Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2011-05-09City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2011 Page 1 of 9 t CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2011 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Jon Gustafson called the Planning Commission meeting of May 9, 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, Jim Johnson, Todd Prager and Russell Jones. Staff present were Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Denise Frisbee, Planning and Building Services Director; Sidaro Sin, Senior Planner; Sarah Selden, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Jean Hall, Administrative Support. 3. COUNCIL UPDATE Ms. Frisbee announced one planner was on maternity leave and the former natural resources planner had resigned and accepted a position in the Portland Mayor’s office. She said that Council and staff were going to discuss the budget for the natural resources program update and the Planning Commission recommendation regarding an Industrial Park (IP) District overlay. She stated that the Council was to study the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Ms. Frisbee and Councilor Gudman reported the Councilors and seven citizens were meeting as the Budget Committee during May and that the list of potential puts and takes the Committee had compiled included a cut of 3.2 Planning Division fulltime employees. Councilor Gudman reported the Council had been asked to expedite bringing Luscher Farm and other City-owned properties in the Stafford area into the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), but it had decided in a 4:2 vote that the normal process should be used. Commissioner Johnson questioned why the properties needed to be brought into the UGB. Mr. Egner recalled that Parks and Recreation wanted to use one of the properties for a new tennis facility and continue to use the Farm for a higher level of events. He said they reasoned that to have the Farm in the UGB would make it easier to carry out the Farm master plan; and it reasoned that if the City had to go through the legislative process for one property it might as well bring the others in at the same time. Commissioner Johnson suggested it was premature to bring land into the UGB before the master plan was adopted. He related that the County’s problem with City-sponsored events at the Farm was that the City conducted them without getting permits. He noted the Planning Commission had not been consulted about the proposal. He commended the Council for slowing the process down. Commissioner Jones agreed with Commissioner Johnson’s comments. Chair Gustafson indicated he was glad the proposal was going to come through the normal process. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2011 Page 2 of 9 4. WORK SESSION 4.1 Comprehensive Plan Update (PP 10-0007) Sarah Selden, Associate Planner, discussed the first (May 5) drafts of the Economic Opportunities Analysis and Housing Needs Analysis. The Commissioners said they saw a need to make the report more understandable; to make it clearer how the tables related to each other; and to explain why the concepts and measurements cited in it were important. The Commissioners observed that the demographic information showed that the percentage of the population in the 55 to 74 age range had increased the most and they speculated why the City had fewer young families. Commissioner Jones suggested the housing stock might not be turning over fast enough because residents were aging in place in their homes. Vice Chair Paretchan suggested seniors might be reluctant to sell homes they had lived in for a long time because of the tax consequences. Chair Gustafson suggested it might mean the City needed to provide more senior housing. Commissioner Johnson suggested the City needed to support the schools to attract younger families. Commissioner Prager questioned whether there was a need to drive down the cost of housing to attract young families. When asked, Mr. Egner advised that the increase in population between 1980 and 2000 was due more to development than annexation. The Commissioners examined Housing Sales and In-Migration Trends and noted that the low and medium growth forecasts estimated how much the population and the need for housing units within the UGB would grow through 2035. Ms. Selden explained that the medium growth forecast was consistent with Metro long term forecasts, but the Low Growth forecast was based on the most recent Census growth rate data. Commissioner Bhutani advised it would be important to know what the basic assumptions were for each forecast because medium forecast growth was double the low forecast and those assumptions would drive strategy and policies. Ms. Selden agreed to clarify that. She related that staff planned to collect more information that would connect currently marketed housing stock ages with price levels. She reasoned that if the City did not have a lot of houses available in a lower price range and if the ones that were available were older structures that might show where the gaps in housing stock were. Chair Gustafson and Commissioner Glisson observed that the age, square footage, and price level might indicate where potential “tear downs” were. The Commissioners then discussed the analyses that related vacant, partially vacant and redevelopable land to housing capacity. Ms. Selden observed the City was able show the State that it had enough total capacity to meet the range of housing need projections, but Goal 10 also had broader requirements related to housing mix. She explained that income ranges had been analyzed and translated into different housing types in Table 21. She pointed out that the Summary of Redevelopment Potential in Mixed-Use Zones assumed an average of 1,150 square feet per dwelling unit. Vice Chair Paretchan questioned whether that was large enough. Commissioner Bhutani recalled units in the Johns Landing area ranged between 800 and 1,200 square feet. Commissioner Glisson agreed that 1,150 square feet was reasonable in the light of the size of new condos on the market and that as land price went up units likely had to be smaller to be affordable. Commissioner Jones asked staff to look into a discrepancy of approximately 3,500 dwelling units between the 8,819 potential net new residential dwelling unit capacity in Table 22 and the 5,574 total in Table 18. Commissioner Bhutani found Table 22 to be an excellent summary, but advised it needed to be better linked to the other tables. