Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2017-06-06 o� F o �� CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING j MINUTES V �- O June 6, 2017 OREGON 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Studebaker called the regular City Council meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. on June 6, 2017, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Gudman, LaMotte, Kohlhoff, Buck, O'Neill, and Manz Staff Present: Scott Lazenby, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder; Leslie Hamilton, Senior Planner; Shawn Cross, Finance Director Others Present: Frank Bridwell and Malcolm Mathes, Lake Oswego Meals on Wheels Co- Chairs; Carlotta Collette, Metro Councilor 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Studebaker led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. PRESENTATIONS 4.1 Lake Oswego Meals on Wheels Board Annual Donation to the City Report Frank Bridwell and Malcolm Mathes, co-chairs of Lake Oswego Meals on Wheels, presented a check to the City in the amount of $68,000. Mayor Studebaker expressed the Council's appreciation on behalf of the City. 4.2 Metro Councilor Carlotta Collette Councilor Collette updated the Council on a variety of Metro efforts, highlighting items of particular interest to Lake Oswego. With accompanying slides, she provided updates on (1) the Willamette Falls Legacy Project; (2) the most recent Regional Snapshot, including findings City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 14 June 6, 2017 indicating progress in the effort to get workers in the region to utilize multi-modal transportation and to locate in walkable communities; (3) recent award of the Regional Flexible Funds, notably the $3 million for work on Highway 43 in West Linn; (4) next steps for transportation, including solicitation of projects for the Regional Transportation Plan and progress on a bill to obtain highway and multi-modal transit funding through the legislature; (5) land use efforts, including passage of House Bill 2095 affording more flexibility between planning cycles, and the historic five-party Stafford Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) supported by Lake Oswego; (6) Metro's 2040 planning and development grant program, now to be on an annual cycle; (7) parks and nature, notably the collaborative effort with the City to purchase land in the Stafford area adjacent to the Stevens Meadows Natural Area; (8) Metro staff planning efforts for the Willamette Shore Line trail; (8) efforts to advance equity in greater Portland through the Construction Careers Pathway Project, focusing on opportunity in the building trades; (9) status of the new Convention Center hotel, with construction to begin mid-2017; (10) significant economic impact of Portland's major performance art venues; and (11) developments at the Oregon Zoo. Councilor Collette addressed City Council members' questions about opportunity for interim expansions of the urban reserve, and how the process would unfold for release of funds for transportation planning steps as stated in the Stafford IGA. Councilor Gudman noted the need for the County to remember in the next funding cycle the City of Milwaukie's role in making funds available for the Highway 43 project. Councilor Collette provided additional information on their positive impact. She responded to additional questions about regional transportation issues. Following Councilor Collette's presentation, Mayor Studebaker asked Ms. Simpson to review the meeting agenda changes for the benefit of the audience. She announced that Appeal 17-03 on LU 16-0048 relating to the property at 1225 Chandler Road had been withdrawn, resulting in a cancelled public hearing referenced on the agenda as Item 9.2. Additionally, the resolution amending the City's Master Fees and Charges, shown on the agenda as Item 9.3, had been revised to remove the Forest Highlands Water District's Rate Changes. A resolution addressing the rate changes will come before the City Council in a public hearing during its July 5 meeting, which will require noticing per the City's Code. As there was no longer a public hearing required on the resolution at this June 6 meeting, it appears as Item 5.7 on the Consent Agenda. However, Councilors LaMotte and Buck had requested that the item be removed from Consent, and it will be considered under Item 6. (Items Removed from the Consent Agenda). She noted that the Council had received an eComment on Resolution 17-27, but as the comment addressed the water rate changes, it will be included in the City Council's July 5 agenda packet. Mayor Studebaker reviewed the content of the Consent Agenda, citing Items 5.1 through 5.6. 5. CONSENT AGENDA— For Full Council Approval Motion: Move to adopt the Consent Agenda. 