Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2017-04-18 s CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING n MINUTES U �_ O April 18, 2017 OREGON 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Studebaker called the regular City Council meeting to order at 3:01 p.m. on April 18, 2017, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Manz, Gudman, LaMotte, Kohlhoff, and Buck Excused: Councilor O'Neill Staff Present: Scott Lazenby, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder; Scot Siegel, Planning and Building Services Director 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Studebaker led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. CITIZEN COMMENT No Citizen Comment was offered. 4.1 Prior Citizen Comment Follow-Up No follow-up on prior Citizen Comment was presented. Mayor Studebaker noted that no eComments had been received regarding this meeting. 5. STUDY SESSIONS 5.1 Stafford Urban Reserve IGA This agenda item was not considered. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 7 April 18, 2017 5.2 Council Call-Up Ordinance Report and Attachment Mr. Siegel provided background on Councilor Kohlhoff's request that Council consider adoption of a call-up ordinance for development permits, as described in the Council Report. At her suggestion, Council had been provided with the Wilsonville call-up procedure as an example (Council Report, Attachment 1). Adoption of such an ordinance essentially would allow the Council to review a land use decision made by a lower body in a process akin to an appeal hearing. It would provide Council an opportunity to either affirm, modify or reverse the lower body's decision, while applying the City's required code criteria. Council could direct Staff to develop an ordinance, if their discussion indicated that this was desired. Councilor LaMotte requested clarification on timing and format of a call-up ordinance, questioning whether it would necessarily entail a formal procedure such as Wilsonville's. Mr. Powell indicated that various approaches could be considered. However, if Council decided to exercise this authority, he strongly recommended that a process for doing so should be adopted, with specified time periods for completion. Councilor Buck asked about the specific circumstances under which the City of Wilsonville had adopted its call-up ordinance. Councilor Kohlhoff described the background as she understood it, indicating that Wilsonville city management had proposed it over 30 years earlier upon recommendation of an international city managers' group. The ordinance had been used sparingly over the 30 years it had been in effect, perhaps five or six times. Councilor Manz indicated that she wondered what problem would be solved in Lake Oswego by enacting such an ordinance and why Council would want to implement it now. She expressed concerns about an additional layer of regulation, both for citizens and for the City Council. Councilor Kohlhoff noted that the matter had arisen from her inquiry about the outcome of a conditional use permit when approval was granted and no one appealed. The call-up ordinance would provide a means to address the situation, she observed, and should be an element of the code. She discussed the authority and responsibility of Council as elected officials, including their role as ultimate decision maker for the City. Acknowledging the need for a documented procedure for call-up, she characterized this as a "missing link" in City code. It was needed to ensure that, where a decision seemed to fall outside the community standards, it was appropriate that Council represent the position of citizens who were not parties to the decision and would not be in a position to appeal it. Her expectation was that it would not be an option used often; however, it would afford Council the means to act when necessary. Councilor LaMotte described benefits of such an ordinance, based on his experience in various parts of the country. It was effective, he indicated, when used in rare cases, notably where a councilor felt that a project had been rejected without due consideration and the applicant had not appealed the decision. He asked about the potential for different formats and timing for City Council review under a call-up procedure, which would provide an opportunity for further discussion with the applicant. Mr. Powell differentiated this kind of opportunity from the call-up City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 7 April 18, 2017 of the decision itself. While other processes could be prescribed for Council involvement, these would need to be in the context of the criteria to which applicants are entitled, he emphasized. In continuing discussion, Councilor LaMotte confirmed that he hoped the call-up ordinance would offer the opportunity for a conference of some kind between Council and applicant when a permit was pending before a lower body. This would also support Staff's efforts to provide clear direction to applicants. Mr. Lazenby noted that this input on the role desired by Council would help Staff to consider legalities and procedures that could be incorporated in the process. Mr. Powell indicated that the sort of Council-applicant conference suggested by Councilor LaMotte could be a component, but reiterated his recommendation that it be specified in code. It was essential that it stay within the framework of the permit criteria, as well. Councilor Gudman asked about the meaning of"community-wide interest" as a potential reason for assigning a development application for Council review (Council Report, p 2). Mr. Siegel noted that this was difficult to define, and expressed concurrence with Mr. Powell's recommendation that code would need to include criteria for a call-up. Councilor Gudman expressed concern about situations with minor and major development permits where the parties did not appeal because of time and expense considerations; a call-up by Council would, in