Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2011-06-13City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2011 Page 1 of 5 t CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 2011 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Jon Gustafson called the Planning Commission meeting of June 13, 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 and Commissioners Puja Bhutani, Julia Glisson, Jim Johnson, Russell Jones and Todd Prager. Vice Chair Paretchan was excused. Council Liaison Jeff Gudman was also present. Staff present were Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Sarah Selden, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Support. 3. CITIZEN COMMENT None 4. COUNCIL UPDATE Councilor Jeff Gudman reported that the Council had directed staff to revise the Industrial Park District (IP) overlay proposal to expand it to apply to new as well as existing buildings; to add self-storage facilities; and to add more retail uses. 5. MINUTES 5.1 Commissioner Bhutani corrected the draft and then Commissioner Jones moved to approve the Minutes of March 14, 2011 as amended. Commissioner Bhutani seconded the motion and it passed 6:0:1. Commissioner Johnson recused. 5.2 Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the Minutes of March 28, 2011. Commissioner Jones seconded the motion and it passed 5:0:2. Commissioner Bhutani and Commissioner Glisson recused. 5.3 Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the Minutes of April 11, 2011. Commissioner Jones seconded the motion and it passed 6:0:1. Commissioner Bhutani recused. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2011 Page 2 of 5 6. COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT Discussion of the City’s program for citizen involvement in land use planning and feedback to help inform updates to the Citizen Involvement element of Lake Oswego’s Comprehensive Plan (PP 11-0007). In preparation for public engagement around the Community Culture action area of the updated Comprehensive Plan, a component of which is citizen engagement, Associate Planner Sarah Selden asked for the Commissioners’ thoughts on the existing Comprehensive Plan Citizen Involvement chapter. During the discussion Commissioner Jones suggested the City should be more proactive in reaching out to boards and commissions and community groups. Ms. Selden confirmed for Commissioner Glisson that all neighborhood association chairs were notified about the annual CCI meeting. She reported that neighborhoods were not raising as many issues related to the Commission for Citizen Involvement now as in the past. Commissioner Bhutani suggested that social media was an important tool for encouraging broader public participation. These applications can supplement public outreach campaigns as they can attract more youth stakeholders as well as people with busy schedules who are interested in participating, but don’t have time to attend meetings. These provide flexibility in how much to participate and when to participate. Commissioner Johnson advised the City to ensure its website was easy to use, constantly updated, and featured electronic versions of the CDC and Comprehensive Plan. He indicated it was important to provide graphics to illustrate the code. Chair Gustafson agreed it was important to utilize the website and social media. He noted the code on the web now was much easier to use and the City had begun to use social media for outreach regarding the sewer project and the Comprehensive Plan update. Commissioner Prager cautioned that people should not be allowed to post anonymous comments. He held that comments submitted via email or web posts should carry as much weight as in-person comments at meetings. His experience was that online surveys helped people understand an issue and the feedback helped public bodies prepare for and run efficient meetings. He suggested using visuals to explain concepts wherever possible. He supported appointing members with a diversity of viewpoints and perspectives to boards and committees. Commissioner Bhutani advised there were ways to improve the effectiveness of online surveys and social media as planning tools and the City should explore them. Commissioner Glisson cautioned the City should not forget the segment of the population who still relied on more traditional ways of receiving and offering input, such as reading it in Hello L.O. and other print media and seeing pictures on a wall. Ms. Selden clarified for Commissioner Prager that the Special Districts chapter included neighborhood plans and that the newest neighborhood plans needed to be added to that chapter. He suggested putting information about every neighborhood into that chapter now, as part of the Comprehensive Plan update, instead of doing it piecemeal over many years, that it was not necessary to do it in a high level of detail – just talk about the general goals and policies of each neighborhood. He said it would help people understand what the Comprehensive Plan meant at the neighborhood level and it would help inform the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Jones observed that incorporating that into the Comprehensive Plan could help maintain the character of individual neighborhoods. Commissioner Johnson advised that some neighborhoods were more involved than others; some had no issues and/or were not interested in having a plan; and in the past some neighborhoods wanted special policies just for their neighborhood that might not fit the rest of the community. Commissioner Bhutani advised it was a two-way street: Comprehensive Plan communitywide policies and neighborhood policies should jive with City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2011 Page 3 of 5 each other. Commissioner Glisson recalled the Commission had discussed this issue a couple of years ago and decided to recommend “visioning lite” instead, that it might be appropriate to consider the issue again, but there might not be staffing resources available to do that. Chair Gustafson suggested the Comprehensive Plan could just acknowledge the value of having different neighborhood associations and say that each one of them can have a plan that reflects its own identity. Commissioner Glisson recalled a neighborhood representative had requested that the City codify a neighborhood association’s right to participate in preapplication conferences, that currently they were invited as a courtesy. Commissioner Glisson said she would like to see it codified. Staff reported the City and more and more neighborhood associations were moving toward having more online communication. Commissioner Jones held it was important to have face-to-face contact. Commissioner Bhutani added that utilizing social media was supplemental to that. Chair Gustafson wanted to remind people that the Planning Commission was also the Commission for Citizen Involvement (CCI) and they could come to Commission meetings to tell the Commissioners about their concerns. Ms. Selden suggested staff could put an article about that in Hello L.O. Citizen Comments Charles (Skip) Ormsby, Birdshill Road, Portland, Oregon 97219-8502, advised the City to provide visual dictionaries (including maps) to explain definitions and technical terms so people understood them. He suggested utilizing summary sheets; videotaping; cable access; scanning documents to provide online; and looking at the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) scoring sheet. 