Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2011-02-28City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 28, 2011 Page 1 of 12 t CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2011 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Jon Gustafson called the Planning Commission meeting of February 28, 2011, to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers 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, Russell Jones and Todd Prager. Commissioner Jim Johnson was excused. Council Liaison Jeff Gudman and Councilor Mary Olson were also present. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Assistant Planning Director; Hamid Pishvaie, Assistant Planning Director; Sidaro Sin, Senior Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Support. 3. CITIZEN COMMENT The Commissioners viewed a video about Comprehensive Plan processes and pitfalls that Commissioner Jones had provided. 4. COUNCIL UPDATE Councilor Gudman reported that the Council had voted 4:3 to spend an additional $129,000 to examine Foothills/transit alternatives. Mr. Egner reported at its next meeting the Council was going to meet with the Commission to hear the Comprehensive Plan quarterly update and then the Council would discuss the Lake Oswego-Portland Transit Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 5. WORK SESSIONS 5.1 Design Handbooks (PP 10-0017) - Update and Discussion on Residential Infill and Lake Grove Village Center Handbooks Mr. Egner introduced consultant, David Bernicker, David A. Bernicker Urban Design. He explained that Mr. Bernicker’s team had been contracted to fashion the two handbooks. He said the Infill handbook would illustrate the related code and the Lake Grove Village Center Plan (LGVC) handbook would better define and illustrate desired streetscape and building design character in Lake Grove. Staff hoped the project would resolve conflicts between the stipulated architectural styles the LGVC Plan called for and design standards. Commissioner Glisson recalled the LGVC Implementation Advisory Committee (Committee) had anticipated that a public process would be used to identify appropriate design themes and architectural elements. She said they wanted City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 28, 2011 Page 2 of 12 to keep Lake Grove’s current eclectic mix of styles. She observed the list of allowed architectural styles was very limited and there might be some additional styles that would be appropriate and fit the code better. Mr. Egner and Mr. Bernicker planned to work with former Committee members and other stakeholders to identify the key elements that defined the allowed architectural styles. They said the design guidelines would be illustrated in the handbook. They planned to use the book, “Ten Essentials for Northeast Housing” as a model for the Lake Oswego Infill handbook. Commissioner Glisson observed that sometimes a house had too many different materials on it. She recalled seeing structures that had out-of-proportion columns or supports. Mr. Egner invited the Commissioners to take an infill tour to view problematic examples of infill design. Commissioner Bhutani suggested the scope of the project be expanded to provide more guidance to the Residential Infill Design (RID) process, but Vice Chair Paretchan suggested the current scope would determine what was good design and the result could be used to inform the RID process. Commissioner Bhutani advised the consultants to focus on less tangible aspects like form, proportion and massing because they were some of the most challenging aspects of design to enforce via code. She suggested they also look at what architectural features in a neighborhood helped unify it. Commissioner Glisson said that she had served on the LGVC Advisory Committee. She agreed with Mr. Bernicker that form and mass were critical in the Village Center. She was not sure the community understood the full ramifications of requirements such as the one that required a building to be stepped back. She recalled the Committee did not want a “cookie cutter” code that would require every building to look the same. Mr. Bernicker suggested the easiest place to start was to look at how the form and massing felt from the street and after the form and mass of the structure was right more creativity of design could be allowed. Commissioner Glisson recalled the LGVC code contained a very specific list of allowed materials and styles. Chair Gustafson asked to see examples of the handbook models, so the Commissioners could get an idea of the framework. Commissioner Bhutani observed the LGVC Plan already provided a good framework to guide the urban design process when it talked about things like the String of Pearls concept, village character, diverse architectural styles, preserving natural elements, pedestrian scale, sustainability, connectivity, and parking behind the buildings. Mr. Bernicker said the project would seek to better understand that framework and identify elements that supported it. Commissioner Glisson recalled the Committee agreed on the String of Pearls concept, that it would make the linear-shaped district feel “linked” and that during events people could meander through the pearls from one end to the other. She said the Committee anticipated a public process would be used to create a logo and identify the gateways. Commissioner