essence, impose those effects on the parties. Also, in comparing the Lake Oswego and Wilsonville community development codes, he perceived that Lake Oswego's was much more fully developed. Mr. Siegel responded to these points, explaining that in some areas the Lake Oswego code is more prescriptive. He addressed Councilor Gudman's concerns about possible challenges if a call-up resulted in Council overriding City code in order to achieve a preferred use. The code makes a clear distinction between those uses that are permitted outright versus those that may be conditionally approved. Councilor Gudman asked how Council members requesting a call-up would be able to proclaim they were not biased in considering the call-up in a quasi-judicial hearing. Mr. Powell clarified the meaning of bias in terms of land use, i.e., that the Council member was incapable of deciding the matter based upon the criteria. In contrast, the call-up ordinance would specify that Council identified issues needing its review; Council would not pre-decide and would, of course, make its decision based on the criteria. Councilor Manz asked Mr. Siegel how effectively the current process, without a call-up provision, works in Lake Oswego, in his opinion. Mr. Siegel noted that the community is much engaged in land use and development activities. Many ways are open to residents for becoming involved and for reaching out to Council on proposals that come forward; Council has a variety of ways to engage, as well. He regards citizen involvement in land use as being as robust in Lake Oswego as he has seen anywhere in the country. Outlining various channels through which citizens have ongoing communication directly with Council, he recognized Staff's responsiveness as key. Their efforts have included working closely with developers and facilitating meetings with developers and neighbors to seek alternative solutions. While these activities were not prescribed under the code, they were not in conflict with the code, and Council was kept informed. All of these channels for involvement seemed to be working effectively, he indicated. A point that might be considered City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 7 April 18, 2017 is that a call-up option could be regarded as a deterrent by some prospective applicants, he added. Councilor Buck concurred with Mr. Siegel's assessment. Given the robust community engagement that has been demonstrated, Council could best exercise leadership by ensuring regular communication with both the business and general community so that everyone is clear about Council's expectations and ideas for the community. A Council role that best serves the community is to be available for considering an appeal with fresh perspective. He questioned the need for a call-up provision in Lake Oswego. Councilor LaMotte clarified that his vision for the call-up ordinance would entail an informal Council presentation by the applicant with an exchange of ideas, as opposed to a formal review. The ordinance would provide another tool when needed. As a largely built-out city, Lake Oswego could ill afford bad development, and the ordinance offered potential for additional leadership from the Council. Councilor Kohlhoff asked about the City's use of development agreements. Mr. Powell noted that these have been used through the redevelopment agency, where the City has an interest in the property for investment. There have also been more statutory development agreements on occasion, though not many, he indicated. In brief ensuing discussion he described examples, typically initiated by developers; all would require Council review and approval. Councilor Kohlhoff suggested that such agreements could also be promoted by the City as a way of achieving better development outcomes for the community. Mayor Studebaker stated that he did not favor a call-up ordinance. With the robust citizen involvement, effective staff efforts, and clear and restrictive code, he was reluctant to prescribe more Council control and involvement. Brief discussion followed about how to proceed on the matter. Mr. Lazenby indicated that Staff welcomed direction on one of three apparent options: Do nothing; propose a formal call-up, where the Council would basically appeal a decision to itself; or propose a more informal Council review process, as proposed by Councilor LaMotte. Mayor Studebaker moved that Council do nothing with regard to a call-up ordinance. Councilor Manz seconded the motion. Councilor Gudman expressed his support for the motion. He indicated that the ongoing discussions with Mr. Lazenby, Mr. Powell, and Mr. Siegel provide Council an effective channel for ensuring that development goes in the desired direction. Councilor LaMotte stated that the full call-up was important to him, and he was flexible as to the format. While acknowledging the value of the input from Staff, he reiterated the importance of an informal Council meeting with developers. A roll call vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Manz, Gudman, and Buck voting `aye'. Councilors LaMotte and Kohlhoff voted 'no'. (4-2) City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 7 April 18, 2017 5.3 Streamlined Local Improvement District Process for Streets Report Mr. Lazenby discussed Staff's focus on providing an easier way for property owners to choose a Local Improvement District (LID) as a means of funding street improvements. Following up on Council's direction to explore use of the LID process for such improvements, Staff determined that it could be most beneficial in older neighborhoods with streets that require complete reconstruction. He outlined the proposed LID process for street projects, as shown in the Council Report, highlighting the dollar-for-dollar match that would allow the City to leverage its road- reconstruction funds. Ideally, it would best address projects only involving street re-paving; however, the LID could include sidewalk and stormwater