5.1 Approval of Meeting Minutes 5.1.1 April 18 2017, Regular Meeting Minutes 5.1.2 May 2, 2017, Regular Meeting Minutes City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 14 June 6, 2017 5.1.3 May 16, 2017, Regular Meeting Minutes Motion: Move to approve minutes as written. Report and Attachments 5.2 Resolution 17-13, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego Approving the Update of the City of Lake Oswego Emergency Operations Plan Motion: Move to adopt Resolution 17-13. Resolution and Plan 5.3 Resolution 17-26, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego Authorizing the Mayor to Execute a Memorandum of Agreement with the City of Tigard and North Clackamas County Water Commission, and Confirming its Intent to Negotiate Terms and, if Successful, Execute an Intergovernmental Cooperative Agreement Granting Use of the Partnership's Remnant Water Transmission Pipeline Segments for an Emergency Water Supply to NCCWC's Member Entities, and Addressing Management and Operation of this Emergency Water Supply System. Motion: Move to adopt Resolution 17-26. Report and Attachment 5.4 Resolution 17-29, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego Authorizing an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Alto Park Water District Continuing Fire and Emergency Medical Services for Fiscal Years 2017-2018 through 2021-2022 Motion: Move to adopt Resolution 17-29. Report and Attachment 5.5 Resolution 17-31, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego Declaring a Public Necessity to Acquire a Permanent Utility Easement at 15875 Boones Ferry Road (Boones Ferry Road Project) Motion: Move to adopt Resolution 17-31. Report and Attachments 5.6 Resolution 17-33, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego Adjusting the Budget for the Fiscal Year Commencing July 1, 2016 by Transferring Certain Appropriations. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 14 June 6, 2017 Motion: Move to adopt Resolution 17-33. Report and Attachment END CONSENT AGENDA Councilor Gudman moved the adoption of all of the items on the Consent Agenda identified. Councilor Manz seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Gudman, LaMotte, Kohlhoff, Buck, O'Neill, and Manz voting 'aye'. (7-0) 6. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 5.7 Resolution 17-27, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego Amending the Master Fees and Charges Schedule Relating to Transportation System Development Charges and Planning Department Fees Resolution and Exhibits Mayor Studebaker invited Councilors LaMotte and Buck, who had requested removal of this item from the Consent Agenda, to initiate discussion. Councilor LaMotte discussed the background of Council's earlier review and decision to enact the revised transportation system development charges (SDCs). His concern focused on gaining a better understanding of the new rates and their economic impact on all businesses. The City needs to be sure it is fair from an economic development standpoint, especially in terms of retaining local businesses; possible unintended consequences of the new rates must be considered. He asked Council to consider further discussion before implementing the transportation SDC changes. Councilor Buck expressed concerns about the limited level of detail provided to Council prior to their adoption of the transportation SDC changes, particularly in relation to impacts on commercial development. The information now provided (Exhibit D to the Resolution) indicated large change for businesses. Council should ensure that these fees are set in a way that allows Lake Oswego to attract the kind of smaller local businesses that citizens appreciate in new developments. As currently set, he is concerned that such businesses may be priced out of the market. He asked that Staff provide a report prior to the July 1 effective date so that Council could consider how the changes compare to other jurisdictions and the types of businesses those jurisdictions are attracting. Councilor Kohlhoff emphasized that they were talking about new commercial construction. She discussed the need for transportation to precede development. Issues of congestion and other impacts of new businesses, as well as the long list of deferred transportation projects, will be addressed at high cost. However, Council must recognize that these businesses are impactful; it is not unfair that they pay the fees, she indicated. While low entry cost is advantageous in terms of economic development, Council must recognize that severe congestion will have negative effects on the businesses, counterbalancing the advantage of lower SDCs. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 14 June 6, 2017 Councilor Gudman acknowledged that the charges are significant, but stated that Council had indeed had the information on commercial categories and calculations available when the resolution was adopted in February. Councilor O'Neill noted that he did not recall discussion of SDC amounts on the scale of these. He described concerns about adverse impacts to the businesses and to the community if the full burden of road issues was placed on a handful of businesses, especially the unique ones desired by citizens. Councilor LaMotte described examples of various types of businesses and the related impacts of transportation SDCs, along with other fees and charges. He emphasized the need for Council to further explore the right balance for Lake Oswego in terms of economic development. After further discussion to clarify his purpose and frame a motion, Councilor Buck moved to defer a vote on Resolution 17-27 until the June 20 Council meeting and to direct Staff to bring alternative resolutions to Council on June 20, including options that either repeal or delay the effective date of the previously-adopted transportation SDCs. Councilor O'Neill seconded the motion. Councilor Gudman initiated discussion of the background of Council's approach to the transportation SDCs as currently adopted. Additional input was offered by Councilors LaMotte, O'Neill, and Buck. Councilor Buck noted that the motion was intended only to enable Council to receive additional information and have a more robust discussion. A roll call vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors LaMotte, Buck, O'Neill, and Manz voting 'aye'. Councilors Gudman and Kohlhoff voted 'no'. (5-2) Mr. Lazenby affirmed that Staff would return on June 20 with the resolution to provide for delay, but suggested that Council's more robust discussion be held at one of the July meetings. This would allow Staff time to develop additional options for consideration. 