Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2011-04-25City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of April 25, 2011 Page 1 of 8 t CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2011 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Jon Gustafson called the Planning Commission meeting of April 25, 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 (participated in LU 08-0052 via telephone) and Commissioners Puja Bhutani, Julia Glisson and Todd Prager. Commissioners Jim Johnson and Russell Jones were excused. Council Liaison Jeff Gudman was also present. Staff present were Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Dennis Egner, Assistant Planning Director; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; Johanna Hastay, Associate Planner; and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Support. 3. CITIZEN COMMENT None. 4. COUNCIL UPDATE Councilor Gudman reported the Council had voted 4:3 to choose the streetcar as the Locally Preferred Alternative and that Metro would make the final recommendation later this summer. He said Council was discussing some concerns that West Linn had about the water project and that the LOIS project was in its final stage. Mr. Egner reported the budgeting process had begun. 5. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER Zoning Overlay for Industrial Park (IP) District (LU 10‐0042) On page 3 of the findings, number 1, after the fourth sentence (line 29), the following text was added: The Commission finds that parking management would play a significant role in achieving desired densities and mix and needed more detailed studies. Additional typographical errors were corrected. Commissioner Glisson moved to approve the Findings, Conclusions and Order for LU 10-0042 as amended. Commissioner Bhutani seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of April 25, 2011 Page 2 of 8 6. WORK SESSIONS 6.1 Comprehensive Plan Update (PP 10‐0007) Housing Needs Analysis Sarah Selden, Associate Planner; and Kirsten Greene, Cogan Owens Cogan; presented the update. They went over the forecasting tables they were working on which would lead to a strategy for complying with the DLCD/Metropolitan Housing Rule. They asked for feedback. During the discussion Commissioner Prager observed the forecasts seemed to be pushing the City toward more multifamily housing. He wanted to know if the City had to do that and how much of the attainability forecast was driven by state law. Ms. Greene explained most of the document was for the purpose of state law compliance. Ms. Selden explained the City’s own trend was toward more attached housing. The detached:attached split was 60:40. The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) was about to consider where to plan for additional density. Commissioner Bhutani asked staff to make it clearer that the low density land supply calculation relied on redeveloping 502 acres of partially vacant (i.e., partially developed) land over the next 20 years. Mr. Egner explained the forecast was very conservative and only counted land in excess of 2.5 times the minimum required lot size for the zone. Commissioner Bhutani observed that it was necessary to know how much was forecast and how much was required because that was what was driving the strategy. Ms. Greene discussed the Metropolitan Housing Rules (MHR). She indicated that the City already met the requirement to provide an opportunity for a 50:50 mix of attached to detached housing. She said the MHR also required an average density of at least 10 dwelling units per net buildable acre for needed housing. She explained that multiplying buildable acres times ten resulted in more than twice as many units than the number of units necessary to meet the medium growth forecast for needed housing (3,560 units). Staff indicated they had queried the DLCD about whether the City could use the latter forecast, or if the City could base current compliance on past compliance, but they were waiting for an answer. Chair Gustafson stated that the land supply tables inform the community where growth could occur and suggested the City could satisfy the state requirement initially; then find out what the community really wanted to look like; and then try to reconcile that with the state. Employment Opportunities Analysis Ms. Greene advised that the job projection had to be consistent with Metro projections and that the state was very interested in the supply of industrial land. She said the Goals 9 and 10 Work Group recommended using the medium high employment forecast for the scenario assessment and that staff wanted the Commissioners and the CAC to suggest another forecast to use for comparison purposes. Commissioner Prager suggested using the low forecast. Commissioners Bhutani and Glisson needed more information before they decided. Commissioner Glisson noted the City still needed to decide what industrial areas would look like in the future. Staff asked the Commissioners to let them know which of the listed implementation strategies should be taken off the list and what should be added. Staff indicated that they planned to bring back a full draft of each analysis on May 9, the CAC would review them on May 19 and the drafts would be submitted to the DLCD by May 30 to comply with the Periodic Review grant. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of April 25, 2011 Page 3 of 8 Commissioner Bhutani asked staff to address how clear and objective standards would affect design review and how the zero lot line requirement could fit the City’s character. Ms. Selden reported that the City’s current zoning already met the 50:50 detached to attached housing opportunity requirement. She explained that zero lot line referred to attached housing on separate lots, which was a permitted use in low density areas. She planned to research how other communities used clear and objective standards, while maintaining a high level of design. Ms. Greene advised the DLCD’s position was that clear and objective standards did not preclude the ability to have design requirements. She said the state did not want a community to discourage needed housing types. Commissioner Prager held that cottage style housing and duplexes on corner lots and secondary dwelling units should be limited to transit corridors and town centers. He disagreed with the assumption that the City had to provide more affordable housing to attract young families. He indicated that good schools and a range of housing options would attract them. 6.2 Design Handbook for Lake Grove Village Center Johanna Hastay, Associate Planner, and Philip Stewart, Myhre Group Architects, Inc., were about to begin drafting the Lake Grove Village Center design handbook and were working on architectural elements. They said that Greenworks and the Boones Ferry Refinement Committee were working on the streetscape elements, which would also be illustrated in the handbook. They indicated that the architectural team was finding it a challenge to reconcile the specific architectural styles called for in the Lake Grove Village Center (LGVC) Overlay with other LGVC building design and site dimension standards. They said that they were trying to illustrate how to create a safe, pedestrian feel along a busy, constrained major arterial corridor and were inclined to move away from specific architectural styles and focus on elements or design principles to accomplish the “village character” the LGVC Plan called for. They said the last step in the process would be to clarify and remove code conflicts, and also resolve inconsistencies in the Lake Grove Village Center Overlay standards. They asked for feedback and direction from the Commission. Commissioner Bhutani advised them to focus on design principles and elements that would provide a pedestrian scale environment which the code addressed. She asked what features identified village character. Staff indicated that the handbook team had struggled with that. They indicated that it was more like a walkable suburban village but it had a major arterial running through it. They pointed out that there was not much room between the curb and the buildings and the sidewalk was narrower than a sidewalk in the Pearl District. Staff said the handbook would encourage developers to widen it a little in places and create semiprivate nooks and courtyards and public gathering areas. Commissioner Glisson recalled the Implementation Advisory Committee had hoped to see nooks and courtyards and that they anticipated a building owner could get credit toward the landscaping requirement if they widened the sidewalk a little. Commissioner Bhutani agreed that wider places in the sidewalk, nooks and gathering spaces would make it more pedestrian friendly. She advised the team to focus on that if they could not create village character. Mr. Stewart suggested it could be created by human scale features, like windows at eye level, planter boxes, the rhythm of windows, canopies and lights, and materials that were not too stark and cold. Commissioner Bhutani observed that tree grates were very urban looking. Mr. Stewart said it came down to a lack of available space for landscaping and that trees might have to be planted in the sidewalk. Commissioner Prager advised a “path in the woods,” a continuous strip of natural buffering would help and that it did not need to be very wide, two feet would work. The handbook team recalled that had been done along the State Street side of Block 138, it City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of April 25, 2011 Page 4 of 8 made pedestrians feel safer. Commissioner Glisson recalled the Advisory Committee had anticipated that village character would be created by lighting and design elements throughout the district that would pull it together, but they also wanted to see an eclectic mix of buildings. She said it could make it harder to get a coordinated village feel, but the pedestrian scale the code called for was something they wanted. She said originally they had called it a “town center,” but that sounded too big, so they called it a village. She said the Advisory Committee saw it functioning like a village since a lot of people would come there to shop and that they would walk there when sidewalks were available. Chair Gustafson suggested the handbook team focus on design principles and not architectural styles. He said they could not assume that the specified architectural styles would result in good design. He advised them not to take the “village” term too literally because that conjured up architectural style. He said the characteristics people wanted included pedestrian scale and suggested the team work on creating that rather than trying to make it look like a village. He also asked them to simplify the code so it did not seem so burdensome and discouraging to potential developers who might go elsewhere. Commissioner Glisson said the illustrations would be critical but the handbook should present a variety of ideas so developers did not all chose the same design that was illustrated there. Mr. Egner clarified for Commissioner Prager that the Plan did not envision the streetscape design extending along the streets, that it called for a transition to side streets. Mr. Stewart anticipated the streetscape would wrap around the corners for a bit. Chair Gustafson thanked Ms. Hastay and Mr. Stewart. 