Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2011-01-24City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2011 Page 1 of 12 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2011 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Jon Gustafson called the Planning Commission meeting of January 24, 2011, to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall at 380 “A” Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. 2. ROLL CALL Members present were Chair Jon Gustafson, Vice Chair Lynne Paretchan and Commissioners Puja Bhutani*, Julia Glisson, Todd Prager* and Russell Jones. Commissioner Jim Johnson was excused. (*Not present during discussion of Package B) Staff present were Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Denise Frisbee, Director, Planning and Building Services; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Janice Reynolds, Administrative Support. 3. CITIZEN COMMENT None. 4. COUNCIL UPDATE Denise Frisbee reported the Council planned to meet with all department heads prior to goal setting. The Council had discussed ways to help the School District bridge the school funding gap. No decision had been made, but the Council had asked staff to suggest what City services to cut in order to find about $2 million savings to pass on to the District. She also informed the Commission that the budgeting process had begun and that each department was forwarding its proposed budget to the City Manager. Ms. Frisbee indicated that staff had been working on making the City website a better communications tool. Janice Reynolds showed the Commissioners where they could find information on the site. Ms. Frisbee reported the Building Department was issuing more building permits and that most of the projects were small. She estimated that at the current rate the City could collect an annual total of $260,000 in construction excise taxes on behalf of the School District. She also shared with the Commission that the Planning Division was about to hold a City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2011 Page 2 of 12 goal-setting retreat. Planners Leslie Hamilton and Jessica Numanoglu had been reclassified as Senior Planners. Ms. Frisbee thanked Chair Gustafson and Commissioners Glisson and Jones for participating in the January 6 charrette for design professionals; the results would help inform the draft vision scenario. Ms. Frisbee recalled that the Commissioners wanted to know when the proposed Parks Master Plan would be considered by the Commission and they wanted to schedule a work session. She indicated that the Parks and Recreation director had recommended the Commission join the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) to hear the consultant’s presentation. She said the meeting was not yet scheduled, but would likely be on the third Wednesday in April. Chair Gustafson observed a consensus to do that. Commissioner Prager indicated he wanted to be able to go to the Parks master plan meeting prepared with answers when others asked for Commission input. Ms. Frisbee planned to provide the Commissioners with information in advance, including the code criteria the Commission approved when it approved the parks master planning process. 5. MINUTES 5.1 December 13, 2010 Commissioner Glisson moved to approve the Minutes of December 13, 2010. Commissioner Jones seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. Commissioner Bhutani abstained. 5.2 January 10, 2011 The Commissioners revised the draft minutes regarding Item 9: Goal Setting and Work Plan Meeting to clarify that the Commission agreed that it had successfully implemented its resolution regarding the Commission’s working relationship; it would review and update the Work Plan every six months and coordinate it with the Rolling Agenda; and it had requested that future code amendments from staff be forwarded on an annual basis rather than accumulated over multiple years. Chair Gustafson moved to approve the Minutes of January 10, 2011 as amended. Commissioner Glisson seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. 6. PUBLIC HEARING 6.1 LU 08-0052 (Ordinance 2525) – Community Development Code –General Housekeeping and Minor Policy Amendments. Amendments (Chapter 50) for the purpose of clarifying, correcting, formatting, updating sections and discussing minor policy changes. Final review of previously discussed items. Continued from December 13, 2010. The proposed CDC amendments were separated into Ordinance 2525 Attachment B, Package A (version 10/9/10) and Package B (version 10/05/10). City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2011 Page 3 of 12 Chair Gustafson opened the hearing. Mr. Boone advised the Commissioners to limit their discussion of information in a letter the Sustainability Advisory Board (SAB) had submitted after testimony was closed to only the SAB’s response to Chair Gustafson’s request for the SAB’s position on the staff proposal for solar panels. Package A Section 50.22.015, General Exception to Structure Height Limitations The Commission began by continuing its examination of Package A. Vice Chair Paretchan had suggested some changes in her December 13, 2010 email. She did not favor the proposed amendment that would allow solar panels to be exempt from height limits. At this hearing, she explained that