Bhutani stressed the theme was very important to work out because it would bring the district together. Mr. Egner saw “theme” as consistent elements that linked the district. Commissioner Bhutani suggested the consultants identify a theme for the streetscape as well as an architectural theme. Mr. Egner saw the Boones Ferry Road median as a green “spine” and a key element. He indicated that an advisory committee was currently examining the Boones Ferry Refinement Plan. Mr. Bernicker said he would start work by getting a better understanding of the framework. Commissioner Glisson encouraged him to get input from stakeholder groups - including the Committee - first. Mr. Bernicker clarified he did not have a landscape architect on his team, but they were not creating a plan for exactly where individual trees would be planted. He said it would be more about what set of tree types would work for a specific City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 28, 2011 Page 3 of 12 area. Mr. Egner indicated he would arrange for Mr. Bernicker’s team to work with the landscape architecture firm helping with the Boones Ferry Refinement Plan. 5.2 Comprehensive Plan Update (PP 10-0007) General Updates on the Vision Statement and Goals 9 and 10. During this discussion the Commissioners heard an update from Senior Planner, Sidaro Sin; heard from two Councilors who had objected to the current version of the draft Vision Statement; identified an issue related to housing capacity; and raised the issue of the level of Planning Commission involvement in the Comprehensive Plan update and visioning processes. Mr. Sin briefed the Commission ahead of the upcoming joint meeting with the Council. He observed the Comprehensive Plan update was in the early stage of a three-year process. He reported that so far outreach meetings and activities had reached 1,500 persons and that 1,300 of them had become directly involved in developing the current draft Vision Statement, which was intended to guide the update to the plan. He indicated there were to be more public workshops. Mr. Sin said that on February 15 a 4:3 nod of heads from the Council indicated that the draft vision was moving in the right direction. He said the dissenting Councilors had made some recommendations that were going to be considered by the Citizens’ Advisory Committee (CAC) on March 10. Chair Gustafson asked what the dissenting Councilors’ concerns were. Councilor Olson related that more than three of them thought the draft Vision Statement was too long and wordy and the validation survey results showed a relatively low support rating for the statement that indicated the City would manage growth by providing the opportunity for a variety of attractive and compatible housing. She said the dissenting Councilors suggested it simply say the City would provide the opportunity for housing. Councilor Gudman explained that he considered the draft vision too expansive. He reasoned that “if you are for everything, then you are for nothing.” He indicated he believed the update could be accomplished more expeditiously, using much less staff time and fewer dollars. He observed that a great deal of effort was unnecessarily expended on a discussion of employment and that applying Metro’s standard of 400 sq. ft. per office worker to the half million sq. ft. of unrented space along Kruse Way showed the City was close to hitting its target for jobs between now and 2035. He indicated he objected to the City allowing Metro to decide what the number of households should be. Chair Gustafson asked Mr. Sin what he anticipated the difference would be between the current and new Comprehensive Plans. Mr. Sin explained that the current Plan was pretty good, but it was 17 years old, and the State required the City to look at it periodically to ensure it was consistent with regional and state requirements. He said the City had already incorporated Metro’s 2040 design types into the Plan; the text called for high density development; and Transportation System Plan policies called for a range and diversity of transportation choices. He indicated that the update was intended to refine the Comprehensive Plan to reflect what the community wanted to be in the next 25 years. Commissioner Jones recalled the City had been found to be in compliance with the regional density target of 10 dwelling units per acre in 1984 (when the first Comprehensive Plan was adopted) and again in 1995. As far as he knew it was still compliant. He questioned the need to increase density. Mr. Sin explained that the City was required to review compliance with the State’s Metropolitan Housing Rule during periodic review. He said the City had to demonstrate it provided the opportunity for a City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 28, 2011 Page 4 of 12 50/50 mix of attached/detached single family dwellings and the opportunity for an average of 10 dwelling units per net buildable acre. He said the Housing Rule also required the City to make those opportunities available under clear and objective standards (not a subjective decision contingent on compatibility, for example). Mr. Sin said that staff had done some preliminary work compiling the Buildable Lands Inventory. They found that all the residential zones provided an opportunity for attached single family dwellings. They also found the City had a capacity deficit of