7. CONSENT AGENDA— For City Councilors' Approval 7.1 Resolution 17-17, A Resolution of the City Councilors of the City of Lake Oswego Approving Appointments to the Planning Commission Report and Attachment Councilor Gudman moved to adopt Resolution 17-17. Councilor LaMotte seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Councilors Gudman, LaMotte, Kohlhoff, Buck, O'Neill, and Manz voting 'aye'. (6-0) 8. CITIZEN COMMENT No Citizen Comment was offered. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 14 June 6, 2017 8.1 Prior Citizen Comment Follow-Up Mr. Lazenby reported that Council had received a memo from the Planning Director regarding circumstances of the tree removal on Douglas Circle that had been the subject of a citizen comment in May. He indicated that the tree removal was permitted for construction of a new home that met City standards, although fewer trees were permitted for removal than requested. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9.1 Appeal 17-01/LU 16-0053, From a Decision by the Development Review Commission Approving a Minor Variance Reducing the Front Yard Setback from 25 feet to 20 feet and a Residential Infill Design Approval Reducing the Rear Yard Setback from 30 feet to 10 feet at 2101 Goodall Court. Report and Exhibits A - D Exhibits Cl and C2 Approved Minutes Exhibits E - G Review of Hearing Procedure Mr. Powell read the title of this land use decision. He introduced the public hearing with background on the City Council's role in this appeal of a quasi-judicial matter, followed by a review of specific limitations related to testimony and evidence, and other parameters for the hearing. In discussing Council members' ex parte disclosure requirements, he described a "Citizen's View" article by Peter Wright in opposition to the Development Review Commission (DRC) decision that had appeared in the June 1 Lake Oswego Review. He asked if any Councilors had read the article; Councilors Gudman and LaMotte indicated that they had done so. Mr. Powell asked if, beyond reading of the article, any Council member wished to declare any ex parte contacts or issues with relation to bias or conflicts of interest. Councilor LaMotte stated that he had had informal discussions with board members of the neighborhood association on a couple of occasions in 2016; he also had received an email report from the neighborhood association sent to the DRC a couple of days prior to the DRC meeting, he had attended the DRC meeting where the decision was made, and had visited the site. Councilor O'Neill advised that he has had a working relationship for many years with the architect who would be speaking on behalf of the applicant. He indicated that he did not feel this would affect his ability to make a decision based on the evidence and the criteria. There being no other reports of ex parte contacts, Mr. Powell asked if any member of the audience wished to challenge any City Council member's right to consider the application. No challenges were heard. He outlined the hearing process and parameters, including time limits for testimony. Staff Report Ms. Hamilton indicated that this hearing to consider the appeal of the DRC decision would include key elements of the Council Report and Exhibits, also illustrated with a PowerPoint presentation. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 14 June 6, 2017 The applicant's request consisted of (1) a Minor Variance to reduce the front yard setback from 25 feet to 20 feet; (2) a Residential Infill Design (RID) variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 30 feet to 10 feet; and (3) the removal of 10 trees to construct the dwelling. A key point, she noted, is that while the property appears to be a corner lot, it does not actually meet the definition of this term as specified in City code; it is precluded because one frontage (Goodall Court) is on a private, rather than public, street. The effect of the request is to orient the house as if it were a corner lot. After highlighting background of the site and discussing photos, she summarized the points of opposition heard in the course of preparing the Council Report and in the DRC hearing: The dwelling size is not proportional to the lot size; the setback variances allow the house size to increase by 40%; the dwelling will be "on top" of neighbors' homes. Other concerns include the location of the "front" of the house, separation of homes, and the distance from the dwelling to Goodall Road. She discussed in detail a graphic (Council Report, p 3) comparing the site plans under the existing zone standard and under treatment as a