although she did not support allowing any exception to the height limit, if the other Commissioners were intent on allowing them, she would compromise and allow solar panels to go up to two feet over the limit. She observed that putting the panels on a tall house could cause it to block even more of the neighbors’ sunlight and that the Commission had not heard from anyone that the community was not fine with the current height limit. She suggested that if the Commissioners wanted to consider exceptions to height for solar they should conduct a technical review first. Commissioner Glisson indicated that two feet seemed a reasonable, modest, limit for the time being. She agreed the Commission should plan to look into what new technology was available. Commissioner Jones reported that he had researched the subject and the two- foot limit would not work in his situation. He had learned that the angle of a solar panel should be equal to the latitude, plus 15 degrees in winter and less 15 degrees in summer. He calculated that if he set a 3’x6’, 250-watt, solar panel on his flat roof at a 45-degree pitch, it would rise to about 42-inches above the roof. He agreed the Commission should look at solar panels in more depth at a future time and learn what worked and what did not work. When asked if the panel he described would take his house out of compliance he answered that he did not know, it might in back, but not in front. Commissioner Glisson wondered aloud how many two-story, flat-roofed, houses there were in the City. Vice Chair Paretchan related that her neighbor’s house was two-stories with a flat roof; if four-foot high panels were mounted on the back, they would reduce the small amount of sunshine she got now through the trees. She then withdrew her proposal to allow exceptions up to two feet and held the panels should have to conform to the height limit. She agreed the Commission should study the solar issue further in the future. Chair Gustafson suggested the City should encourage solar and not put obstacles to using it in the code. He indicated that although he did not anticipate that making the panels completely exempt from a height limit would lead to a big problem, he agreed that some limit could prevent an extreme case. He recalled Commissioner Jones’ report and suggested the cap should be set higher than two feet. Commissioner Bhutani agreed the Commission should look into solar panels and wind turbines in the future. Chair Gustafson suggested the Commission add a project to develop a green building code to its work plan. Vice Chair Paretchan clarified that she did not want to discourage use of solar, but there had to be a height limit. Chair Gustafson anticipated that could force owners to choose between having the size house they wanted and having City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2011 Page 4 of 12 solar panels. Vice Chair Paretchan observed that the City did not let owners cut trees that blocked sunlight. She did not want the small amount of light that reached her house to be blocked by any kind of structure. She wanted to learn about new technology and hoped the Commissioners would learn that the equipment on the roof could be less intrusive. Mr. Boone clarified that the code considered solar panels structures, but not “roof forms.” Section 50.06.055, Height of Structure allowed “Peak-a-Boo” exceptions to height for roof forms (see Package B, page 94). A roof form (for example, a dormer) could be up to six feet over the height limit as long as it did not extend more than one-third of the width of the roof of a residence. Commissioner Glisson suggested the Commission also examine the Peak-a-Boo section when it studied solar panels. Chair Gustafson observed a consensus to study the issue and to remove solar panels from the exception list. He asked that the minutes report that he was against doing that because he did not think it was a good idea. Commissioner Bhutani asked if allowing additional height for solar panels could be reviewed in the conditional use process. Mr. Boone advised it would be better to make that a Class 1 variance because of the impact on the neighborhood. Chair Gustafson recalled the code allowed some exceptions to the setback plane for architectural features. Ms. Andreades advised those provisions did not address solar panels. The Planning Commission examined the proposed language that exempted mechanical air conditioning equipment as well as solar panels from the height limit on Non-Residential and Commercial, Public Use, and Industrial Uses. Staff clarified the proposed change codified staff practice. Vice Chair Paretchan and Commissioner Glisson held that mechanical equipment should not be allowed to rise above the height limit. Commissioner Glisson held there were ways to position that equipment appropriately within the height limit. She lived across the street from a church that had such equipment on its roof, but the equipment had a little fence around it and she did not believe it exceeded the height limit. When asked, she clarified that she did not live close enough to the church to know if it generated noise. Ms. Andreades observed that residential structures in residential zones typically had the equipment on the ground close to the house and staff required it to be screened. She explained that on