Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2017-10-03 *a.?0,`P4,rtA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING m MINUTES U AMMJ— O October 3, 2017 GREO \ 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Studebaker called the regular City Council meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. on October 3, 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; Crystal Shum, Project Manager, Boones Ferry Road Project; Erica Rooney, City Engineer; Tom Workman, Chief Surveyor; Scot Siegel, Planning and Building Services Director; Stacy Bluhm, Project Engineer, Boones Ferry Road Project Others Present: Morgan Holen, Contract Arborist 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Studebaker led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. PROCLAMATIONS 4.1 Meals on Wheels Proclamation Mayor Studebaker proclaimed the month of October"Meals on Wheels" month. 4.2 Brian Doyle Day Proclamation Mayor Studebaker proclaimed November 6, 2017, to be "Brian Doyle Day" in Lake Oswego. He highlighted Mr. Doyle's achievements as an author and valued community member, as described City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 11 October 3, 2017 in the Proclamation. Citizens were invited to join Council members at a celebration to be held at the Public Library on November 6. 5. CONSENT AGENDA 5.1 Approval of Meeting Minutes 5.1.1 September 5, 2017, Regular Meeting Motion: Move to approve minutes as written. Report and Attachment 5.2 Resolution 17-54, A Resolution of the Lake Oswego City Council Initiating Road Legalization Proceedings Under ORS 223.935 for Portions of Boones Ferry Road Motion: Move to adopt Resolution 17-54. Report and Attachment 5.3 Ordinance 2756, An Ordinance Annexing to the City of Lake Oswego One Parcel Consisting of 0.37 Acres at 18000 Pilkington Road; Declaring City of Lake Oswego Zoning Pursuant to LOC 50.01.004.5(a-c); and Removing the Territory from Certain Districts (AN 17-0008) Motion: Move to enact Ordinance 2756. Report and Exhibit END CONSENT AGENDA Councilor Manz moved to adopt the Consent Agenda. Councilor LaMotte 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 No items were removed from the Consent Agenda. 7. CITIZEN COMMENT Mayor Studebaker reported that no eComments had been received for this meeting. No Citizen Comment was offered. 7.1 Prior Citizen Comment Follow-Up City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 11 October 3, 2017 No follow-up on prior Citizen Comment was presented. 8. COUNCIL BUSINESS 8.1 Resolution 17-55, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego Creating a Local Street Reconstruction Program Report and Attachment Mr. Lazenby provided background that had led to proposal of the Local Street Reconstruction Program, outlined in the Council Report. Seeking to make the Local Improvement District (LID) a more usable tool for property owners, this program will require no change to existing code. However, it reduces the burden for property owners wishing to form a LID by having the City take a more active role in the LID process once it has been initiated. Another key benefit to property owners would be the City's match of the LID funding, dollar for dollar, from the Street Fund. Owners would, however, still have ample opportunity to opt out of the LID, as discussed in the Council Report. An important reason for the proposal, he noted, was that the Street Fund was sufficient for preventive maintenance only on reconstruction of some arterials and collectors; the funds would not allow for major reconstruction on local streets. This program would offer an opportunity for property owners to move their local street project to a higher priority on the Street Fund list. He indicated that this is proposed as a pilot program and explained how Staff would analyze and promote it to eligible property owners. Concluding, he emphasized that the program was limited to street reconstruction only; it should be noted that owners in older neighborhoods might identify additional issues they would want to address. In response to questions from Mayor Studebaker, Mr. Lazenby clarified that the program was available only for reconstruction, as opposed to preventive maintenance, of local streets. Additional improvements such as pathways might be included in a project, but they would be the financial responsibility of the LID; matching funds from the City would not be available for those improvements. He addressed additional questions from Councilors about the program, including (1) the minimum number of property owners required to participate in a project; (2) situations where there is a combination of City and County residents on a street; (3) potential for annexing a road under the County's jurisdiction if the property owners wished to form such a LID; and (4) plans for financing the program. Councilor LaMotte suggested that in Council's upcoming discussion of comprehensive annexation, consideration should be given to requiring annexation in order to qualify for a LID. Councilor Gudman observed that any coordination with the County should not be contemplated if it required outlay of County funds; as any road within Lake Oswego's urban services area would ultimately become the City's responsibility, the County had absolutely no incentive to participate. Councilor Manz noted that she would support the Resolution on a trial basis, but that Council should be prepared to consider the issue of equity as the program moves forward. Councilor Gudman moved to adopt Resolution 17-55. Councilor LaMotte seconded the motion. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 11 October 3, 2017 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) 8.2 Resolution 17-56, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego Exercising the Power of Eminent Domain with Relation to Property at 4225 Oakridge Road Report and Attachment Mr. Lazenby provided background and updated the Council on negotiations for purchase of the parcel at 4225 Oakridge Road, as detailed in the Council Report. The City has identified it as a good location for public parking in Lake Grove. It also would be well suited as a staging area for the Boones Ferry Road construction project. He emphasized that the City does not intend to exercise eminent domain, and would only do so if necessary. He expressed optimism that a satisfactory purchase and sale agreement could be negotiated with the property owners. The eminent domain option would be implemented only with specific Council approval, he advised. Councilor Buck announced that he would recuse himself from voting on the issue because of a potential conflict of interest related to his and his family's ownership of businesses and properties in close proximity to the parcel. Mayor Studebaker moved to adopt Resolution 17-56. Councilor Gudman seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Gudman, LaMotte, Kohlhoff, O'Neill, and Manz voting 'aye'. Councilor Buck was recused. (6-0) 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9.1 Ordinance 2758,A Special Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego Vacating Portions of Right-of-Way on Boones Ferry Road, Kruse Way, and Kruse Way Place Report and Attachment Following Mayor Studebaker's review of the Ordinance title, Mr. Powell outlined the hearing procedure as outlined in the agenda. He asked if any City Council member wished to make any declaration with relation to conflicts of interest as it applies to this application. No such declarations were made. Ms. Rooney introduced Mr. Workman, noting that he would be making future presentations to Council regarding street vacations. She highlighted the background and process leading to the street vacations proposed in Ordinance 2758, as described in the Council Report. No objections or comments had been received in response to the public notice, she reported. Displaying a slide, she discussed the three areas designated for vacation (Council Report, Attachment 1, Exhibits). Enactment of the Ordinance would result in clean lines of right-of-way dedication and easements City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 11 October 3, 2017 that align with current City infrastructure. Council was reminded that the vacations would have no fiscal impact to the City; they are desired by both the City and the property owners; and the result would be cleaner lines and ownership. Staff requested that Council enact Ordinance 2758, she concluded. Mayor Studebaker asked if anyone wished to testify regarding the Ordinance. No requests being heard, he closed the hearing. Councilor Manz moved to enact Ordinance 2758 to vacate portions of Boones Ferry Road, Kruse Way, and Kruse Way Place. Councilor Gudman 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) 9.2 Ordinance 2753, An Ordinance of the City of Lake Oswego Amending Sections LOC 50.04.002, 50.05.007, and 50.07.003.13 of the Community Development Code for the Purpose of Implementing the Boones Ferry Road Project (LU 17-0028). Report and Exhibits Mayor Studebaker introduced the public hearing on Ordinance 2753. Councilor Buck recused himself from the discussion and vote because of his ownership of properties and businesses on Boones Ferry Road. Mr. Powell read the Ordinance title. Noting that this was a legislative decision before the Council, he outlined related compliance requirements. He reviewed the hearing process, including time limits for testimony, as shown in the agenda. Next he asked if any City Councilor other than Councilor Buck wished to make a declaration with relation to conflict of interest; none was heard. Finally, he asked if any member of the audience wished to challenge any City Council member's right to hear the application; no challenges were heard. Staff Report Mr. Siegel noted that he would present the report in the absence of Senior Planner Johanna Hastay, who was in charge of this project. Before making the presentation he disclosed that he had previously operated a business on Boones Ferry Road in the project area and that his wife currently operates a business within the area at 16063 Boones Ferry Road. He reviewed the steps he had taken to ensure that his participation would comply with regulatory requirements for staff and explained that he would present a summary of the proposal. Any questions about the properties in question, however, would be directed to Ms. Shum. He noted that Ms. Bluhm was also available to respond to questions, as was the City's contract arborist, Ms. Nolen. Mr. Siegel stated that the Ordinance was proposed to implement the 2017 City Council Goal to take steps to minimize impacts of the Boones Ferry Road Project on businesses and residents. The project entails three coordinated processes, each with a distinct purpose: design, right-of- way acquisition, and the land use planning process for implementing the Boones Ferry Road improvements. This third process was the subject of the proposal now before Council. Displaying a related slide, he highlighted key elements of the Boones Ferry Road planning process, beginning in 1999 and leading to the proposed Ordinance 2753. Identified among the many City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 11 October 3, 2017 complexities of the process was the determination that regulatory relief should be found for commercial property owners who would be directly impacted by the road improvements. He also reviewed the more recent efforts of Staff with the Boones Ferry Road Project Advisory Committee (PAC), concluding in the