7. PUBLIC HEARING LU 08-0052 (Ordinance 2525) – Community Development Code – Minor Policy Amendments and General Housekeeping. Amendments (Chapter 50) for the purpose of clarifying, correcting, formatting, updating sections, and discussing minor policy changes. Final review of previously discussed items, Package B (continuing from page 275‐412). Continued from April 11, 2011. Chair Gustafson opened the hearing and announced that Commissioner Bhutani had departed and Vice Chair Paretchan had joined the meeting via telephone. The Commissioners continued examining the proposed amendments. Article 50.14 Accessory and Temporary Uses Commissioner Prager asked why the code limited the amount of time portable storage units, such as Portable On Demand Storage (PODS) units, could be in place to no more than 60 days in any twelve-month period, but measured the period differently for Special Event Permits. Vice Chair Paretchan questioned why the code should discriminate against PODS units but not storage sheds. Mr. Boone recalled that people considered PODS units incompatible eyesores, that they were typically metal, orange, and had labels on them. Vice Chair Paretchan suggested that if a PODS unit was placed in conformance with requirements like setbacks the code should not discriminate against them. She said if the issue was how they looked the Commissioners could consider how they should be screened. Chair Gustafson acknowledged that one could build a shed without a permit, but not place a PODS unit without a permit. Commissioner Glisson also wanted to limit PODS unit because they were left in place way too long and did not fit a typical neighborhood’s character. She said people could get extensions if they had to. Vice Chair Paretchan suggested fashioning a better definition to differentiate between a shed (which was not portable) and a PODS unit (which could be moved with a forklift). Her position was the code should not discriminate against PODS units that City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of April 25, 2011 Page 5 of 8 were within the building setbacks. Commissioner Glisson recalled a lot of code did discriminate against and limit things within the setbacks. Commissioner Prager indicated he accepted the proposed language. Chair Gustafson observed a consensus to do that. No one present could recall the reason for changing the limit for Special Event Permits for fairs, carnivals and other similar major public gatherings to 30 days in any 12-month period. Vice Chair Paretchan did not want to discourage fairs and public gatherings. Chair Gustafson did not see a problem with limiting them to 15, 30 or even 90 days, except that there might be a traffic issue. He, Commissioner Glisson and Commissioner Prager agreed with the proposed language. Vice Chair Paretchan observed that someone could get another permit if they used a different name to apply for the next permit. Mr. Boone observed that was a matter of evidence and enforcement. Chair Gustafson observed a consensus to keep the language as proposed. Section 50.16.075 RP District Development Standards The Commissioners examined the trail width specification. Mr. Boone corrected a part of the last sentence of 2(D)(3) to read, “provided the trail width shall be no greater than the standards in the City’s Trails and Pathway Master Plan.” Section 50.20.035 Screening, Buffering and Landscape Installation The Commissioners examined the proposed language that would require a minimum 6- foot wide landscaping strip along both sides of driveways or access ways serving flag lots. Mr. Boone would replace “driveways” with “access lanes” because infill code made a distinction between them. He explained that a “driveway” went from the access lane to the house and it served one house. He said an “access lane” served two to eight lots and that houses on flag lots had to face the access lane. Vice Chair Paretchan commented that the proposed requirement was too arbitrary and that it just doubled the landscaping requirement on all flag lots. She noted not all lots were square, the topography was often hilly, the access might be looped or curved, and there might not be enough land to accommodate a landscaping strip on both sides. She wanted to offer the developer more flexibility to carefully place an access and not have to squish the development to meet the extra landscaping requirement. Staff indicated that the infill code already required the developer to separate the access lane from any existing dwelling (including one on an adjacent property) by 5 feet. They explained that the proposed amendment would require that 5-foot setback plus another foot to be landscaped and that if that was not possible the reviewing authority could impose conditions to provide effective buffering and screening. Mr. Boone recommended