about 4,000 dwelling units. He said based on the preliminary work, the City would need to provide approximately 6,100 dwelling units to comply with the 10 du/nba average requirement (616 vacant buildable acres x 10 dwelling units per net buildable acre). He said that under clear and objective standards the City could only accommodate approximately 2,100 units. Vice Chair Paretchan and Commissioner Jones questioned that conclusion. Commissioner Jones observed that if all the small bits of developable acres on the map were developed to high density that would not be compatible. He was concerned that to use secondary dwelling units to meet density requirements would result in changing low and medium density zoned areas of single family houses into duplexes. He suggested the City take a step back and solicit citizen input about that. Chair Gustafson and Commissioner Glisson served on the Goals 9 and 10 Work Group. Commissioner Glisson reported the City had an alternative to filling in all those little areas on the map. She said it could satisfy the Metropolitan Housing Rule requirements by planning higher density in corridors. She reported that the Work Group had learned the City was not currently compliant, that it had an average of 5.5 dwelling units per acre and it needed to get to 10. Commissioner Jones asked what had happened in the intervening years that reduced capacity. Mr. Sin explained that underbuilding had occurred that placed fewer dwelling units on parcels that could have had more units. Mr. Sin used the example of when two houses were built on land that could have had four houses on it, the land lost half its capacity. Mr. Egner suggested the loss of capacity might be partially due to a change in the methodology used to measure capacity. Staff was not clear on what methodology had been used to do the 1994 analysis. Mr. Sin said the result of the current methodology was five units per acre, which was too low to meet the housing rule and staff was looking for strategies for compliance. He said the analysis did not count the potential for multifamily housing in commercial districts which could result in a higher capacity if it were included. He indicated that rezoning Foothills to residential would help as well. Mr. Sin clarified for Commissioner Jones that the City had some concerns with a 2009 Metro forecast, but Metro was currently in the process of updating the forecast and City staff was involved in that process. He said the results would come out in December and those would be the numbers that the City would be required to “coordinate” with Metro, as required under Goal 14 (Urbanization). He explained that Metro used its forecast to determine if it could maintain the current urban growth boundary and it was based on current zoning. He said Lake Oswego had contracted with its own economist who had forecast that Lake Oswego would have a population of 51,000 in 2035. He could not recall the projected number of dwelling units. He said the Goals 9 and 10 Work Group had reviewed that forecast and found it was reasonable, but it still showed the City did not meet the State’s Housing Rule. He clarified that Metro did not require up-zoning, but the City might have to do that to meet the State’s Housing Rule, which required it to show how it would accommodate growth over the next 20 years. Mr. Sin advised that one of the requirements of periodic review was to coordinate efforts of the City and Metro regarding dwelling units. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 28, 2011 Page 5 of 12 Commissioner Bhutani disclosed that she had been providing advisory services through Team Oregon, which consisted of Cogan Owens Cogan and Sera Architects. She explained that Cogan Owens Cogan were consultants on the City’s Comprehensive Plan update. She clarified that no money was exchanged in her advisory role with Team Oregon and Mr. Boone had advised her it would not be a conflict. She asked if it were up to each municipality to negotiate with Metro after Metro estimated capacity within the UGB and then told each municipality what its share was. Mr. Egner confirmed there was a negotiation process, but in the end Metro might just assign the numbers based on its modeling of what the City’s growth capacity was. He said the City’s own capacity analysis might be different than Metro’s and the City only had to meet its own number as long it did not reduce density. He indicated that it could move forward using its own assumptions and that Metro no longer set a target density that each city had to meet. He said Metro now simply applied a “no net loss” provision, that the City could not reduce overall density, but it could shift it around. Commissioner Bhutani observed a need to make the calculation of needed dwelling units more realistic if existing zones were not going to develop to maximum capacity. Mr. Egner observed that over time they properties may redevelop at higher density, but the City only needed to show it was not reducing current capacity. Vice Chair Paretchan observed that a 50% decrease in capacity since 1994 was huge and she did not want to see 6,000 units added to the City. She asked if staff proposed they all be jammed into Foothills. Mr. Egner clarified they did not propose to put them all into Foothills and he acknowledged that 50% seemed like a lot, but he stressed the current process was a very