corner lot with the proposed plan. Next she reviewed the applicable sets of criteria for approval, discussing first the front setback reduction under four Minor Variance criteria, as detailed in the Council Report. The three RID Exception criteria and the related analysis, documented in the Council Report, were described in detail. A rendering of the Goodall Court streetscape was displayed to illustrate the proposed dwelling in proximity to the abutting property. Tree removal issues were described, with Ms. Hamilton noting that Staff had recommended approval of nine of the requested 10 tree removals. She outlined conditions of approval identified by both the DRC and Staff and confirmed that the DRC's decision to approve was subject to these conditions, as shown in the March 29, 2017, staff report. She then reviewed the appellant's appeal points, which conveyed that: (1) The decision is detrimental to the Forest Highlands Neighborhood character. (2) The variance is inconsistent with the neighborhood association's survey results. (3) The variance establishes a precedent opposite of the work of the neighborhood association that is underway. She outlined the DRC's findings in relation to these points and concluded with decision options available to Council (Council Report, p 2-4). Finally, she noted the City's need to comply with the 120-day limit for the decision. Questions of Staff Councilor Kohlhoff asked if any of the testimony in the record had been presented by neighbors who were not residents of one of the 26 properties within 300 feet of the site. Ms. Hamilton indicated that most were within the 300 feet. Councilor Kohlhoff observed that it appeared the pattern of development had been examined mostly with emphasis on orientation of the dwelling. She asked if other factors, such as construction details or styles, had been raised and shown in the record. Ms. Hamilton explained that an applicant for a RID variance was required to submit a photo survey of the properties within 300 feet, and this became part of the record. The City considers the look as one aspect of the pattern of development. In this case they found a very eclectic mix that had developed over time. Councilor LaMotte made note of the Forest Highlands Neighborhood planning process that is underway. He asked for clarification of the DRC's finding that the front yard setback of a dwelling that met the zone standard would more negatively impact the streetscape than the reduced setback of the proposed dwelling. Ms. Hamilton confirmed this and responded to additional related questions and comments. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 14 June 6, 2017 Councilor Buck requested information about measurement of the setback from Goodall Road to the dwelling as proposed. Ms. Hamilton noted that, given the 6.5-foot dedication along Goodall Road, the house would be set back 20 feet from the property line at the inside edge of the pathway, but 40 feet from the edge of the Goodall Road pavement. Testimony of Applicant Curtis Olson, Olson Group Architects, 17150 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road, Durham, noted that he represented the property owner wishing to build the house. He provided background from the time of the owner's purchase, including their efforts to find a solution that would allow for the desired north-south house orientation. He clarified that their request was not for approval of a house larger than allowed by code; their proposal met code requirements for lot coverage, floor area ratio, and height. Instead, they were proposing a different way to configure the house on the site, which they believed would provide a more compatible solution than the building envelope of a code-compliant dwelling. He outlined aspects of the proposed design and the requested variances with regard to neighborhood impacts; these included benefits to the Goodall Road streetscape and to proximity of active/inactive space for the homeowner to the west. Bruce Goldson, Theta, LLC, P.O. Box 1345, Lake Oswego, discussed engineering concerns that had been identified. He noted that the property was developed before adoption of new stormwater code, describing their efforts to address the poor infiltration rate with a viable solution. In relation to sight distance at the Goodall Road/Goodall Court intersection, he noted that the driveway orientation met code requirements. Based on the allowed speed on Goodall Road, it would meet standards for stopping sight distance. Testimony of Appellant Gary Willihnganz, 13068 Knaus Road, representing the Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association (FHNA), asked that Council uphold consistency in development codes and reject the request for setback reductions in order to construct a larger, more natural-looking home. The FHNA objects to unnecessary code concessions that change the character of the neighborhood. Highlighting concerns about the inappropriate R-7.5 zoning in the development code, he outlined specific objections regarding this development, including neighborhood impacts from excessive size of the proposed dwelling, setbacks outside the standard, inconsistency with nearby development that had been done without need for variances, and improper consideration as a corner lot. In addition to 26 neighbors' objections to the DRC decision, he cited the