modifying the amendment so it required 5 foot instead of 6 foot landscaping strips. Chair Gustafson liked the concept of requiring landscape strips on both sides because he had seen some bad examples where a driveway was right along the property line and the fence separating the properties had deteriorated so there was no buffer. He suggested the requirement be for a cumulative total of 6 feet of landscaping, that it would allow, for example, 3 feet on each side. Commissioner Glisson wanted some kind of buffer - whether it was 3 feet or 6 feet. Vice Chair Paretchan observed she would be allowed to put her own driveway right along the edge of her lot and a buffer would not be required. Ms. Andreades explained the difference was that more than one household would be using an access lane. Vice Chair Paretchan suggested the code could differentiate between a lane that only served one house in back and a lane that served multiple houses in back. Commissioner Glisson City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of April 25, 2011 Page 6 of 8 wanted to consider whether one house in back should trigger the extra landscaping requirement. Chair Gustafson and Ms. Andreades recalled the required minimum pole width was 20 feet that an access lane had to be 12 feet, with 4 feet of shoulder on each side of the pavement and it had to be at least 5 feet from an existing dwelling. Mr. Boone recalled the reason the amendment had been proposed was to ensure the access was landscaped its entire length, not just the segment next to a dwelling. Ms. Andreades related that when there was no room for the required 5 foot buffer strip adjacent to a dwelling the reviewing authority had allowed it to be reduced to 3 feet, with a fence and landscaping. She opined that if a separation strip was required anyway, it should be landscaped, but she acknowledged that an applicant could not do that if the separating strip was on an adjacent property. Mr. Boone clarified that the access standard required the access to be separated by at least 5 feet from the neighbor’s dwelling and that the proposed code would not require the applicant to landscape the neighbor’s property. It only required landscaping on the flag lots. He added that the streetfront lot was not a “flag lot.” He said staff could rewrite the proposed amendment for clarification and that the code rewrite process could also insert a graphic illustration to clarify it. Vice Chair Paretchan continued to hold there should not be a requirement to landscape both sides. Commissioner Glisson indicated she could agree to it now that she knew that the 5 foot strip on the neighbor’s property could be counted as buffer and it would not have to be landscaped. Mr. Boone offered to refine the language and then bring it back to the Commission. Section 50.30.015 Special Requirements for Telecommunications Facilities The Commissioners agreed to move this to LU 08-0054 and invite public comment. The section had been reorganized and staff proposed to change the order of priority siting. Staff had determined they currently had the authority to address camouflaging, but the Commissioners wanted to discuss that too. Section 50.46.020 Standards for Maintenance (of Open Spaces) Mr. Kleinman had suggested adding the word, “and” after the second of the three specifications for fencing so it was clear that one needed to comply with all three. Mr. Boone recalled that was the intent, anyway. The consensus was to agree to that. Article 50.47 Landscaping, Screening and Buffering The Commissioners considered the requirement for street trees. Vice Chair Paretchan considered it as an arbitrary, one size fits all, approach that would make residential property owners plant another tree even if their property was a forest of trees. Mr. Boone clarified existing vegetation counted so if they had enough existing trees they would not have to plant another tree. Commissioner Prager could agree with the proposed amendment if existing trees counted. Commissioner Glisson asked who would decide, and how, what counted and what did not count and what if the backyard was full of trees? Mr. Boone advised that did not count. Commissioner Glisson asked what if where the tree had to be planted was the only place that got enough sun for a garden. Chair Gustafson asked if the tree could be planted in the right-of-way. Mr. Boone said when the trunk was on private property, but the tree provided the equivalent of a street tree it could be designated as a street tree. He added that the City required a dead or dying street tree to be replaced. Vice Chair Paretchan questioned why one tree should be dedicated in her neighborhood, which was full of trees. Commissioner Glisson observed that the character of the street differed from neighborhood to neighborhood. She did not want an amendment that was a one size fits all approach. She liked trees, but did not want to be forced to plant one on her frontage. She was City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of April 25, 2011 Page 7 of 8 already having problems with moss in her lawn due to shade and she did not support the proposed change. Mr. Boone clarified for Commissioner Prager that there was no option to pay a fee in lieu here. Commissioner Glisson added she did not think there should be one. Chair Gustafson supported the amendment, so the Commissioners were split. He observed the Commission