a church or commercial building the equipment was typically placed in a little well on the roof and screened. Chair Gustafson noted that building design standards for non- residential uses required it to be screened. Commissioner Glisson wanted to ensure it would not be allowed to be any higher by not allowing an exemption for it. Chair Gustafson saw that as a de facto height reduction. Instead of being able to build a building to the height limit and then placing the mechanical equipment on top of it, the building would have to be lower to leave room for the equipment. Vice Chair Paretchan suggested the equipment should be placed inside of the building. Chair Gustafson advised that could force a potential two- story building to be one story. Vice Chair Paretchan suggested it could be placed in a little box. Commissioner Jones agreed with Commissioner Glisson and Vice Chair Paretchan. Commissioner Bhutani recalled mechanical equipment was traditionally housed outside of the building. She questioned if City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2011 Page 5 of 12 requiring the units to be located in the building would impact the amount of available floor area enough to cause the builder to increase the building envelope and footprint. Ms. Andreades confirmed there would be less floor area to use inside. Commissioner Glisson clarified her position was to not allow the equipment to go over the height limit – she was not advocating requiring it to be incorporated into the interior of the building. The builder could make part of the roof flatter and lower to accommodate it and the result would be that it would almost look like part of the roof form. That was what it looked like on the church across the street from her residence. Ms. Andreades reported the typical size of mechanical units had gotten smaller over the years. Chair Gustafson indicated he would allow them to be on the roof and exempt from height requirements as long as they were screened or hidden behind roof forms so it was hard to tell the equipment was there. He noted the roof form in front of the equipment would be exempt. Ms. Andreades showed an example of a building that could be seen from Safeway. The equipment could not be seen from the Safeway perspective, but on the back side people could see the screening. She clarified for Chair Gustafson that a roof form would not be exempt just because it was screening the equipment. Commissioner Glisson recalled that HVAC equipment could be seen from a distance on the generally shorter, flat-roofed, buildings in Lake Grove. She asked if they were above the height limit and if the Avery Building was above the height limit. Ms. Andreades did not know the specifics of each building, but she did not think most buildings in Lake Grove were above the limit. Commissioner Glisson explained she was sure it was possible not to have to go above the height limit to have the equipment. Chair Gustafson anticipated that owners would decide to locate the equipment on the ground instead of having to make their building shorter to have it on the roof. He asked if that would be more desirable than having it on the roof. Commissioner Jones asked how much square footage would be lost if they had to lower building height. Mr. Boone advised that if it were placed in the parking lot it would be considered an accessory structure and factored into the calculation of allowable lot coverage, except in the commercial zone, where there was no lot coverage limit. Ms. Andreades recalled the mechanical equipment serving a new commercial building on a site at the corner of Madrona/Boones Ferry Road was outside the building, next to the garbage enclosure, and screened just like the garbage enclosure. Commissioner Glisson observed that many zones had existing development with equipment on it that was not yet at the height limit. She was concerned that if the City began to allow exceptions to the height limit the community would be shocked to see the zones redeveloping with taller buildings with equipment on them that made them even higher. Vice Chair Paretchan recalled that people had been shocked to see what the result was after allowable lot coverage was expanded in the 1980’s. Chair Gustafson observed a consensus to strike all of the proposed changes in boxes 2 and 3. Article 50.59 On-Site Circulation – Bikeways, Walkway and Accessways In her email Vice Chair Paretchan had asked the Planning Commission to discuss how the proposal to apply Article 50.59 On-Site Circulation – Bikeways, City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2011 Page 6 of 12 Walkway and Accessways to any partition would affect two-lot splits in established neighborhoods with no curbs or sidewalks. She was concerned there were many residential neighborhoods where the result of requiring a walkway would not fit neighborhood character, there would be sidewalk segments in neighborhoods that did not want sidewalks. She clarified that she supported the current code, which applied the requirement to subdivisions (four or more lots). Commissioner Glisson observed that the related Standards for Construction called for things like bollards or some other physical barrier and curb ramps. Vice Chair Paretchan indicated that went too far. Vice Chair Paretchan and Commissioner Glisson each anticipated their