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2011 Page 3 of 9 Ms. Selden explained that Table 17 summarized the redevelopment potential in each mixed-use zone. She indicated that Table 23 presented options for meeting the Metropolitan Housing Rule (MHR) density requirement through redevelopment (including in Foothills and the Boones Ferry Corridor) and by encouraging more secondary dwelling units. The Commissioners suggested it would be helpful to map where additional density was anticipated. The Commissioners referred to the report that suggested new policies might be needed to ensure the highest potential density of a zone would be realized. Ms. Selden said options could include things like incentives or minimum densities. The Commissioners discussed the requirement for clear and objective development standards. Commissioner Jones reasoned that if the City had been meeting the density goals all along the code must be clear and objective enough. Commissioner Johnson advised that was not necessarily the case. Mr. Boone advised that Chapter 50 still had to be examined to determine if it complied with the clear and objective standards requirement. He assured the Commissioners that there could still be design review; the code could allow a developer to choose between meeting clear and objective standards or opting for the design review process. Ms. Selden reported that staff had asked the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) if the City could take the approach of planning 10 dwelling units per acre based on the just the land it was projected to need for the population forecast instead of basing it on total acreage; or, if it’s approach could be to rely on the fact that the City had historically met the density requirement and report the result of any changes to zoning that had increased or decreased density since the last periodic review. Commissioner Jones advocated using whichever strategy would best maintain neighborhood character. Ms. Selden confirmed that the City did not need to up-zone a lot of low density areas; that its strategy could be to meet capacity in existing mixed-use and high density residential areas. She said Table 22 showed the City had the potential capacity to accommodate low and medium growth under current zoning. Commissioner Glisson questioned whether the level of redevelopment it assumed in medium density zones would really be attained. Commissioner Bhutani observed the table showed the City could easily meet the new dwelling units requirement in high density zones. She and Commissioner Jones questioned whether the options listed in Table 23 were really necessary to accommodate the medium growth forecast. Commissioner Glisson saw it as a useful menu of options to look at when developing implementation strategies. Commissioner Bhutani agreed it would be useful if the City wanted the flexibility to push density into walkable areas near transit. Commissioner Prager supported increasing density there so that densities could be decreased in some neighborhoods. Commissioner Johnson observed the City had the ability to show it had the capacity to meet the MHR and the community should decide how to implement its own vision. Commissioner Jones stressed the need to involve the citizens and gain “bottom up” support from the community and that it would be important to them where higher density took place. Chair Gustafson observed the housing inventory showed that 70% of the units added since 2000 were attached or multifamily units. Commissioner Bhutani stressed that it was important to have a design review process to ensure infill was consistent with neighborhood character in low density neighborhoods. Mr. Boone advised the City could not pick and choose where to require design review. He said the State’s clear and objective requirement applied to all housing, not just required housing. Ms. Selden related that staff planned to research how other communities met that requirement while still maintaining a high level of design. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2011 Page 4 of 9 Commissioner Bhutani and Mr. Egner observed there was a gap and the numbers did not match and that staff would try to sort that out with the consultant. Commissioners Glisson and Jones and Vice Chair Paretchan questioned whether all the information in the report – especially the options for implementation strategies - was really necessary to meet the State requirement. She indicated that the community had not yet had an opportunity to look at strategies, that the City should just show it had the capacity to meet density requirements. Ms. Selden planned to look at the grant contract to find out if strategies had to be submitted this early in the process. Commissioner Prager wanted the community to look at the connections between housing needs and employment opportunities when it considered implementation strategies. The Commission then discussed the draft Economic Opportunities Analysis. Ms. Selden indicated that Table 17 estimated the total potential demand for building floor area for different types of business uses. She explained that the Goals 9 and 10 Work Group and the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) recommended using the medium high and low forecast scenarios. She said the City had very little vacant employment land, but it did contain land with redevelopment potential that could help it meet the forecasts. Staff confirmed that that they could provide a map of it and asked if