recent FHNA survey that identified neighborhood preferences for development; the proposed project was in conflict with these, he indicated. The FHNA also is now actively engaged with the City in the neighborhood planning process in order to address their concerns related to R-7.5 zoning and the related setbacks. In concluding, he reviewed key aspects of the proposed development that would negatively impact the neighborhood character, advising Council that a dwelling in compliance with code would benefit the look and feel of the neighborhood without establishing a new precedent on setback variances. In response to questions from Councilors Gudman and Kohlhoff, Mr. Willihnganz provided clarification and other information about the neighborhood's preference for a compatible home that can be built within current code requirements. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 14 June 6, 2017 Other Testimony Chris Robinson, 14000 Goodall Road, described his background with the FHNA, focused on addressing adverse impacts of the R-7.5 zoning and preserving neighborhood character. He asked Council to give deference to what Forest Highlands residents want, rather than to maximizing economic return to a developer or other person seeking to build a big house. To approve the proposed variances would be to compound the injustice of the R-7.5 zoning, he opined; neighbors are also very concerned by the precedent that would be set. He challenged the applicant's claim that a code-compliant house of the desired size would look strange and indicated that Council should weigh the need to prioritize interests of the neighborhood over the applicant's economic interest. Councilor O'Neill asked if the neighborhood response was the result of opposition to availability of the RID variance process itself. Mr. Robinson indicated that was not his point; Council should consider the matter in the context of the bad hand dealt to the neighborhood and the precedent that would be set by affirming the DRC decision. In responding to a question from Councilor Manz, he supplied background on the R-7.5 zoning that had been in place since the mid-1980s. Julie Bryan, 2112 Goodall Court, indicated that the DRC decision-making process seemed biased, based on an assumption that the proposed dwelling was architecturally preferable to one that could be built in compliance with the zone standards. Setbacks were known at the time the owner purchased the property, she noted. Discussing the high priority of neighborhood character to Forest Highlands residents, she stated that the setback changes proposed for this project are not compatible with the low-density residential zoning referenced in City and County Comprehensive Plans nor with the vision of Forest Highlands. Another concern is a safety issue resulting from more recent development on the north side of her street: Auto and bicycle access to and from Goodall Court has become more dangerous and more sight distance is needed, not less. Finally, she contrasted the majority of homes on the street, averaging about 2,600 square feet, with the recently-developed and proposed ones, both much larger. Lucas Anissian, 13056 Knaus Road, expressed a concern he had heard from many neighbors about the dark"alley" that would be created between two large houses as a result of the proposal. Most importantly, neighbors do not believe the development would suit that area. The City's variance process concerns him; he indicated that the code should not be bypassed without first obtaining approval of neighbors for a variance. He cautioned the Council about setting a precedent with approval of this development and emphasized the importance of listening to neighborhood concerns. David Spurr, 13286 Goodall Road, expressed concern about removal of nine of the 10 trees on the property. He requested that this decision be revisited, particularly with regard to the three trees along the sidewalk on the north side. He also challenged treatment of the property as a corner lot when it does not meet the necessary criteria; it does not stand to reason that residents of the private road should suffer the adverse impacts of the setback decision. His greatest concern is about rule making and precedent. The variance process should be available when circumstances change, he opined. In this case there have been no such changes since the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 14 June 6, 2017 applicant bought the property. Setting a precedent here will lead to more variances. The City has a process for changing standards such as setbacks; that is the proper approach, he noted. Sam Taylor, 13170 Thoma Road, conveyed his concern about setting a precedent and the related effects. He noted that the codes are set to be adhered to; the applicant was aware of the codes when he bought the property. Council should think carefully about affirming the DRC's decision over the objections of so many neighbors, he indicated. Applicant's Rebuttal Mr. Olson reiterated two points: (1) The proposed dwelling is not larger than is allowed by code. It is configured in a way that they believe is better suited to the lot and to the neighborhood. (2) As the result of the 6.5-foot dedication at the time of partition, the front property line is 6.5 feet farther from the roadway than the adjacent properties; the proposed dwelling