logical one, that it looked at vacant lands and partially vacant lands and what they were planned for and found the average density was around 5 units per acre. Mr. Egner said that he did not know what methodology had been used in 1994 and that staff would have to research those documents, if they were still in the archives. Vice Chair Paretchan suggested another approach might be to state that everyone had agreed in 1994 that the City could accommodate 10 units per acre and use that as a starting point, then add or subtract units based on what had happened since then. Mr. Egner indicated that was one method to show the City’s capacity. Mr. Sin clarified that the purpose of the upcoming joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting was ongoing review of and dialogue about the Comprehensive Plan update process. Vice Chair Paretchan indicated she did not believe the Commission was being adequately informed and involved in the process and that it was not enough to have representatives serving on the Work Group. She observed the Commissioners had not even been provided with a copy of the newest draft Vision Statement, that the Planning Commission was overlooked. She indicated that if that was what the Council wanted she would accept it, but she did not agree with it. She said the Commission should be made aware of the issues. Commissioner Jones agreed the Commission was kept out of the loop. Commissioner Bhutani agreed the Commission should be more plugged into the process. She indicated that except for one meeting in which they discussed the vision, she did not feel informed about what was going on. She had prepared comments about the draft Vision Statement and wanted to know how they could be conveyed. Chair Gustafson recalled the Commission had discussed its role early in the process. He recalled the Goals 9 and 10 Work Group had been provided with a lot of material about housing density. He confirmed that analysis said the City was below what the Metropolitan Housing Rule required. He sensed it was a realistic analysis and the City was looking more realistically at what its real capacity was. He asked what level of detail the Commission wanted to dig into. Vice Chair Paretchan suggested that unless the Council agreed the Commission should not be involved in the process or receive City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 28, 2011 Page 6 of 12 much feedback, staff should reevaluate how it involved the Commission. She said the Commissioners were a team of very capable and interested individuals who were just working on minor code changes while an important planning process was going on and now they were hearing that half the City’s housing capacity had been lost since 1994. Chair Gustafson noted the CAC had already been formed and it might be too late to raise the issue. Mr. Sin confirmed that staff could look for ways to involve the Commission. He suggested the Commission indicate where it had the greatest interest and what things staff should bring back to it. Chair Gustafson indicated he felt involved enough serving on the Goals 9 and 10 Work Group. He polled the other Commissioners. Vice Chair Paretchan wanted the Commission to be more involved in hearing the assumptions and analyses that had been made and providing direction. She said staff should ask the Commission for direction and she did not want the Commission to just “rubber stamp” the Comprehensive Plan when it finally came to the Commission. She noted the Council had already reviewed the Vision Statement. She was not sure the Commissioners even had the most recent version of the statement. Commissioner Glisson wondered why the housing density issue had surfaced at the Commission level and not at the Work Group level, where staff provided a lot of detailed material and discussion outlines. She saw a need to find a way to identify hot button issues and bring them to the Commission or Council. She indicated the Commission should not have to go through all the detailed material. Vice Chair Paretchan observed the Commissioners had not been aware of the decision points or underlying assumptions for decisions being made and that no one had asked them to validate them. Commissioner Glisson wanted to know how they could look at bigger hot button issues and assumptions. Mr. Sin recalled staff had provided the Commissioners with the draft HNA and EOA to review and discuss last October. Commissioner Jones observed that transportation, zoning and land use matters were within the purview of the Planning Commission and he felt it had been kept out of the loop. He indicated it had no input and would just have to rubber stamp the Comprehensive Plan after the fact. He said the Commission needed to be able to provide input on important issues. Commissioner Glisson asked if the Commissioners wanted to plan a future meeting to look at assumptions and go back and read the documents Mr. Sin referred to in order to refresh their memories and see if there were any other significant issues. Mr. Sin advised it was not too late to do that and he would ask the CAC and Work Group what issues would be important to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Glisson and Vice Chair Paretchan agreed the Commission did not need to get into all the detailed materials. They just wanted to know what assumptions had been accepted. Commissioner Bhutani agreed