Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2011-05-23City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of May 23, 2011 Page 1 of 5 t CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2011 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Jon Gustafson called the Planning Commission meeting of May 23, 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. Council Liaison Jeff Gudman was also present. Staff present were Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Sidaro Sin, Senior Planner; Dennis Egner, Assistant Planning Director; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Support. 3. CITIZEN COMMENT None. 4. COUNCIL UPDATE Councilor Gudman reported that the Council had begun considering the Industrial Park (IP) zone modifications and that it had voted 4:3 to increase franchise fees for one year and use the additional revenue to support the School District. He explained that the Council had approved using construction excise tax-related Metro grant money for the Boones Ferry Road and Foothills projects and that it was going forward with an interim financing plan for the West End Building (WEB) and with North Anchor property purchases. He said the Budget Committee was considering the proposed City budget and had approved the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency (LORA) budget. 5. MINUTES Commissioner Glisson moved to accept the Minutes of February 28, 2011 as amended. Commissioner Jones seconded the motion and it passed 6:0:1. Commissioner Johnson abstained. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of May 23, 2011 Page 2 of 5 6. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER LU 08-0052 (Ordinance 2525) – Community Development Code – Minor Policy Amendments and General Housekeeping. Commissioner Glisson moved to approve the Findings, Conclusions and Order for LU 08-0052 as proposed giving the Chair and Vice Chair authorization to correct any scriveners errors that may be found. Commissioner Jones seconded the motion and it passed 6:0:1. Commissioner Bhutani abstained. 7. WORK SESSIONS 7.1 Boones Ferry Refinement Plan, Phase 2. Update on the project and review of related issues that will come before the Planning Commission. Dennis Egner, Assistant Planning Director, and Carolyn Krebs, Vice Chair of the Boones Ferry Road Refinement Plan – Phase 2, Project Advisory Committee (PAC), presented. They explained that the committee had examined all of the potential technical refinements and that it had worked on further clarifying how much right-of-way would be needed, and where. They indicated that there appeared to be enough land area in the proposed median for the green street to function properly. They said the PAC was about to examine the consultant’s economic analysis of the impact of the loss of left turns on businesses. They said the consultant was currently working on cost estimates and that some amendments to the Lake Grove Village Center Plan would be necessary. They indicated that the most significant potential amendment would relocate a proposed new signal to Madrona. Ms. Krebs anticipated the committee might propose additional adjustments before the end of the process based on feedback from corridor stakeholders. Mr. Egner said that in the fall a Metro grant would be funding work that would result in a financing strategy to implement the Plan. Boones Ferry Road Refinement Plan – Refinement Analysis Table Mr. Egner explained that key objectives were to avoid buildings; balance the impacts on both sides of the roadway as much as possible; and keep the median, which could never be added later. He confirmed that the median and sidewalk had to be narrowed in a couple of locations. He said that the project could not be accomplished incrementally – property by property – because that would result in an interim roadway that would vary drastically from property to property and because the road was to be designed to drain to the center median. The group looked at the refinements, starting from the south end of the corridor and noted that a new signal was now proposed at Madrona instead of at the shopping center. Ms. Krebs related the neighborhood understood why putting the signal there was necessary, it would help patrons access the bank, pizza parlor and other enterprises on the south side of Boones Ferry Road. She said the neighborhood recommended installing a traffic calming device to prevent cut-through traffic from entering the neighborhood. Commissioner Glisson recalled that the Committee anticipated the parking lots behind the businesses would be connected, but it did not want to see an actual driveway or street running behind them that would impact adjacent residences. Mr. Egner and Ms. Krebs clarified that crosswalks would be signalized only if and when traffic engineers agreed it was safe and warranted. Commissioner Johnson related that new technology could control signals based on real time traffic flow. Commissioner Glisson clarified the goal was to have flow at an average of 25 mph. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of May 23, 2011 Page 3 of 5 Mr. Egner explained that the Plan called for an 82-foot wide right-of-way but the consultants found that every intersection needed to be wider than that to make room for U-turns and that in some places the sidewalk would have to be narrowed from 9 feet to 5 feet to avoid building impacts. He said one compromise was there would be a single – not double – turn lane onto Bryant to lessen the impact on the bank property. He indicated that it was likely there would be impacts to Riccardos’ front patio and that the little red building in front of Naomi’s would have to be moved further back from the road. He pointed out that the right-of-way at the Chevron station at Oakridge had been adjusted since the report was distributed and that the new signal at McDonald’s would control access to the series of connected driveways behind it that eventually connected with Bryant. Mr. Egner said the proposed project would not close driveways because it was assumed driveways would be incrementally closed/consolidated during redevelopment. Commissioner Glisson recalled the original Lake Grove Village Center (LGVC) Advisory Committee wanted to see two or three public parking structures or lots to alleviate loss of parking spaces. Mr. Egner reported the PAC had rejected the deceleration lanes into the shopping center and into the post office that were suggested in the first phase of the Refinement Plan because of the necessary encroachments. He said the PAC was still working on the Lanewood intersection, which was in the most constrained part of the corridor. Streetscape Design Concepts The PAC had identified a need to ensure that sites that currently complied with parking, landscape and lot coverage requirements would not become nonconforming after they lost land to the right-of-way. Mr. Egner explained that some trees would need to be cut but trees would also be planted. He said the landscape architect consultant recommended the size of swale, but a secondary conveyance pipe underneath would be necessary when the swale was overwhelmed by rain. He indicated that the median would be planted with drought tolerant species and he pointed out that the median was as narrow as 6 feet in one place, but the rest of it varied between 8 and 10 feet. He said that as sites redeveloped they would be required to widen their sidewalks to 9 feet and the interim look would be sidewalks of various widths. Commissioners Johnson and Bhutani observed that would be similar to the pathway type look the area wanted to see. Ms. Krebs anticipated the 5-foot wide bike lanes would help buffer pedestrians on the sidewalk. She said the PAC had directed the consultant to study the “path in the woods” concept a bit more and refine the streetscape concept. Mr. Egner confirmed that the handbook team would illustrate the streetscape concept the refinement group came up with. He reported that the shopping center developer was ready to fulfill the condition of approval related to streetscape and that staff was to meet with them the following day to talk about what to do there. 7.2 Comprehensive Plan Update (PP 10-0007). Draft Housing Needs Analysis (HNA) and Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) – Review Updated Draft Report. Sidaro Sin, Senior Planner discussed the draft HNA and EOA reports with the Commissioners. The Commissioners had offered comments about the initial drafts at their May 9 meeting and staff was working on refining them. The Commissioners discussed the issue of whether to list specific implementation strategies in the report to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). Commissioners Bhutani and Jones and Vice Chair Paretchan asked staff to make them more general, that it would be up to the community to vet specific, detailed strategies and that some of them could be controversial. Chair Gustafson would agree to that as long as the report met DLCD grant requirements. Commissioner Johnson advised the Commissioners to not be afraid to include detail. Commissioner Glisson would agree to list strategies if the report made it clear that they were just potential strategies that could be explored. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of May 23, 2011 Page 4 of 5 Commissioner Jones questioned talking about strategies at all when the community could meet the need for housing without them. Commissioner Prager wanted to let the other committees do their work and wait until it came back to the Planning Commission to make any changes, that to revise it now was micromanaging it. However, Commissioner Jones felt the Commission had been mostly left out of the loop until now. Commissioner Bhutani advised the process worked better if all the bodies working on it suggested changes as the documents moved forward. Vice Chair Paretchan moved to eliminate all the bullets under #1 of the May 18, 2011 version and ask staff to clarify that the strategies listed were just the starting place for discussion with the community and the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC). Commissioner Jones seconded the motion and it passed 5:2. Commissioners Johnson and Prager voted against. The Commissioners discussed the Employment Opportunities Analysis. Commissioner Bhutani asked staff to be sure that “Redevelopment land supply” included vacant office space. Mr. Sin reported a good turnout at the March 29 Open House