neighborhoods would not like the results of the proposed change. Ms. Andreades explained this would help address the “serial partition” problem (when an owner split land into two lots and then split them again the next year). Vice Chair Paretchan suggested staff find some other way to address the problem. Her priority was to protect the character of existing neighborhoods. She recommended the Planning Commission not recommend the proposed change and keep the existing code, which applied the requirements to subdivisions and planned developments only. The Commission did not want to apply the standard to partitions. Article 50.77, Application Requirements Section 50.77.045(1), Modification of Pending Application provided that modification could be considered if it (1) Does not increase the intensity of any use, or the density of residential use. Vice Chair Paretchan asked what “intensity of use” meant and how it was measured. Mr. Boone advised the term was not defined in the code. Ms. Andreades explained staff wanted to address situations where an applicant changed the plan after it was found to be in compliance with the code. Mr. Boone recalled two cases where the issue came up. After applicant Parker filed a simple plan that met the code he started “designing it out.” Applicant Rodriquez changed the number of dwelling units in the structure from one to two. Ms. Andreades explained staff wanted to address situations in which the change increased the square footage enough to trigger additional requirements, such as more parking; or made a single family dwelling more than one unit. Vice Chair Paretchan suggested just listing those specific things instead of using “increase the intensity of use” so the code was easier to understand. Mr. Boone agreed to do that. Mr. Boone confirmed for Commissioner Bhutani that Section 50.69.010 allowed fencing conditions to be imposed on a Conditional Use. He clarified that staff was not proposing any changes to the Commercial/Institutional (CI) Zone, but they did address the IP Zone. He related that staff hoped the Commission would be able to finish examining both packages in time to forward them as one package to the City Council to consider in one hearing. *Commissioner Bhutani participated in the discussion of “Package A” and Commissioner Prager was present for the discussion. Neither of the Commissioners stated a position when consensus was sought and both left prior to discussion of Package “B”. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2011 Page 7 of 12 Package B Article 50.02 Definitions Accessory Building. Mr. Boone recalled the Planning Commission consensus had been to address accessory uses separately and at a future time, so staff recommendation was to make that discussion a separate work project. Flag Lot. Current Planning staff proposed to change the definition. They would eliminate the term, “flag pole” and just call it the “pole.” The definition specified that access to the rear lot was via a pole or an access easement. Garage, Side-loading. Staff language was intended to clarify that carports were to be treated like garages. Where it talked about the orientation of garage doors, the language, “or, in the case of carports, the vehicle access openings” was inserted. Live/Work Building. When Chair Gustafson asked why the provisions required residential use to be above or behind the commercial or office use, Commissioner Glisson recalled that during the discussion of the Lake Grove Village Center (LGVC) Plan, the intent of the LGVC Advisory Committee was to maintain the commercial character of the Village Center streetscape, so residential use was not allowed to be “front and center” on the street. It had to be above or behind the commercial use. Mr. Boone advised that staff had written the amendment so it would apply generally, and in the future that use could be used somewhere else besides West Lake Grove Zone R-2.5/W. Chair Gustafson suggested creating a universal definition for Live/Work Building at a future time. Lake Oswego Master Plant List. This definition referred the reader to Appendix 50.02.005 9 to see listings of plants and trees. The Commissioners asked staff to make the language under Street Trees – Prohibited easier to understand. Commissioner Glisson asked staff to use a more consistent lettering or numbering system under Lake Oswego Master Plan List. Mr. Boone anticipated the online code would offer a link to the pages of reference material starting with Solar Friendly Trees. It was not in current code, but was in the binders for convenience of the Commissioners, who could remove those pages. Lot Area or Lot Size. The proposed changes clarified how the area of a Non- Flag Lot and a Flag Lots were calculated. The proposal was to calculate the area of a Non-Flag Lot as the gross acreage of the lot within the lot lines. The area of a Flag Lot was the area between the lot boundaries, less the areas of access easements, private streets, and public streets. Mr. Boone advised the Flag Lot reference to “public and private streets” had been inserted by the Infill Ordinance. The Commissioners generally agreed it was unnecessary to include “public streets.” Then they considered whether it was necessary to include “private streets.” Staff indicated the code did not define, “private street.” Commissioner