needed to come back to this amendment at another meeting when there were enough Commissioners to break the tie. Section 50.47.015 Standards for Installation and Construction Mr. Boone observed a proposed amendment exempted all single-family residential developments that require street trees from the requirement that all planting was to have an irrigation system installed. Commissioner Prager did not think those should be exempt because it was not that difficult or expensive to put in an automatic irrigation system; it was easier to put it in at the time of development than to install it later; an automatic irrigation system was typically more efficient than manual watering because it could be programmed and timed; and the side wall plane mitigation standards relied on landscape for buffering and screening. Commissioner Glisson noted that did not mean it had to be required. Commissioner Prager responded by asking in that case, why should it be required for nonresidential development. Mr. Boone clarified that the requirement would apply to anywhere street trees were required which was currently major developments. He noted if the Commissioners decided to apply a street tree requirement to vacant residential lots, the irrigation requirement would apply to them too. Chair Gustafson observed in this climate the right species usually only needed watering for the first couple of years until they were established. Ms. Andreades indicated the City did not return the bond to developers of subdivisions and commercial properties until it had verified the required landscaping had survived. She said staff also allowed them to defer planting so they could plant at the right time of year and that if required landscaping was not being maintained on a flag lot or along a side wall plane it was a code enforcement problem. Commissioner Glisson and Vice Chair Paretchan did not support the proposed change. Chair Gustafson indicated he would accept it because the community relied on the fact that landscaping was required to survive and those responsible for it would have to hand water it or replace it if it died. Mr. Boone observed the Commission would leave the amendment as proposed. Commissioner Prager was concerned that the recommended language that required a tree in a sidewalk to be protected “by grating or other methods which result in similar protection” would mean that people would tend to choose grating because they knew it was the default acceptable means. He advised the grate caused more damage to the tree than pedestrians walking in the area. He and the other Commissioners agreed to Chair Gustafson’s suggestion to remove the language: “by grating or other methods which result in similar protection,” retaining the requirement to comply with the City Engineer’s specifications. Article 50.63 Street (Pathway, Parking Lots) Lights The Commissioners considered whether a secondary dwelling unit should trigger the requirement for additional lighting. Vice Chair Paretchan held it should not because the property owner could have just expanded the primary house and because the secondary unit had been factored into the lot’s coverage and square footage requirements. Mr. Boone advised a secondary dwelling unit was required to have its own parking space and it increased the use of public and private streets. He observed if an owner partitioned his lot to add another house that would trigger the lighting requirement. He reasoned that adding a secondary dwelling unit was like adding an additional lot. Chair Gustafson did not think the secondary unit should trigger the requirement. Ms. Andreades observed the code limited the size of the secondary dwelling unit; that it City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of April 25, 2011 Page 8 of 8 might bring another car onto the property, but not as many cars as a flag lot would. Commissioner Glisson, Vice Chair Paretchan and Chair Gustafson agreed to exclude secondary dwelling units from the requirement. Commissioner Prager did not want to exclude them. Chair Gustafson observed the amendment would move forward with an exclusion for secondary dwelling units. The Commissioners planned to continue on page 393 and finish LU 08-0052 on May 9. Commissioner Glisson moved to continue LU 08-0052 to May 9, 2011. Commissioner Prager seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. 8. OTHER BUSINESS – PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioner Prager recommended that the Commission adopt by-laws that set procedures for meetings. Mr. Boone advised there was no code requirement to use Robert’s Rules of Order, but he would distribute the handout that described how the Council used them. The Commissioners anticipated they would discuss procedure when they discussed their work plan. 9. OTHER BUSINESS – COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT None. 10. SCHEDULE REVIEW The Commissioners agreed there was no need to hold a special meeting on May 4. They planned to finish LU 08-0052 on May 9. Staff distributed a memorandum regarding slope issues to read prior to that meeting. Staff indicated they would arrange a meeting to discuss the work plan and process issues sometime in June. 11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Chair Gustafson adjourned the meeting at 10:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Iris McCaleb /s/ Iris McCaleb Administrative Support