Planning Commission recommendation that the Code amendments be approved by Council. Next he discussed the four distinct amendments being proposed, to: (1) Special Street Setback (Council Report, Exhibit A, Attachment B, p 1), which he considered a maintenance or "housekeeping" update to the Code; (2) Ministerial Permit Classification (Attachment B, p 5), to provide certainty to property owners in choosing whether or not to replace parking lost through the road improvements, including a streamlined review process if they chose to do so; (3) Replacement Parking Code Waivers (Attachment B, p 2-3 and Attachment C,), providing the site plans and the Code exceptions, or waivers, that are part of the Ordinance; he noted that an additional recommendation from Staff would be to revise labeling of"Tree Removal Required" to "Tree Removal May be Necessary", should Council approve the Ordinance; and (4) Lake Grove Village Center(LGVC) parking and landscape exceptions (Attachment B, p 3-4 and Attachments D.1 and D.2), recognizing the permanent impacts of lost on-site parking by removing the time limit for making improvements under this portion of the Code; a related concern of the PAC was addressed by capping the allowable reduction in landscaping area at 5%. Key issues raised at the Planning Commission were twofold, Mr. Siegel reported: (1) Testimony had been heard that Attachment D only identified properties that were directly losing parking through the right-of-way acquisition; parking also could be displaced through secondary impacts, such as the potential relocation of a propane tank on the Chevron property. (2) In accordance with the original intent of the LGVC Plan, there was concern with finding the right balance of private property impacts of the road and maintaining the treed character of the district. In response to questions from Councilor LaMotte, Mr. Siegel confirmed that property owners could choose whether or not they wished to replace parking spaces lost as a result of the road project; if they opted not to do so and then did not meet the parking standard, they would be able to maintain that non-conforming status, he explained; if choosing to replace lost parking, property owners would bear the financial responsibility for carrying out the plans. However, he noted, if an owner offered a better solution than the one proposed by the project team and it was found to be substantially in compliance with the plans that may be approved as part of the Ordinance, adjustments could be made to carry out that solution. Mr. Siegel concluded with recommended text edits for the final version of the Ordinance, to (1) Attachment C, where the labeling "Tree Removal Required" would be replaced with "Tree Removal May be Necessary"; and to (2) the table that appears as Attachment D.1, which would reflect updated area calculations on two properties. Additionally, Staff had determined that language in the draft code (Attachment B, p 2 of 5) would be clearer and more inclusive of the types of right-of-way acquisition being done with an edit: "(4) For lots that are the subject of right- of-way purchase and/or condemnation by the City after [effective date of ordinance], for the purpose of improvements to Boones Ferry Road the words "purchase and/or condemnation" would be replaced with "acquisition". Similarly, an edit was recommended to Attachment B, p 4 of 5 under "Exception", where the words "purchased or condemned" would be replaced with "acquired". Mr. Powell added that a third occurrence could be found on Page 3 of Attachment B City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 11 October 3, 2017 under "c. Parking". Where it showed "For the portion of property purchased or condemned..." Staff would replace "purchased or condemned"with "acquired", in the final ordinance, if approved by Council. Ms. Bluhm explained that when presenting offers of compensation and property appraisals to owners, the team also had provided an engineer's estimate of the cost for constructing the parking replacement plan. The compensation may or may not be used for that purpose, at the owner's discretion. The site where Naomi's Lampshades is located is the only exception; she noted. As the smaller building occupied by Casa del Polio must be removed, this parking restoration will be done as part of the Boones Ferry project work and compensation will not be provided to that property owner. Testimony Dienne Irwin, 4343 Sunset Drive, expressed concern about the large number of tree removals called for under the proposed amendments, including some for significant native trees. She pointed out conflicts with the LGVC Plan and with existing code that recognizes the importance of the area's wooded character. Replacement of the large older trees with smaller species would not provide the benefits of the existing tree canopy. She challenged the apparent philosophy that trees must come down, rather than doing everything possible to save them. While recognizing the need for parking solutions, she urged Council not to change the code, but to be creative and save trees. Michael Robinson, 1120 NW Couch Street, Portland 97209, spoke on behalf of Cain Petroleum, owner of the Chevron station on Boones Ferry Road in the project area. After reviewing background of the initial determination that parking spaces would be lost because of the need to relocate a propane tank on the property, it now appeared that this would not be the case. The Planning Commission had earlier recommended that language be added to Attachment D.1 to allow the owner the advantages of parking replacement if spaces were lost indirectly because of the tank. Since it now appeared that the relocation was not needed, this language had been removed from Attachment D.1. He requested