the Commission needed to have more input into the findings and assumptions of the work groups. Commissioner Glisson suggested staff make the meeting notes or minutes of the work group available to the Commission. Chair Gustafson agreed that would be helpful. Commissioner Bhutani and Vice Chair Paretchan asked staff to highlight and group the hot buttons and assumptions. Chair Gustafson suggested the Planning Commission could schedule a monthly look at the progress of the Comprehensive Plan update process. When asked, Mr. Sin related that a technical advisory committee (TAC) composed of staff and representatives of the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), Metro and Clackamas County staff, reviewed materials prior to taking them to the Goals 9 and 10 Work Group. He said the TAC did not advise the CAC or the Work Group. He could not recall whether the capacity issue had come up at TAC. Mr. Egner City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 28, 2011 Page 7 of 12 recalled the consultant had presented it to the Work Group, but had not highlighted it as an issue. Commissioner Glisson indicated she did not recall any Work Group discussion about losing capacity. Mr. Sin recalled it had been in the October staff memorandum. Commissioner Glisson saw this as a good example of what the Commission needed input on and wanted to understand, that it was important to the community. Mr. Egner reported that staff had not yet developed alternatives to address the housing density issue. He agreed they needed to research what happened between 1994 and 2010 that would have resulted in a 50% loss of capacity. Commissioner Paretchan suggested just starting with the fact that the City was in compliance in 1994. Commissioner Jones recalled the City was in compliance in 1984 with 10.2 or 10.3 housing units per acre and again in 1995. Commissioner Bhutani reasoned it was important to identify the reason why there was a change so the City could address the difference in results. She said then it could decide whether to challenge the number or go forward with it. Commissioner Paretchan suggested the City might need to change methodology. Commissioner Glisson wanted to find out why there was such a big change in order to remove uncertainty regarding how to move forward. Commissioner Prager wanted to define the Planning Commission’s role in the process so he could prepare to provide valuable input at the upcoming joint meeting with the City Council. He did not want to get down to the level of detail of the Work Group. He recalled he had offered comments on the vision but had been told that was a matter for the CAC to work on. He indicated that if that was the case, he did not have a problem with it, that he did not want to duplicate the work of other entities. He suggested asking staff to return with a recommendation about the role of the Commission and how to best use their time. Commissioner Bhutani had provided written comments about the version of the draft vision she found on the City website. Chair Gustafson asked staff what the best forum for feedback on the vision would be. Mr. Sin suggested the Commission schedule a work session to consider each Commissioner’s comments and then consolidate and forward them to the CAC. He said he would present them to the CAC on March 10 at the same time the CAC looked at the Council feedback. Vice Chair Paretchan wanted to know if the Commissioners had the most recent version of the vision. Mr. Sin confirmed it was the version that participants at the January 6 work shop had discussed. He clarified that the Council would not adopt a Vision Statement until the Comprehensive Plan was ready to be adopted. They had recently just indicated it was moving in the right direction. Chair Gustafson asked staff to recommend a process to get the Commission more involved in the Comprehensive Plan update process. He anticipated the Commissioners would discuss the issues with the Council at their joint meeting the following week. Staff recommended the Commissioners examine the validation survey and explained that it was a telephone survey that statistically validated the larger survey. Staff explained that the consultants called 300 people randomly, and asked that they rank each aspect of the draft Vision Statement. The consultant then reported it statistically validated support for the Vision Statement. The Commissioners planned to discuss the draft Vision and their involvement in the Comprehensive Plan update process at the next meeting. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 28, 2011 Page 8 of 12 6. PUBLIC HEARING 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, Ordinance 2525, Attachment B (dated August 8, 2008), Package B (pages 233-274). This hearing was continued from January 24, 2011. Chair Gustafson opened the hearing and reported that Commissioner Bhutani had recused herself and left the meeting. The Commissioners discussed an aspect of Package A before they continued with Package B. Package A Section 50.22.015 General Exceptions to Structure Height Limitations Mr. Pishvaie had not been present at the last meeting when the Commissioners discussed the proposed change to this section. He indicated the proposed change was intended to codify the existing practice of not applying the building height calculation to the portion of a building which consists of HVAC