the Commissioners wanted to offer comments about policies and strategies that would shape the future of industrial land and jobs in Lake Oswego. Commissioner Johnson advised the City to consider how to fill the vacant space in existing buildings before looking at where new development would need new infrastructure. Commissioner Glisson suggested the City look at underutilized industrial sites. Commissioners Bhutani and Glisson advised staff to get an estimate, as accurate as possible, of the demand; they noted that other communities had assigned higher density along corridors that never came about due to a lack of demand for it. Commissioner Jones did not want to use more urban renewal tax increment financing because of the impact on the General Fund and the School District. Staff advised that filling existing space was what the Economic & Capital Development Department was working on and that Long Range Planning was looking beyond existing capacity. Commissioner Johnson questioned why the City would look for more land when existing buildings were not filled. The Commissioners asked staff to research whether the State really needed to see strategies in the draft report. Commissioner Bhutani advised the report needed to present a clearer picture of vacant space as well as vacant land as under-utilization was a big issue. Commissioner Jones wanted staff to list strategies and advise whether each was in fact needed. Staff offered to report again on May 23. 5. 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, Ordinance 2525, Attachment B, dated August 8, 2008 (continuing with pages 393-412). Continued from April 25, 2011. Section 50.77.025 Neighborhood Contact and Notice Required for Certain Applications Mr. Boone advised that the code did not specify an exact process for notice. He said it only stated that “Notice shall be given to the residents.” He explained that the process had been that when an applicant was about ready to file an application they got title company records, which were the latest from the assessor, but staff used the annual data the assessor provided each November. Vice Chair Paretchan wanted each notice City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2011 Page 5 of 9 mailing list to be based on the most current tax assessment data. She held that just posting a sign and mailing to the people on the list the City got from the county assessor once a year was not good enough. Mr. Boone confirmed that the assessor could be queried each time. But the assessor’s office did not archive its daily updates – only the annual update. Mr. Boone was concerned that having a new rolling date for each database would make it a challenge to establish the validity of a database and reconstruct it if it were challenged. He wanted to maintain consistency so property owners who had just taken ownership would not have the wrong expectation about being notified immediately. He said there could be a delay of three or four months between the time of filing and mailing of notice of hearing. He explained that State statutes required the City to use “the most recent tax assessment role” which was the database the assessor used in October and that it was the default date. He clarified that notice was to go to both the owners and the residents of the properties. He offered to look into getting the database on a quarterly basis. Vice Chair Paretchan indicated she could agree to use a quarterly database for the mailings. During the discussion Mr. Boone related that the Planning managers had found that sign posting was the most effective method of notice. Commissioner Johnson said that this had been his own experience as a county planner. He advised that to update the database once a year would be consistent with how it was done around the state and that consistency let everyone know it was a level playing field. He advised it was not realistic to believe that the mailing list could always catch up with the changes in ownership and that posting the property and publishing the notice in the newspaper helped catch more people. Chair Gustafson agreed a sign was the best means of notice. He questioned how much the proposed development would affect someone who did not run across the sign during the time it was posted. Vice Chair Paretchan observed that some people left town for the winter. Chair Gustafson observed the notice was mailed as well as posted. Mr. Boone clarified that neighborhood chairs each got his/her own notice via certified mail. He anticipated that the City would recoup the county fee for updates by charging the applicants, but they could still get their list from a title company. He indicated the City would maintain an archival record of each database it got. Chair Gustafson polled the Commissioners. Vice Chair Paretchan advocated quarterly updates. Commissioner Glisson would support increasing the frequency of updating the rolls if it was not too expensive or too cumbersome for staff, otherwise she would leave the process as proposed. Chair Gustafson said he was fine with it as written, but if it could be improved without imposing a large burden on the City or staff he could support quarterly updates. Commissioner Johnson indicated he accepted the provisions as written. He reasoned that a property owner had to take some responsibility on their own to keep up with what was going on. He said for example they could ask to be put on the City’s email list; check the City website once in a while; or have their neighbor call them if something came up while they were on vacation. Chair Gustafson observed a consensus to let Mr. Boone research the matter. Section 50.79.010 Ministerial Development Classification Mr. Boone would add the following title to 50.79.010(2)(n): “Change of Use/ Parking effect.” Commissioner Prager observed that (2)(p) would allow ministerial approval of development on Park and Natural Area (PNA) zoned land when the development was in accordance with an adopted Master Plan. He anticipated it would be a