at the next hearing of
53 the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) on November 12 and 13th. He advised
54 that this would be the last opportunity to provide comment to be considered at the Hearing.
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of October 26, 2020 Page 3 of 4
APPROVED: 11/23/2020
1
2 Mr. Olson then provided an update on the request for proposal for consultant services related to
3 deliverables on House Bill 2001. He reported that Cascadia Partners was selected and that work was
4 anticipated to begin within a couple of months, with results of work anticipated in the Spring of 2021.
5
6 Staff will look into further potential impacts on single-family residential areas in Mountain Park and other
7 master planned communities.
8
9 7. SCHEDULE REVIEW
10 Mr. Siegel reviewed the updated schedule.
11
12 8. ADJOURNMENT
13 There being no other business, Chair Heape adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m.
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of October 26, 2020 Page 4 of 4