housing. He explained it would codify the way staff, the Development Review Commission (DRC) and the City Council (in cases of appeal) had interpreted this section of the code for 25 years. He explained not accepting the proposed language would keep the existing code, but now that staff was aware that the Commissioners’ felt that HVAC equipment should be counted in building height they might have to tell potential applicants that there had been a significant change in how the City interpreted the code which could potentially affect the number of stories in a building. Mr. Pishvaie indicated that buildings like the ones that had been approved along Kruse Way and Meadows (that typically had 1-foot tall HVAC structures) would likely have to lose a story. Mr. Boone advised that the Commission could ask for a formal interpretation or ask for language that would specifically exclude HVAC structures from the exemption. He observed it was not just a matter of putting staff in a quandary whether to keep the historic interpretation or change it to reflect Commission input, but it could result in more appeals to the DRC and the City Council. Vice Chair Paretchan recalled the Commissioners had previously discussed the issue thoroughly and voted. Regardless of previous practice, the Commissioners specified they did not want HVAC structures to be above the height limit. She clarified she objected to allowing HVAC structures with no limit as long as they were screened, but she could agree to set a height limit for them. She indicated she was concerned their height would be disproportionate to the height of the building itself. Mr. Pishvaie advised the buildings were also subject to the design review process, which considered proportionality, scale and form. He clarified that all new buildings and substantial remodeling of existing buildings were subject to design review. He indicated that staff had been allowed to make decisions on some of these applications because they were considered minor development, but the majority of the time staff forwarded the applications to the DRC for discretionary review. He said that some of the examples of those applications were along Kruse Way and Meadows Road. Vice Chair Paretchan anticipated the change in interpretation would be applied to new buildings, not existing buildings. She recalled the Commissioners had observed that buildings did not necessarily have to lose a story. The equipment could be put in little indentations in the building. It did not have to take up an entire floor. Mr. Pishvaie advised a change in interpretation would have great ramifications for a big project and proper notice was necessary, otherwise affected parties would assume the long-standing interpretation City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 28, 2011 Page 9 of 12 that exempted HVAC units from the height limit would stand. Mr. Pishvaie and Mr. Boone advised the Commission to deal with the issue at another time and outside of the LU 08-0052 process. Chair Gustafson observed the City had been using the current interpretation for over 20 years. Vice Chair Paretchan recalled seeing examples of ugly buildings with HVAC on top that were not balanced or adequately screened. She acknowledged some might have been built before screening was required. Commissioner Glisson suggested if the issue was that there was no limit on HVAC height, a height limit might resolve it. Mr. Boone observed the provision also addressed belfries, domes and monuments, not just HVAC. Vice Chair Paretchan confirmed it was the unlimited aspect that was disturbing. It was like adding an extra floor. She questioned whether Kruse Way area buildings were built to maximum height. She observed the old Oregon State Bar building was short. Mr. Pishvaie related that was the exception and he did not know why, he observed that applicants typically asked for maximum height. He indicated that as an example, the Kruse Woods Five applicant initially wanted a 12 story building, but the City and the neighborhood did not support that and it was built with 8 stories. Chair Gustafson recalled the full roster of Commissioners had not been present at the last meeting when the Commission considered the provision. Commissioner Glisson then indicated she could agree to not change the existing code that had been in place for 20 years until the Commission took a look at height limits. She said perhaps there were specific zones where a height limit should be applied. Staff agreed to draft code for the Commission to consider. Package B Special District Limitations – Auto Service Stations: “Auto fueling devices” Mr. Boone clarified for Commissioner Jones that LGVC planners anticipated that in the future cars might be fueled by alternative sources and so instead of gasoline pumps they used the term “auto fueling devices.” Article 50.11 Commercial Zones, Section 50.11.010 Uses 6. Services – Business; Z. Pet Care, Daily Daily Pet Care was entirely prohibited in the Office Campus (OC) and Campus Research and Development (CR&D) zones. Since the Commissioners last discussed this section, staff had changed it so it prohibited Daily Pet Care - Partially Conducted Outside Building in the East End Commercial (EC) and Highway Commercial (HC) zones too. Vice Chair Paretchan questioned not allowing Daily Pet Care as a conditional use in the CR&D along Kruse Way, a huge