challenge to get to that level of detail in a Master Plan. Mr. Boone had advised the Parks and Recreation Department that they had to be very specific in the Master Plan if they wanted ministerial approval and that it would be up to the Planning Commission to decide if the Master Plan was specific, clear and unambiguous enough. He said if it was, the Department City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2011 Page 6 of 9 would not have to come in for conditional use review every time it wanted to do something in a park. Commissioners Johnson and Jones each indicated they felt a certain amount of distrust of the Parks and Recreation Department. Commissioner Johnson recalled Parks and Recreation had acquired land outside the City limits and gotten approvals from the county so it did not have to apply the more stringent City code. Commissioner Jones wanted to have some sort of public notice even if it were a ministerial decision. Mr. Boone advised in that case the Commission should address it under the Minor Development section which required notice to properties within 300 feet. Chair Gustafson observed the notice of the current hearing did not cover that. Commissioner Johnson stressed it would be important for the Commissioners to closely examine the next Master Plan when it came before the Commission. Mr. Boone advised if they did not think it was clear and objective enough they could impose conditions they thought were necessary, including a condition requiring a Development Review Commission (DRC) hearing. Staff and Commissioners then discussed items that had been carried over from the previous meeting. Section 50.20.035 Screening, Buffering and Landscape Installation A proposed provision called for a minimum 6-foot landscape strip along both sides of driveways serving flag lots. The Commissioners had previously agreed to change “driveway” to “access lane” in order to be consistent with the existing infill code, which differentiated between a “driveway” and an “access lane.” They had also discussed reducing the required width to 5 feet. Ms. Andreades presented a graphic to illustrate the proposed requirement. She explained what the current code required: the access lane was to be 12 feet of pavement with a 4-foot shoulder on either side; it had to be at least 5 feet away from an existing structure; there had to be a 6-foot landscaped strip wherever the driveway was within 10 feet of a residential structure; the requirement could be waived or modified if there was insufficient space for it. She clarified the proposed requirement to landscape both sides of the access lane would only apply to lane segments that were on flag lots. She said if the required landscaped strip was reduced to 5 feet, the required landscape strip and the required separation area would be the same area. She clarified that if the separation strip on one side of the lane was on someone else’s property the applicant would not have to landscape it. During the discussion Mr. Boone agreed with Commissioner Glisson that the provision should allow someone to put in a walkway and steps to the house. Commissioner Bhutani questioned why the code should tell an owner what to put along his driveway. She noted the big change was that landscaping was required on both sides. Vice Chair Paretchan asked why it had to be required on the owner’s house side as well as the neighbor’s side. Commissioner Glisson and Ms. Andreades observed that the developer might have to move the access lane (and the entire development) over by 5 feet in order to have the landscaped strip along the property line on his own property. Chair Gustafson suggested the landscaped strip should be required only if there was enough space for it. He agreed with reducing the required width to 5 feet so it was the same as the existing 5-foot separation requirement. He explained that he wanted to avoid a situation where the land was paved from the house to the property line. When Commissioner Glisson asked, Mr. Boone clarified that the driveway of a non-flag lot house could be right at the property line. Commissioner Glisson questioned why it had to be different on a flag lot – why the owner had to give up so much land. Ms. Andreades recalled the idea originated when numerous flag lots were being developed on Upper Drive and there was a lot of asphalt where two or three driveways were right next to each other. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2011 Page 7 of 9 Vice Chair Paretchan indicated she could agree to the proposed provision if it just required landscaping along the neighbor’s side of the lane. She suggested moving the proposed amendment to the policy heavy group of amendments. Commissioner Glisson was concerned it might require excessive devotion of land to buffering. Chair Gustafson explained the access lane was like a street. One would expect it to be landscaped on both sides. Commissioner Glisson then indicated she could support it if the required landscape strip were reduced to 5 feet to match the separation requirement. Commissioners Johnson, Jones and Bhutani indicated they could agree to it. Section 50.47.005 Landscaping, Screening and Buffering: Applicability There had only been four Commissioners at the previous meeting. They had been split regarding whether to apply the street tree planting requirement to building permits on vacant residential lots and expansion of primary residential structures by 400 square feet or more. Mr. Boone advised a street tree would be planted in the right-of-way or close enough to the right-of-way to overhang the right-of-way and provide a streetscape. He said if the streetscape had plenty of trees, existing trees could be counted. He added that a “street tree” was a protected tree and if it were dead or hazardous and had to be removed another street tree had to be planted there. He confirmed that the City would have to monitor the street tree just as it already monitored street trees that were required as part of subdivision approvals. Commissioner