management improvements if the neighborhood was interested. He noted that the City Engineer had emphasized the importance of communicating clearly to property owners that a re-paving project could result in unforeseeable changes to stormwater movement in the area. In summarizing the proposal for Council consideration, he highlighted the necessary use of an outside LID contract engineer because of City staffing constraints. The current Lake Oswego Municipal Code encompasses LIDs, and no Code changes would be needed. Staff regards this as a good way for neighborhood residents to gain a higher priority for their desired local street improvements. Councilor Gudman noted that exploring this enhanced use of LIDs was an unfortunate outcome of the past 10 to 15 years of neglecting the city's roads; this underscored the importance of maintaining infrastructure once it was up to standard. He discussed benefits of the proposal for Mountain Park, where property owners, rather than the City, owned the roads in many cul-de- sacs. This area might be considered for first outreach. A brief exchange followed about the need to consider the matching percentage in such situations. Councilor LaMotte posed questions about decision making and funding for such LID projects when sewer or water improvements might better be incorporated with the street work. Mr. Lazenby emphasized that standalone local street reconstruction is simply is not being done. He described situations where costs of additional water or sewer main work improvements might fall to the City; alternatively, the City could decide to defer those improvements until funds were available. In response to Councilor LaMotte's question, he discussed the possibility that a LID could provide funding for such work if no City matching funds for the program remained and property owners preferred not to wait. Councilor Manz, while favoring the opportunity for an expedited process, expressed concerns about long-term property owners in older neighborhoods; these people might take issue because they have been paying taxes toward street maintenance for years. She would anticipate feedback about matters of equity. Mr. Lazenby indicated that there could be equity questions, but in his experience this had not been a barrier to formation of LIDs. Councilor Buck asked about per-foot costs of road reconstruction. Mr. Lazenby advised that Staff would follow up to provide the information. He responded to additional questions about equity from Councilor Buck, including how the amount of matching funds would be determined and administered across the city, as well as the basis for calculating the required approval City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 7 April 18, 2017 percentage for owners to form a LID. Mr. Lazenby indicated that these and other standards would be subject to Council direction. Councilor LaMotte acknowledged that equity issues would likely come up. However, benefits would include the opportunity for property owners to improve their position on the project priorities list. He also emphasized the significant opportunity for the City to leverage its money. Mayor Studebaker asked about the minimum number of participants and length of the street improvements that would be required for a LID. Mr. Lazenby indicated that this would need to be established, with the LID engineer weighing in and with outreach to adjacent residents. In ensuing discussion Mayor Studebaker raised concerns about adverse financial impacts on property owners under certain scenarios. Mr. Lazenby emphasized the multiple opportunities that would be provided for opt-out from the LID. Councilor Buck noted that owners considering a LID might object because of concerns that their street, once reconstructed, could again fall into disrepair if not maintained properly. He suggested that the City convey that their participation in the LID could free up funds to meet other needs in the community. Councilor Manz indicated that she would not be opposed to proceeding with a local street LID on a trial basis to gauge the interest, reiterating that she had concerns about equity. Mayor Studebaker stated that Council wished for Staff to proceed. The consensus was that Staff should return with a resolution that would enable the proposed streamlined LID process. Councilor Gudman suggested that it should specify a minimum of three participants in the LID. 6. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL Councilor LaMotte requested that Council receive clarification on City policies related to Tree Code regulations in storm and other emergency situations. After receiving that, Council might advise that the information be provided to residents through the community channels. Mayor Studebaker and Councilor Buck commented on their positive perceptions of the City responsiveness during the recent windstorm. Councilor Manz reported on her concerns about an apparent increase in trash and debris along the roads. In addition to possible reminders in a future Hello LO issue, she expressed interest in developing a city-wide effort to maintain the community's cleanliness and beauty. 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS No reports were made. 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Under authority of ORS 192.660 (2)(f) to consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection. Mr. Powell reviewed the statutory basis for entering executive session and outlined the parameters. The Council met in executive session beginning at 4:27 p.m. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 7 April 18, 2017 The Council reconvened in open session at 5:03 p.m. 9. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Studebaker adjourned the meeting at 5:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, &M,vK;)YtiL Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ON \ Vw_c vik Kent Studebaker, Mayor City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 7 April 18, 2017