employment area where many workers might want to visit their dogs at lunch time and take them for a walk. Staff indicated that the DRC could condition its impacts, but if it were partially conducted outside the applicant would have to mitigate noise. Commissioner Glisson observed that different people had differing levels of tolerance for impacts just outside their office window. She observed a consensus to allow Daily Pet Care as conditional use in the OC and CR&D zones if it were conducted completely within the building. When staff asked if the Commissioners wanted to change the proposed prohibition on partially outside pet care Chair Gustafson observed they were not inclined to do that. 9. Services – Medical & Health; B. Clinic, outpatient and medical office Mr. Boone explained the proposed change would allow medical offices where professional offices were allowed. Vice Chair Paretchan and Commissioner Glisson each indicated they could agree to it. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 28, 2011 Page 10 of 12 10. Services – Professional Offices The existing code section listed multiple types of professional office uses. Staff proposed to consolidate them and permit them in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC), General Commercial (GC), HC, OC, EC, CR&D and Mixed Commerce (MC) zones. Commissioner Glisson and Vice Chair Paretchan were concerned that some Artist Studios and Jewelry Shops generated impacts like noise and fumes that would bother neighbors and might not belong in this category. When asked, Mr. Egner indicated a Jewelry Shop was categorized as Retail - General Merchandise, but perhaps a jewelry repair business could be classified as M. Equipment service & repair places under 6. Services – Businesses. Commissioner Glisson did not consider an artist’s studio a professional office. Vice Chair Paretchan saw a need to recognize that artist studios were different than Professional Office use and should not be a permitted use in all those zones. She asked staff to note this topic as one the Commissioners could discuss at a future time. She suggested for the time being that B. Artist studios should continue to be a separately listed use under Professional Offices. Commissioner Jones agreed the Commissioners needed to look at different kinds of artists. He contrasted digital photography with noisy, dirty, outdoor metal sculpture. 11. Services – Amusement; A. Art galleries, B. Arcade gaming (video, pinball, etc.) for amusement purposes, D. Fitness, exercise, and sports facilities [including billiard and pool parlors] Staff explained that in the current code B. was “Billiard and pool parlors.” Staff proposed to allow Arcade gaming in specific zones based on whether they had more or less than 2,000 sq. ft. floor area. When asked if there were any game arcades in the City, Mr. Boone advised there used to be one and another one had been proposed as part of the Nature’s store use. Vice Chair Paretchan questioned why staff would prohibit them in so many zones instead of making them conditional uses. Commissioner Glisson questioned why even small game arcades or billiard/pool parlors should be allowed in the NC zone. She questioned whether Westlake would want a billiards parlor in the small commercial center in the middle of their neighborhood and whether arcade gaming should be allowed on the edges of the Lake Grove Village Center (LGVC) that abutted residential use. Mr. Egner indicated there were other little NC areas scattered around the City. Mr. Pishvaie clarified that the Westlake area was zoned R-5 and was part of the Westlake Planned Unit Development (PUD), which specifically listed what uses were allowed there. He could not recall if it allowed billiards. Chair Gustafson and Vice Chair Paretchan explained they saw the use as a neighborhood amenity – a place in the neighborhood where residents could go to play games and have fun. Vice Chair Paretchan saw it as a way to build community. When asked if the proposed code would allow lottery gaming and video gambling, Mr. Boone said it would probably allow the primary use to have a lottery machine as an accessory use. He pointed out the language specified, “Arcade gaming…for amusement purposes” which would not allow things like video poker. Vice Chair Paretchan suggested allowing the use in more zones that it could help build community in office campus areas too. Commissioner Glisson then indicated she would accept the change as proposed. She did not want to open up the other zones. Commissioner Prager reasoned that if Art galleries were allowed as conditional use, Arcade gaming should also be allowed as conditional use. When Vice Chair Paretchan questioned the need to categorize Art galleries as conditional use in the NC, Mr. Boone said the scope of the hearing notice did not cover changing it to permitted use. Vice Chair Paretchan asked staff to put that on the list of things the Commissioners would come back to look at later on. Commissioner Glisson said she would not want to see her child ride his bike through an office area to get to the arcade gaming place. She City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 28, 2011 Page 11 of 12 feared they would become attractive nuisances. Chair Gustafson indicated he accepted what staff proposed. He did not believe Lake Oswego had a pool/billiard parlor/arcade gaming site problem and to