that the language recommended by the Planning Commission be restored to Attachment D.1 as protection for the property owner in the event there is a change that requires the propane tank to be moved, with consequent loss of parking. In responding to Mayor Studebaker's follow-up questions, Mr. Siegel advised that the table in Attachment D.1 would be coming back to Council with revisions discussed earlier, with the final ordinance. If Council were to support the amendment requested by Mr. Robinson, Staff would add the annotation of two parking spaces potentially lost, with the footnote as recommended by the Planning Commission. Carolyn Krebs, 16925 Denney Court, and Mike Buck, 3155 Edgemont Road, introduced themselves as co-chairs of the Boones Ferry Road PAC. Mr. Buck emphasized their commitment to transparency about the meaning of the amendment relating to non-compliance; they recognized the need to help make commercial properties whole in light of the roadway improvements. They had worked with Staff to achieve a balance of trade-offs, but now they wanted Council to hear their concern regarding tree groves as a part of the area's identity. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 11 October 3, 2017 Specifically, they were troubled by the tree removal recommendation by Ms. Nolen in the parking mitigation plan for the Jenike property (Attachment C, p 11 of 16). A second arborist's report,just received on October 3, provided conflicting information about the health of the trees recommended for removal in the initial report; it included the suggestion that some might be retained. In light of this new information, the co-chairs asked Council to take it into consideration both of the arborists' reports, allowing flexibility to engineer a revised plan that would accommodate the needed parking but optimize tree retention and mitigation. Mr. Buck noted that this request was applicable only to the Teka (Jenike) property. Ms. Krebs noted that their request was for more consideration for tree preservation on this site, if possible, while still mitigating the parking loss. She emphasized the need for a careful balance of tree loss with parking mitigation, reiterating that both arborists' reports should be considered by Council. Council members posed various questions about the Jenike property, including other approaches to vehicle access to the property and the replacement parking plan. In ensuing discussion to clarify their request, Ms. Krebs asked that consideration be given to retaining the trees as part of the engineering decision, if it can be done safely, as suggested by the second arborist's report. She advocated a larger discussion involving the property owner, the PAC, and Staff to preserve the interests of all parties,which could produce a better outcome than removing all of the indicated trees. Mr. Powell discussed the intent of the code amendments as presented by Staff. He noted that Mr. Siegel's proposal to modify the "Tree Removal Required" labeling in Attachment C was to clarify that removal of a tree was not a condition of getting the code exception. Rather, the intent was to put everyone on notice that a tree removal might happen. After further questions of Planning staff, he observed that if the property owner decided to implement the proposed parking replacement plan, the tree-cutting permit process would be followed. He reiterated that nothing in the code amendments would require those trees to be removed. Ms. Krebs proposed a change to text of the sixth bullet of Attachment C, p 11 of 16, which would be acceptable to her and Mr. Buck: removal of the specific reference to the first arborist's report so as to allow flexibility. This would entail deletion of the last two sentences of the bullet text. In further discussion Mr. Lazenby indicated that Staff's intent was to retain as many trees as possible. Mr. Powell noted that the findings could include clarification that approval of these particular site plans did not mandate removal of trees, among other points. Councilor Kohlhoff asked about the possibility of removing the Jenike property from the attachments related to code waivers under the amendments. Mr. Powell indicated that this was possible. However, he clarified that the code changes provide a credit against other code requirements for owners who undertook the parking mitigation project. These code changes are not required for them to mitigate; the code changes are necessary for them to receive a credit because they had to mitigate, he stated. Councilor LaMotte requested background on the driveway access to the Jenike property. Ms. Bluhm indicated that the driveway would now be an approach to a signalized intersection; she outlined related design considerations. After further responses from Ms. Bluhm and Ms. Shum regarding the property owner's intent to mitigate lost parking and Staff's desire not to prescribe removal of trees, Councilor LaMotte indicated that he supported the recommended changes, City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 11 October 3, 2017 including (1) the co-chairs' suggestion to delete the specific reference to the arborist's report in Attachment C, p 11 of 16, and (2) the restoration of provisions related to the Chevron station, discussed earlier. Councilor Kohlhoff asked about any possibility for an alignment that would be better for the trees on the Jenike property and an adjacent property. Ms. Bluhm discussed several constraints related to the street improvements and the proposed driveway alignment. The only way tree removals in the driveway alignment could be avoided would be if no parking mitigation was done, she noted; this did not seem to reflect the direction Staff had received for the project. Councilor Kohlhoff asked