and responses to some key questions. He reported the CAC and the Sustainability Advisory Board (SAB) had already offered input. Commissioner Bhutani observed staff had provided a lot of information for people to absorb. She suggested they simplify it and make it easier for people to compare scenarios. Vice Chair Paretchan suggested that staff make the differences between scenarios much clearer, they should explain what was unique about each new scenario and what could be done under the existing Comprehensive Plan. As an example, she questioned why there could not be walkable and connected neighborhoods under the existing Plan. Mr. Sin explained that the Village Center scenario put more emphasis on the “20 Minute Neighborhood” concept, there were more pedestrian and bike connections and people could walk to work. He said the intent was to have it happen in places where existing commercial development existed like Mountain Park where areas could be redeveloped and rezoned to new, mixed use zones. Vice Chair Paretchan suggested explaining it to the public that way. Commissioner Bhutani advised using maps and graphics that would make the differences clearer. Commissioner Jones questioned use of sustainability filters because “sustainability” meant something different to everyone. Mr. Sin explained the process was using sustainability framework questions to ensure that the environmental, social and economic consequences of each potential policy and goal were considered and that it had been discussed with the SAB. Commissioner Bhutani wanted the Planning Commission and all City boards and commissions to have input into the process, but she was concerned the Commission had not been more involved in it. She said the Planning Commission was the City’s land use and long range planning body. Chair Gustafson recalled the Commissioners had discussed the issue previously in relation to the visioning process, but the Council had decided to form a separate citizens’ advisory committee for the Comprehensive Plan update process. He acknowledged there were Planning Commission representatives serving on the CAC and the Work Group and that those groups held public meetings and invited public comment. Commissioner Johnson recalled the City historically used a CAC to do the brunt of the work before it was reviewed by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Bhutani held the Commission needed to understand how the scenarios and policies were arrived at. Vice Chair Paretchan indicated the Commission should be more involved in the process; the process should not be rushed; and each scenario City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of May 23, 2011 Page 5 of 5 should be explained more clearly. Chair Gustafson agreed explaining the scenarios were key to getting meaningful public input. Commissioner Jones observed the results of the Open House indicated that the majority of votes for scenarios were cast for Village Centers and Existing Comprehensive Plan. He suggested incorporating desired attributes of the Village Centers into the Existing Plan and that the Streetcar could be accomplished under the existing Plan. He said density could be focused in town centers and corridors and outside neighborhoods (preserving neighborhood character) under the existing Plan. Mr. Sin agreed the work shop results seemed to say that could be a way to go. The Commissioners suggested that staff format the material as clearly and concisely as possible, perhaps using better graphics, a map and a matrix to make it as easy as possible for the public to understand and compare scenarios. Mr. Sin asked them to email any additional feedback by the following Wednesday. 8. OTHER BUSINESS – PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Boone distributed a memo regarding notice to property owners of applications and public hearings and use of the most recent property tax assessment roll (LU 08-0052). It addressed questions the Commission raised at a previous meeting.  Discussion of Future Work Plan Commissioner Johnson suggested waiting to consider amendments to the Willamette River Greenway and Industrial lands code until after the Comprehensive Plan update. The Commissioners added the following items to the work plan: consideration of LU 08- 0054 Definitions; accessory structures; items for further discussion that had previously been removed from or identified during LU 08-0052; housing options; and Foothills. They would consider amendments to the Lake Grove Village Center Plan and the results of the related financing study. The staff was to schedule housing and Foothills tours. The Commissioners would start discussing accessory structures on June 27. The Commissioners agreed to continue the procedure of using yellow buttons and for rotating the order of voting. There was also consensus to hold meetings with the Commission seated at the dais unless staff was asked to provide an alternate format. 9. OTHER BUSINESS – COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT None. 10. ADJOURNMENT The next meeting was scheduled on June 13, 2011. There being no further business Chair Gustafson adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Iris McCaleb /s/ Iris McCaleb Administrative Support