would not actually be closer to the street than these properties. Finally, he confirmed that the proposal was for a 4,038-square-foot dwelling that would be better than one for a code-compliant building envelope. Mayor Studebaker closed the public hearing. Councilor LaMotte moved to deny the petition and remand it back to the Development Review Commission to resolve changing the plan to fit the zoning. Councilor Kohlhoff seconded the motion. Mr. Powell noted that if Council chose to remand the decision, the 120-day rule would require the City to make a final decision by June 19. The remand option would only work if the applicant agreed to waive the 120-day rule. The applicant indicated that he was not willing to waive the rule. Councilor LaMotte withdrew his motion. Councilor LaMotte moved to deny the petition based on the zoning request. Councilor Kohlhoff seconded the motion. Councilor LaMotte discussed a variety of issues related to the applicant's proposal and reasons for the motion. Approval of the proposed design would set a bad precedent, he stated. The architect has demonstrated his ability to create a good design and there is ample square footage to work with; he should revise the plan to work within the standards and also work with the neighborhood. To approve the proposal would be moving in the wrong direction. The FHNA has been fighting long enough, he opined. Council needs to support them, both on this decision and with the neighborhood plan that is being developed. Councilor Buck expressed his agreement with Councilor LaMotte's observations, but noted that he did not believe this was the right forum for addressing many of the concerns. Mayor Studebaker noted that the proposed house was no bigger than it would be otherwise. He did not perceive the variances as being substantial and found the house suitable for the lot. The DRC decision was not substantively incorrect and not problematic enough to overturn the decision, in his view. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 14 June 6, 2017 Councilor Gudman asked about any potential effect on future development of this lot if a zoning change was adopted as part of a neighborhood plan. Councilor O'Neill noted that if it were to be designated anything other than R-7.5, it would become a non-conforming lot. Councilor LaMotte clarified that his primary concern was about going in the wrong direction in terms of density. He reiterated the need to make the right decision now and to maintain the neighborhood character. Brief discussion followed, with Councilor Buck emphasizing that Council must follow the criteria applicable to approval or denial of the variance. He acknowledged the neighborhood's concerns and active involvement; however, the issue before Council was based on the criteria, which supported upholding the DRC decision, he indicated. Councilor Manz expressed empathy with the neighbors' testimony on the importance of maintaining neighborhood character. Their key issue of the unsuitable R-7.5 zoning, however, could not be ruled on by Council in this proceeding, she noted; Council must consider the particular criteria, and she would not be voting in favor of the motion under discussion. Councilor Kohlhoff requested clarification that, under the RID review standards, the Council was to consider size of the dwelling as an element of the pattern and character of development. Mr. Powell discussed the related standard (Exhibit B-1) and indicated that size was one of the factors that could be considered in making a determination. He affirmed Councilor Kohlhoff's observation that there were, then, legal standards of pattern and character. Mayor Studebaker called for a vote. In brief additional discussion, the purpose of the motion was clarified as overturning the DRC decision and denying the application. A roll call vote was held, and the motion failed, with Councilors LaMotte and Kohlhoff voting 'aye'. Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Gudman, Buck, O'Neill, and Manz voted 'no'. (2-5) Councilor Buck moved to affirm the Development Review Commission's decision and approve LU 16-0053 as conditioned. Councilor Gudman seconded the motion. A roll call vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Gudman, Buck, O'Neill, and Manz voting 'aye'. Councilors LaMotte and Kohlhoff voted 'no'. (5-2) Mr. Powell noted that this was a tentative decision of the Council, to be finalized upon adoption of the findings and conclusions. He asked if the applicant was willing to extend the 120-day rule to June 20 to allow the Council to adopt the findings and conclusions at its regular meeting. Mr. Olson responded that he was willing to do so. 9.2 Appeal 17-03/LU 16-0048, A Decision by the Development Review Commission Approving a Two-parcel Minor Partition at 1225 Chandler Road The appeal was withdrawn on June 5, 2017, and this item was not considered. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 14 June 6, 2017 9.3 Resolution 17-27, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego Revising Fees and Charges relating to Transportation System Development Charges; Water Rates in Unincorporated Former Forest Highlands Water District; Planning Department Fees Resolution 17-27 was amended, placed on the Consent Agenda, and then considered under Agenda Item 6. Items Removed from the Consent Agenda. 