Glisson said planting a couple of street trees out by the road would not be in character with her street, so she had a problem making it a code requirement. Commissioner Bhutani asked the purpose. Mr. Boone explained that adding mass to a building had an impact on the streetscape. Commissioner Bhutani observed that the code allowed the additional mass, so that put the requirement in question. Commissioner Johnson wanted to clarify if this was intended to help screen structures or to create tree-lined corridors. He said if it was intended to screen, there were a lot of neighborhoods that had a more rural character than a treed urban street pattern. Mr. Boone explained it was for a transportation corridor affect and it was already applied to subdivisions and partitions. Commissioner Glisson noted Upper Drive had a green strip along the pathway along the road and that adding street trees in there did not make sense as it was not wide enough. She said adding them onto the other side of the pathway seemed like more than a resident should be required to do. Commissioner Bhutani suggested the end result could be a very disjointed pattern of trees that might not achieve the intent. Commissioner Prager suggested people could choose the kind of tree that fit the character of the neighborhood, the street and the backyards. He advised this amendment was consistent with what a lot of other cities were doing in order to build street tree infrastructure and that street trees helped mitigate impervious surfaces. He suggested the City allow owners who did not want to plant a tree to pay a fee in lieu that could be used to plant street trees where they were wanted and needed. He noted the Fees and Charges Schedule charged a $328 fee in lieu. Mr. Boone advised that addressed the mitigation issue when there was not enough room on the site for another tree, it could be planted offsite or the fee could be paid. Commissioner Glisson agreed with Commissioner Bhutani that if the intent was to screen development that was already allowed by code that did not seem appropriate. Commissioner Jones observed the City already had enough problems with the tree code without putting another requirement in it to require property owners to plant another tree, the City was already well treed. Vice Chair Paretchan agreed Lake Oswego had the most built up canopy in the region and in fact it had so much canopy that there was too much shade. She did not want the City to penalize owners by making them plant another tree when they decided to do something to their houses, that they had a right to build up to a certain size. She did not support the requirement that if one added 400 feet City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2011 Page 8 of 9 or more they had to plant a tree and have a special deed restriction that required it to be maintained. Commissioner Prager cautioned that Lake Oswego had a large tree canopy now, but it could lose it via redevelopment and infill. Commissioner Glisson and Vice Chair Paretchan wanted to remove (1)(i) and (1)(j) so the requirement would not apply to a building permit on a vacant lot or expansion of a primary dwelling. Commissioner Glisson observed it did not make sense just to plant a couple of trees at the street line on a vacant property before the landscaping plan was created. Chair Gustafson polled the Commissioners. Commissioners Johnson, Prager and Chair Gustafson supported applying the requirement to a building permit on a vacant lot and expansion of a primary residential structure that increased the floor area by 400 square feet or more. Commissioners Glisson, Bhutani, Jones and Vice Chair Paretchan did not support that. Mr. Boone observed the Commissioners had removed provisions (1)(i) and (1)(j). Commissioners Glisson and Bhutani clarified that they liked trees, but not this requirement. Sloped Lot Discussion Commissioner Jones had asked for slope lot standards to be more consistent. Ms. Andreades had sent out an analysis by Leslie Hamilton, Senior Planner. Ms. Andreades noted the recommendation was to use the term “footprint” in the definitions and to reduce the average slope trigger to a steeply sloped lot from 25% to 20%. Commissioner Johnson and Chair Gustafson agreed with using the term “footprint.” Mr. Boone related that staff was proposing to move the provision that described how to measure the height of a building on a sloped lot from Sloped Lot to Height of Building and that it was included in LU 08-0054. He clarified for Commissioner Prager there was really no change in the definition, Steeply Sloped Lot, other than to reduce the average to 20% for uniformity. He said the changes would not change the fact that his garage was exempt from garage appearance standards which had been an infill process policy choice. Chair Gustafson observed the consensus was to agree to the change. Ms. Andreades observed the Planning Commission had finished LU 08-0052 and staff would prepare the Findings. 5.1 LU 08-0054 (Ordinance 2526) – Community Development Code – Policy related Housekeeping Amendments. Amendments (Chapter 50) for the purpose of clarifying and updating various code provisions. These provisions have been identified as having policy implications. Discussion of items to prioritize for future review in preparation for reopening continued public hearing. Commissioner Johnson moved to continue LU 08-0054 to June 13, 2011. Commissioner Jones seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. 6. OTHER BUSINESS – PLANNING COMMISSION None. 7. OTHER BUSINESS – COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT None. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2011 Page 9 of 9 8. SCHEDULE REVIEW The Planning Commission planned to vote on the findings for LU 08-0052 on May 23 and continue with LU 08-0054 on June 13. 9. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Chair Gustafson adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Iris McCaleb /s/ Iris McCaleb Administrative Support