allow them would cause not harm. Vice Chair Paretchan agreed. Commissioner Jones said it did not bother him. Commissioner Glisson agreed to leave the change as proposed. Commissioner Prager confirmed that he favored the proposal to allow Arcade gaming under 2,000 sq. ft. in the NC as conditional use. Vice Chair Paretchan still questioned why the uses (even small ones) were entirely prohibited in the HC, OC, CR&D and MC zones and not allowed as conditional uses. Chair Gustafson observed there were still other zones in town where they could be. Commissioner Glisson suggested they should be “where the people are” and that if the use was in an area of office buildings, it would be in the midst of a “dead spaces” at night. Vice Chair Paretchan clarified she was suggesting allowing them as daytime use and the conditional use process could set appropriate operating hours. Commissioner Prager said that if Art galleries were conditional use in the NC, the other uses should be too. Chair Gustafson favored leaving it as proposed by staff. Vice Chair Paretchan favored moving them from the “prohibited” column to the Conditional Use column no matter what size and an applicant would have to make the case why conditional use was compatible. She clarified for Commissioner Jones and Chair Gustafson that she would not make any distinction between under and over 2,000 sq. ft., that it did not matter because staff had advised they just chose an arbitrary number. Mr. Boone cautioned that the conditional use process might not be able to condition the operating hours of Arcade gaming if the surrounding uses were all closed at night. Under the applicable criteria, uses could only be limited if operation would adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood. Vice Chair Paretchan still supported making it conditional use. Commissioner Glisson agreed because she did not anticipate a rational person would open one in an area of office buildings. Commissioner Jones agreed to what staff proposed. Chair Gustafson observed three Commissioners were in favor of the staff proposal. Commissioner Prager opted not to go on the record with an opinion. 16. Light Manufacturing and 17. Manufacturing Light Manufacturing was a subset of Manufacturing. Staff proposed changes were intended to remove the impression that Manufacturing was the same as Light Manufacturing. Staff explained that they had eliminated Manufacturing use in non- industrial zones and that Light Manufacturing was already allowed in the CR&D and would become a conditional use in the GC zone. Staff indicated it would be prohibited in the NC, HC, OC, EC and MC zones and it had to be conducted within an enclosed building in order to reduce the external impacts of the activity. Vice Chair Paretchan suggested allowing Light Manufacturing as conditional use in all of the commercial zones except NC. She reasoned that if the City was trying to encourage people to do innovative things and prohibiting Light Manufacturing in those zones made that very hard. Mr. Pishvaie accepted making Light Manufacturing a conditional use in the HC and MC zones, because they were similar to the CR&D, but he suggested not allowing it in the EC zone (Downtown). Chair Gustafson agreed to that. Mr. Boone agreed to move to the Definitions section of the code the list of potential impactful things (like smoke and noise) that were to be kept inside the building that were listed under Light Manufacturing, Processing or Assembly of Product. Mr. Boone indicated he was going to reconcile and merge it with a similar list of special requirements called for in the IP zone which would make the standards for Light Industrial the same in each zone. He clarified that they were all to apply to the building line, not the property line. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 28, 2011 Page 12 of 12 Section 50.11.015 Site Development Standards This section allowed an exception for a corner of Grimm’s Corner from the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirement. The exception was also listed in Appendix 50.11-B. Mr. Pishvaie recalled that project had been built on a unique site at the bottom of a quarry that was well buffered. He said it had been allowed to benefit from a higher FAR because it generated lower impacts. Section 50.11.020 Special Requirements Staff indicated they had modified their recommendation and no longer proposed a 1- foot increase in landscaping height. Commissioner Paretchan confirmed that she could accept the change proposed by staff. Mr. Boone related the code audit consultant had questioned the wording. Due to the lateness of the hour, the Commissioners agreed to continue discussing this item at the next meeting. Commissioner Glisson moved to continue LU 08-0052 (Ordinance 2525) to March 14, 2011. Commissioner Jones seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. 7. OTHER BUSINESS – PLANNING COMMISSION None. 8. OTHER BUSINESS – COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT None. 9. SCHEDULE REVIEW The Commissioners planned to continue with their examination of LU 08-0052, (Ordinance 2525) pages 71-232 on March 14. 10. ADJOURNMENT The next meeting was scheduled on March 14, 2011. There being no further business Chair Gustafson adjourned the meeting at 10:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Iris McCaleb /s/ Iris McCaleb Administrative Support