9.4 Resolution 17-28, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego Adjusting the Budget for the Fiscal Year Commencing July 1, 2016 by Adopting a Supplemental Budget, Approving Resources/Requirements, and Making Appropriations. Resolution 17-22, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego Certifying that the City of Lake Oswego is Eligible in the Fiscal Year 2017-18 for State-Shared Revenues (Cigarettes, Liquor and Highway Taxes) Because it Provides Four or More Municipal Services. Resolution 17-23, A Resolution of the City of Lake Oswego Declaring the City of Lake Oswego's Election to Receive State Revenues in Fiscal Year 2017-18. Resolution 17-24, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego Adopting the City of Lake Oswego Capital Improvement Plan FY2017/18 - 2022/23 Resolution 17-21, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego Adopting the City of Lake Oswego Budget for the Fiscal Year Commencing July 1, 2017, Making Appropriations, Levying Ad Valorem Taxes, and Classifying the Levy Pursuant to Section 11b, Article XI of the Oregon Constitution. Report and Attachments Report and Attachment Resolution 17-28 Staff Report Mr. Cross explained the purpose of the supplemental budget as detailed in the Council Report. He noted that the amount of the adjustment necessitates the public hearing. The reason Council was presented with two supplemental budgets at this time was that the smaller one, adopted as part of the Consent Agenda, was found necessary after the initial supplemental budget was noticed to the public. He highlighted the other items before Council in the hearing, described in the accompanying Council Report and attachments. Councilor Gudman requested that the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) include dollar amounts associated with pathway projects identified for this year. He asked that the final edition of the CIP be footnoted to identify the three projects approved by the Budget Committee. He also asked that in 2019 when the updated Pavement Condition Index (PCI) survey is received, the CIP include the dollar amounts required to achieve a PCI of 84. In brief discussion, Mr. Lazenby City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 14 June 6, 2017 agreed that this could be included in 2019 if the PCI survey is received, and otherwise in the actual year of the survey. Testimony Mayor Studebaker called for testimony on any of the resolutions. No testimony was offered, and Mayor Studebaker closed the hearing. Councilor Gudman moved to adopt Resolution 17-28, Resolution 17-22, Resolution 17-23, Resolution 17-21, and Resolution 17-24. Councilor Manz seconded the motion. Questions of Staff Councilor Buck asked why removal of invasive species in the right of way, as opposed to other maintenance items, involved Council approval through the Budget Committee process. Mr. Lazenby differentiated this item from routine street maintenance. With regard to the gateway project, he confirmed that Council would be approving additional funding beyond the $275,000 already allocated. Councilor Buck raised a question about the funding that had been approved for turf on Waluga fields. Mr. Lazenby indicated that Staff would be coordinating contributions from sports and/or other outside organizations to supplement City monies, as discussed. A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Gudman, LaMotte, Kohlhoff, Buck, O'Neill, and Manz voting `aye'. (7-0) 10. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL Councilor Gudman thanked staff members of the City Recorder's office for their work hosting the Clackamas Cities Association Dinner in May. He distributed a summary of the transportation package that was a topic at the recent Clackamas County Coordinating Committee meeting. The latest update indicated that, if the proposed package were to pass, increasing amounts would flow to the City annually over a 10-year-period, initially at about $700,000, up to $1.7-$1.8 million by Year 10. This was a first-time proposal by the State, in contrast to the City's long-term approach through its CIP, he observed. Councilor Buck reminded Council members of a study session held about two years earlier on residents' use of the public right of way, including reasons, related issues, and potential solutions. He asked about any progress made or steps forward that were contemplated. Mayor Studebaker indicated that the topic would be scheduled on a Council agenda in the near future. Mr. Lazenby added that the City's continuing experience with D Avenue would be providing guidance, as would the further development in older neighborhoods; this information would be brought to Council, he indicated. Councilor Manz announced that the Tourism Advisory Committee had completed their tasks for this cycle's funding. They will consider moving to a funding cycle that better aligns with the City's budget process in future years, she reported. 11. REPORTS OF OFFICERS City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 14 June 6, 2017 No reports were made. 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Studebaker adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ( fr -- e .: Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ON 14,LA ($ . 20 Kent Studebaker, Mayor City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 14 June 6, 2017