questions about the location of the new signalized intersection, and Ms. Shum and Ms. Bluhm provided background. Councilor Kohlhoff asked about any alternate location for the intersection if Staff were now to be told that tree considerations mattered more. Ms. Shum advised that if the currently-designated location was not to be used, the City would not be installing an intersection at all. Additional questions from Councilor LaMotte about the parking replacement plan for the Jenike property were addressed by Ms.Shum and Ms. Blum. Mayor Studebaker asked if there was any additional testimony on the matter. No requests were heard, and he closed the public hearing. Mayor Studebaker moved to approve LU 17-0028, adding the annotation with regard to the propane tank and parking spaces on the Chevron property that Mr. Robinson suggested, and changing the "Tree Removal Required" phrase on Attachment C to "Tree Removal May be Necessary." Councilor Gudman seconded the motion. Discussion followed, with Councilor Kohlhoff concurring with Ms. InNin's testimony and with the PAC about the significance of trees to Lake Grove. While recognizing the purpose of the proposed amendments, she expressed her objection to the apparent priority given to parking issues over tree preservation. She recommended to her Council colleagues that the addition of public parking sites was more appropriate, as discussed earlier (Agenda Item 8.2). Noting her concerns about protections that will likely not be provided by the Type II Tree Permit process, she stated that this was a prime example of the need for considering trees in terms of the development code. It was essential to balancing the trees and development, and she did not find this balance in the amendments package. Therefore, she was inclined to vote "no" on the motion. Mr. Powell identified several additional points that had been discussed earlier, asking Mayor Studebaker if these were intended to be included in the motion. In subsequent discussion, Mayor Studebaker confirmed that these were to be included: (1)The draft Code language (Exhibit A, Attachment B to the Ordinance)would be edited to make it clear that acquisitions other than by condemnation or purchase also applied, as recommended by Mr. Siegel. (2) The table in Attachment D.1 would be updated to include the adjusted area calculations, also as recommended by Mr. Siegel. (3) Bullet No. 6, Attachment C, p 11 of 16, would be modified to state that tree removal may be necessary' rather than should be removed.' After acknowledging that all of the changes would need to be made and brought back to Council, Mayor Studebaker stated that his motion would instead be to tentatively approve this City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 11 October 3, 2017 application as adjusted and direct Staff to bring it back with findings, conclusions, and an amended ordinance implementing these changes on November 7th. Councilor Gudman indicated that he seconded the motion as revised. A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Gudman, LaMotte, O'Neill, and Manz voting `aye'. Councilor Kohlhoff voted 'no'. Councilor Buck was recused. (5-1) Mr. Powell affirmed that this was a tentative decision of the City Council made final upon adoption of findings and a final ordinance on November 7th at 6:30 p.m. 10. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL Councilor LaMotte reported that, in response to recent complaints about unsecured excavation sites in the city, staff members had identified a City ordinance that required open excavation areas to be fenced. He discussed the opportunity for staff and others to identify non-compliant sites in the community and the process for resolving complaints. Councilor Manz reported on her attendance at the League of Oregon Cities conference, which she had found informative. 10.1 Proposed Clackamas County Coordinating Committee (C4) By-Laws Changes Proposed By-Laws Changes Councilor Gudman advised the Council that the Clackamas County Coordinating Committee would be voting on adoption of proposed changes to their bylaws on October 5. The Committee had asked that member cities endorse the proposal (Proposed By-Laws Changes). As indicated by Council consensus, he confirmed that he would convey the support of the Lake Oswego City Council. Councilor Gudman also noted that he and other Council members would be volunteering with Meals on Wheels during October. He provided an update from the September 29 PERS board meeting, reporting that rates for the period 2019-2021 would likely be increasing five percentage points, having a significant impact. It was anticipated that the rates would remain high for the next 20 years. Finally, he reported that he had sent a letter to the mayors of West Linn, Tualatin, and Lake Oswego recommending support for the three-party intergovernmental agreement for Stafford. 11. REPORTS OF OFFICERS No reports were made. 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Under authority of ORS 192.660 (2)(e) to conduct deliberations with persons designated to negotiate real property transactions and (2)(f) to consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 11 October 3, 2017 Mr. Powell reviewed the statutory basis for entering executive session and outlined the parameters. The City Council met in executive session beginning at 8:54 p.m. and ending at 9:06 p.m. The Council reconvened in open session at 9:06 p.m. 13. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Studebaker adjourned the meeting at 9:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 6 V -)17ba &A/vafD_ Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ON )21 5/17 JAI its. Kent Studebaker, Mayor City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 11 October 3, 2017