Jones asked if the owner of a lot that extended to the middle of the street was taxed up to the middle of the street. Mr. Boone said no and clarified the tax was based on the value of the property. If City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2011 Page 8 of 12 there was a public easement over it, the value of the property would likely reflect that the owner could not use it. Mr. Boone agreed with the concept of taking out the reference to public streets, but he was leery about removing the reference to private streets. The Commissioners had observed that a private street could be a form of access easement, but in practice, an access easement was considered something that served one or two lots. If the reference to “private streets” was removed, someone might contend that a private street was not an access easement because it served many lots. He suggested changing the reference to, “access easement/private streets.” Vice Chair Paretchan agreed, noting that an access easement was not necessarily a developed street. Mr. Boone clarified for Commissioner Jones that if the City took over a private street and made it public, the lot it served would no longer be a “Flag Lot,” and its area would be calculated as the gross acreage within the lot lines. Commissioner Glisson indicated she could support keeping the references to “access easement” and “private streets” and removing “public streets.” Mr. Boone agreed with that. Vice Chair Paretchan drew a hypothetical configuration of lots and accesses for the Commissioners to examine and discuss what areas were to be counted in the lot area calculation. Mr. Boone advised the lot fronting the street was not a Flag Lot if the street frontage was at least 25 feet. The Commissioners considered whether the area of a street-fronting lot should be calculated the same way as the area of a Flag Lot: with the access easement area deducted. Staff confirmed the current code definition required that. Lot Area: “The area of a lot defined by the lot lines, less the area of access easements, private streets and public streets.” That meant the “flag” portion of the street-fronting lot had to be equal to or exceed the minimum lot size allowed in the underlying zone. Commissioner Glisson observed a need to clarify how a streetfront lot that was attached to a Flag Lot should be addressed. Staff explained it had been treated differently before the Infill code was adopted. In 2005 the code referred to “lot area” in many places, but it did not define the term. Staff practice was to calculate the area within the lot boundaries. Staff explained that the adopted Infill code specified that the access easement was deducted in the calculation of lot area resulting in many streetfront lots that had been considered conforming lots becoming nonconforming lots. Because the access easement area had to be deducted, the lots had to be much larger than before. Staff did not believe that was what infill intended because the infill project had focused on access lane issues. Mr. Boone explained the current proposal would return to the old method of measuring them as non-flag lots, measuring them within their boundaries. The access on Flag Lots would still be deducted, as Infill intended, and the recommended change would have more desirable housing density implications because it would make it possible for more lots to be partitioned. Ms. Andreades observed the owners had some ability to move the lot lines around when they divided a lot to make the Flag Lot a little larger to accommodate the access. Vice Chair Paretchan observed that might be a challenge on many Lake Oswego lots that were irregularly shaped. Commissioner Glisson observed the proposed change would ensure that a streetfront lot was not penalized for having an City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2011 Page 9 of 12 access easement across it. Chair Gustafson confirmed a consensus to just remove “public streets” and accept the rest of the proposed change. Vice Chair Paretchan still wanted to take out “private streets” when they were developed to a street standard. Ms. Andreades indicated that not all private streets in the city were developed to public street engineering standards and “private streets” was not defined in the code. Mr. Boone suggested replacing “private streets” with “access lanes.” Commissioner Glisson indicated agreement. Vice Chair Paretchan suggested just saying, “access lanes,” or “area of access lanes.” Mr. Boone advised that “lanes” connect multiple properties. Vice Chair Paretchan then agreed the definition could specify, “less the area of access easements or access lanes.” Lot, Flat; Lot, Sloped; Lot, Steeply Sloped. Commissioner Jones observed the definitions did not make sense. He suggested the methodology should be more consistent. Mr. Boone agreed, but advised this was not the process in which to work on that. He suggested the Planning Commission could direct the staff to work on it. Ms. Andreades anticipated staff would discuss it and if they could they would propose language and talk about the implications of it to the Commission at a later time. Masonry. Staff proposed to reduce the depth requirement from at least two- inches to 1.75-inches. Chair Gustafson advised that what made cultured stone look like quality material was varying