7. WORK SESSION Comprehensive Plan (PP 10-0007) - Quarterly update on milestones, current activities, next steps and results of June 2 Open House. Ms. Selden reported the majority of the Council had agreed to move forward using the sustainability framework that the Sustainability Advisory Board (SAB) recommended to help guide the plan update. She reported the Housing and Economic reports had been submitted to the State of Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) and that the Transportation Systems Plan (TSP) update process was about to start. She reported the feedback from the open houses indicated the Village Center scenario had the most support and that the CAC was going to consider which to recommend as the preferred scenario at its next meeting, and the Council was to review the recommendation on July 19. She explained that staff proposed a phased process that would address and accept each action area individually and that eventually they would all be adopted together. She reviewed the proposed schedule and asked the Commissioners for feedback. During the ensuing discussion Ms. Selden clarified that staff had been focusing on what they heard from the community regarding which scenario would best implement the vision. She confirmed the CAC could recommend a hybrid scenario. Commissioner Bhutani cautioned them to keep in mind that less than 2% of the population had attended the two open houses to talk about scenarios and that the CAC should also look at the results of the consultant’s analysis. She said the fact that LOconomy might have more value in certain action areas should be considered in arriving at the preferred scenario. Ms. Selden clarified for Commissioner Jones that the scenarios did not reflect expanding the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) into the Stafford basin and they City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2011 Page 4 of 5 considered Luscher Farm to be a community gathering place, not a commercial node or employment area. Commissioner Jones asked what the vision’s reference to “locally grown food” meant. Ms. Selden related that community input indicated that it valued the opportunity to grow local food at Luscher Farm, and may be interested in additional opportunities. Commissioner Jones referred to the goal to have a healthy ecosystem and being good stewards of environment. He suggested the City should lead by example and rehabilitate its natural areas and open spaces. Commissioner Bhutani suggested that pathways and sidewalks also served as important spaces for connecting people socially, especially in residential and mixed use areas. She suggested that the Connected Community action area should also address this “social” aspect of neighborhood paths, at least in the goals/objectives section. Tom Brennan, a CAC member in the audience, confirmed the CAC had discussed using pathways for more than just pathways. He liked Commissioner Bhutani‘s suggestion to make space for social activities. Ms. Selden clarified for Commissioner Prager that public facility plans and the Transportation System Plan Update would eventually be integrated into the Comprehensive Plan and that the initial assessment and effort would be by technical advisory committees. She said the Transportation Advisory Board, assisted by Engineering Department staff, would work on the TSP update, then the CAC would also consider it. Commissioner Prager recommended keeping an eye out for opportunities for public involvement in those plans too. Commissioner Johnson advised the City to ensure the TSP fit the regional transportation plan. Ms. Selden confirmed that each topic of the Comprehensive Plan update would be heard by the Commission before the final plan was consolidated. She agreed to consider revising the 2012 schedule so there were not so many meetings in summer, which was typically a low attendance time of year. She planned to forward the open ended comments from the open house to the Commission with the next CAC meeting packet. She recalled many of those comments had to do with better transit of various kinds. 8. PUBLIC HEARING LU 08-0054 (Ordinance 2526) – Amendments to the Community Development Code (Chapter 50) for the purpose of clarifying and updating various code provisions. These provisions had been identified as having policy implications. Continued from May 9, 2011. Commissioner Johnson moved to continue LU 08-0054 (Ordinance 2526) to July 11, 2011. Commissioner Glisson seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. 9. OTHER BUSINESS – PLANNING COMMISSION Chair Gustafson said the Council was about to consider different IP zone options than what the Commission recommended and questioned whether or not the Council understood how the Commission had arrived at its recommendation and whether the Commissioners should look for an opportunity to provide additional clarification and feedback. Staff assured them the entire record, including findings, minutes, staff reports and testimony would be available to the Council, along with a staff report which would summarize the proposed changes to the Commission recommendation. Councilor Gudman said he was speaking for himself, not the Council. He said he would welcome any or all Commissioners to come and offer his/her thoughts at the Council meeting. He said arrangements could be made so the Planning Commission received the staff report at the same time it was distributed to the Councilors. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2011 Page 5 of 5 10. OTHER BUSINESS – COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT None. 11. SCHEDULE REVIEW Ms. Andreades distributed the itinerary for the June 24 housing tour; she indicated the Foothills tour was scheduled prior to the June 27 Planning Commission meeting. 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Chair Gustafson adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Iris McCaleb /s/ Iris McCaleb Administrative Support