thickness and appropriately manufactured corners. For that reason, he suggested replacing the minimum depth standard with an average depth or a depth range standard between one and two-inches. The range of depth could be easily found in the manufacturer’s specifications. He observed the proposed 1.75-inch depth standard excluded use of most brick veneer, which was typically ¾-inch to 1-¼ inch deep. He questioned trying to achieve quality design via a definition. He advised that it would be preferable to approve a design based on the manufacturer’s range of depth than by looking at one well-chosen sample of the material. He indicated that using an average depth would increase the number of types of cultured stone that could be used. He reported that there were very good looking brick veneers available and one could have the look of brick but save a lot of material by using veneer that was made of real brick and featured manufactured corners. Commissioner Glisson agreed that it was the variation in depth that gave cultured stone a chunky, stone look. Mr. Boone observed a consensus to base the depth standard on the average of the manufacturer’s range of depth specification. Chair Gustafson observed the proposed change still ruled out brick veneer. Vice Chair Paretchan and Commissioner Jones each reported she/he had seen examples of it that looked fake and tacky. Chair Gustafson advised even two-inch material could look bad. He suggested using the manufacture’s range and calling for an average of 1.75-inch depth. When asked if the code should require manufactured corners Chair Gustafson wanted to know how much discretion the Development Review Commission (DRC) had to address this as a design issue and allow quality appearing material that did not meet the 1.75-inch standard. Commissioner Glisson wanted to know if they could disallow material that met the depth standard, but was too cheap looking. Staff advised the DRC could ask City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2011 Page 10 of 12 an applicant for some other type of material if the material that was presented was not quality material. The Downtown Design District Standards’ test for allowing exceptions was whether the material was complementary to buildings of good design in the vicinity. Chair Gustafson asked if the code could call for one- inch or greater depth and rely on the DRC to say it was one-inch, but it did not look good enough. Ms. Andreades cautioned that one-inch might be getting too shallow. Commissioner Glisson was also concerned that it would be too shallow. Commissioner Jones indicated he was inclined to keep the standard depth at 1.75, unless that presented a real problem. Ms. Andreades observed that saying “average of the manufacturer’s range of depth” offered a little wiggle room. Commissioner Glisson indicated her biggest concern was that the brick would not actually have an average that thick. Mr. Boone observed the Commissioners could specify a different standard for brick than for stone. He clarified for Vice Chair Paretchan that the brick buildings on Kruse Way had been constructed under county standards and that brickwork did not reflect City standards. Vice Chair Paretchan then indicated she would agree to “regular-sized” brick. Commissioner Jones indicated that if someone wanted to install thinner, manufactured, brick, it had to have manufactured corners. However, for the time being, he wanted to leave the standard the way it was written. He would not agree to an average depth standard. He believed there needed to be a minimum depth and he would agree to 1.75-inches. Natural Area. Commissioner Jones explained he supported the Definition of Natural Area in paragraph (1) (on the top of page 51) over the staff recommendation. He recalled the Planning Commission had agreed on that. When Commissioner Glisson asked him to clarify whether he would keep the bolded language in that item, he responded, “keep the whole thing.” Chair Gustafson and Mr. Boone recalled the Planning Commission had previously reached a consensus on the definition. Mr. Boone advised the standards for how to maintain Natural Area should not be in the definition. He said the reader would be able to link to the maintenance standards in the online code. Commissioner Jones said he preferred to see Mr. Kleinman’s effort remain here unless it was moved in the code rewrite process. Vice Chair Paretchan could not recall what her position had been at the time the Commission previously considered the matter. When she asked, Commissioner Jones confirmed that he had not been “on the losing end” of a vote at that time. Vice Chair Paretchan and Commissioner Glisson observed the notation, “PC Consensus” meant all or a majority of Commissioners had agreed to it. Mr. Boone recalled it was worked out with Mr. Kleinman and the proposed change was acceptable to him. Commissioner Glisson indicated she hoped it would not raise other issues related to maintenance. Open Space. Commissioner Jones asked staff to change “parks or natural areas” to “parks and natural areas.” Mr. Boone agreed. Pet Care, Daily. This was a new definition. Mr. Boone advised it was necessary to define Daily Pet Care before considering in what zones that use was allowed (page 248). Staff had shortened the definition the Commissioners had previously City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2011 Page 11 of 12 discussed. When Commissioner Glisson questioned how it was to be determined whether overnight boarding of animals had exceeded the 25% limit, Vice Chair Paretchan suggested there always had to be some “wiggle room” and Chair Gustafson agreed. Public Facility, Minor. Mr. Boone explained staff did not propose to change the definition, but they did recommend the Planning Commission consider provision (f) that allowed park improvements which would not create additional motor or foot traffic impact on the surrounding neighborhood. He said the problem was that most minor public facilities were permitted outright – before the level of impact was known, and the reviewing body might have guessed wrong about the impact. Vice Chair Paretchan asked staff to include that explanation in the Future Work Plan notation. RP District Development Standards Mr. Boone agreed with Commissioner Glisson that there was a missing “than” in a sentence in Section 50.16.075(D)(3), RP District Development Standards. Article 50.05.005 Zoning Designations, Boundaries and Maps, Zoning Districts Commissioner Glisson corrected a reference to R-7.5, which had an extra period. Mr. Boone related staff had changed their recommendation about whether or not to use a “/” mark to indicate mixed zoning. They had suggested removing the slash, but determined not using it looked odd. He did not favor continuing the use of the slash mark because each component was its own zone. The Commissioners agreed with his suggestion to leave it to the code reorganization process to determine how to handle it. Vice Chair Paretchan pointed out the LGVCO (Lake Grove Village Center Overlay) and EO (Evergreen Overlay) districts on page 67 should be capitalized. The Planning Commission agreed to stop for the evening at page 70. Vice Chair Paretchan asked staff to put the pages the Commissioners would examine next on the agenda. Ms. Andreades explained that staff did not publish the page numbers on the agenda and instead sent them to the Commissioners via email. She said that public testimony was closed and printing costs would be prohibitively expensive to have copies of a 400 plus page document available at each meeting. Commissioner Glisson recalled that the Commissioners had talked about how they welcomed emailed correspondence from Ms. Andreades via email. She understood staff’s rational that many people might want a binder for a meeting and then forget it and ask for another binder the next time it was on the agenda. Vice Chair Paretchan indicated her concern was that the Commissioners had agreed on an agenda notification process but staff had decided to do it differently; and that communication with citizens to help them keep up was not happening. Chair Gustafson recalled at the time the Commissioners were trying to encourage public testimony on issues. But he said now was the time for the public to listen to Planning Commission deliberations. Vice Chair Paretchan said she wanted the decisions regarding how the Planning Commission communicated to be decided by the Commissioners, not by staff. She recalled the Commissioners had spent a lot of time talking about what the agendas were to look like. Commissioner Jones indicated he liked getting the City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2011 Page 12 of 12 information via email. Vice Chair Paretchan held it should be on the agenda, as well. She asked Ms. Andreades if the staff had gotten any requests for hard copies when the page numbers were printed on the agenda. Ms. Andreades said she was not aware of any. It had been a while since the Planning Commission invited public testimony. Commissioner Glisson observed that the Commissioners had to talk about it so people could follow and that the Commissioners had been “looking at this stuff for too long.” Mr. Boone noted the schedule gave the Planning Commission one more meeting to finish examining the amendments. Commissioner Glisson observed the work plan called for getting it done by the end of the year. Chair Gustafson suggested they look at the Rolling Agenda. It was during that part of the meeting that the Commission generally agreed to continue LU 08-0052 to February 28, 2011 (see Schedule Review, below). 7. OTHER BUSINESS – PLANNING COMMISSION None. 8. OTHER BUSINESS – COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT None. 9. SCHEDULE REVIEW The Commissioners examined the Rolling Agenda. They planned to continue their discussion of LU 08-0052 on February 28, 2011 (starting with pages 233 – 274 and then the residential section starting on page 71). They anticipated they would hear the IP zone amendments and continue LU 08-0054 at the February 14, 2011 meeting. They expected to receive direction from the City Council regarding accessory dwelling units by the April 11 meeting. Chair Gustafson asked the Commissioners to come to the next meeting with their spring break schedules. When Chair Gustafson asked, no one indicated he/she planned to attend the Metro One-on-One session for Planning Commissioners. 10. ADJOURNMENT The next meeting was scheduled on February 14, 2011. There being no further business Chair Gustafson adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Iris McCaleb /s/ Iris McCaleb Administrative Support