Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2011-06-27City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of June 27, 2011 Page 1 of 8 t CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 2011 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Jon Gustafson called the Planning Commission meeting of June 27, 2011, to order at 6:50 p.m. in the Council Chamber 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, Todd Prager and Russell Jones. Commissioners Bill Gaar and Jim Johnson were excused. Council Liaison Jeff Gudman was also present. Staff present were Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Dennis Egner, Assistant Planning Director; Denise Frisbee, Director, Planning and Building Services; Brant Williams, Director, Economic and Capital Development Department; Jane Blackstone, Economic Development Manager; Laura Weigel, Associate Planner; Johanna Hastay, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Support. Guests were Matt Brown and Christe White with Williams Dame & White and Philip Stewart with Myhre Group Architects, Inc. 3. CITIZEN COMMENT None. 4. COUNCIL UPDATE Councilor Gudman reported that the Council had reviewed the Community Development Code (CDC) housekeeping amendments and approved the City and Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency (LORA) budgets. 5. WORK SESSIONS 5.1 Foothills District (PP 11-0003) Update on Concept Plan and discussion of site tour. Brant Williams, Director, Economic and Capital Development Department, had led the Commissioners on a tour of the Foothills District site prior to the meeting. At the meeting Matt Brown and Christe White, Williams Dame & White, updated the Commissioners on the Foothills Framework Plan. Mr. Brown described the work plan as comprehensive and “development intelligent.” They indicated there was to be intense and broad-based public input and there were “off ramps” the City could take if it was not satisfied with the following aspects of the plan: financial feasibility, streetcar planning, floodplain mitigation, the wastewater treatment plant, and how urban renewal would work. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of June 27, 2011 Page 2 of 8 Ms. White explained that analysis showed filling the floodplain would not create a significant net rise in flood levels and the development team now knew exactly how many cubic yards of fill it would take. She said they were looking for natural resource restoration projects along the river that would make cuts that would help balance and mitigate for that amount of fill. She stated that nothing in the current proposal violated Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) model standard that required development to stay 200 feet away from the river. Mr. Brown said conceptual Scheme B was considered the reasonable development approach and that it was more like a plat map than a development proposal. He clarified that the Portland Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) wastewater treatment plant and the condominium sites were not redevelopment areas. Mr. Brown stressed that parking efficiency was critical to the viability of mixed use development. He pointed out that Block 3 contained a tray of underground parking. Ms. White explained that an oversight committee of experts had examined a development scenario for each block to assess financial feasibility and then endorsed the process. She said Eco Northwest was using that data to determine the cost of infrastructure and utilities. Mr. Brown reported that a public workshop was scheduled for July 14 and the draft framework plan would be released for public comment in August and then considered by the Council. He said the development team would return to update the Boards and Commissions in September and if the Council agreed to the plan the process would move right into the regulatory amendment process. During the discussion the Ms. White confirmed that fill mitigation could only be done along the Willamette River. She clarified that Scheme B did not force the apartment owners to redevelop – they would decide whether and when to redevelop and that Scheme B used the existing road network. Mr. Brown said there was no reason to upgrade that street until a redevelopment proposal was in process. Ms. White indicated that all but one of the affected industrial property owners were looking for redevelopment options for their land and that the remaining owner wanted to relocate his business. She said that urban renewal projects typically helped businesses relocate. She explained that if there was no streetcar, the momentum and nature of development in Foothills would change. She indicated that the price of infrastructure would likely go up when there was no federal investment leverage. Mr. Brown said the streetcar project would build a bridge over Tryon Creek that would make it possible to run Foothills Road across the creek at grade to connect directly with Terwilliger. He said the framework plan itself did not propose to build the bridge and that it was unlikely that development alone could pay for it. He indicated that without that bridge the other logical option for the road was over the existing Public Storage driveway because the grade would match. Commissioner Bhutani stressed that the Downtown and Foothills plans should be synergized, and not compete for retail business. She questioned how the proposed downtown gateway at A Avenue would function in the long term when the real functional gateway to Foothills was B Avenue with its direct connection to streetcar stops, development, and Foothills Park. She stated that over time B Avenue would probably replace A Avenue in terms of prominence, and asked how that would impact the downtown Lake Oswego and the North Anchor project. She noted that the plan proposed a string of plazas along the east side of State Street and questioned how that would work with Millennium Park and Sundeleaf Plaza and also the functioning of downtown Lake Oswego and State Street. She was concerned that the steps would inhibit pedestrians from going from Foothills to Downtown. She wanted to hear more about the sustainability aspects of the plan. Mr. Brown acknowledged the team needed to work on making the connection between Downtown and Foothills clearer so people City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of June 27, 2011 Page 3 of 8 would think of them as the same place. Ms. White related that each of the disciplines on the development team had the expertise to put sustainability into every aspect of the design. They were tasked to create a district that would qualify for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design-Neighborhood Development (LEED ND) Gold, Silver or Platinum and that the final framework plan would recommend policies intended to ensure development met LEED standards. She indicated that it would also define “eco district” and contain related performance measures. She said the development team was talking with BES about ways the district could use the plant’s water. Mr. Brown clarified that employment was a secondary focus in Foothills, not a primary focus. Ms. White confirmed there would be mixed use, with small scale retail on ground floors and that there could also be employment associated with office use, especially near the rail alignment, if the market wanted that. She said that the Foothills planners were closely following the work on housing being done in the Comprehensive Plan update process. She indicated that one housing type that seemed to be needed in Lake Oswego was senior living facilities, which were significant employment generators. Mr. Brown said the district could be connected to Kruse Way and the South Waterfront employment areas and that a small shuttle system might be considered. Ms. White clarified the kind of housing in Foothills would be driven by market conditions and public policy choices. She explained that “Affordable housing” meant different things to different jurisdictions and that unit size was important in attracting young families. She said that it had to be big enough for a family, at least 1,000 sq. ft. per unit. She pointed out that data showed that young families and the 65+ population liked the same type of housing for different reasons. They wanted to be downtown, in walkable communities and close to transit. Mr. Brown indicated that “Affordability” had been expanded from just the cost of housing to include transportation costs. Chair Gustafson asked how detailed the final framework plan would be. He stressed it was important that the new district look unique to Lake Oswego. Ms. White reported the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) had looked at design concepts and heights in relation to the topography and that the final plan would likely recommend standards for things like base heights, Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limits and architectural setbacks. She said the district would have its own design standards. Mr. Brown indicated that the market would likely define what “mixed use” was appropriate. He said Eco Northwest was analyzing revenue assumptions based on a guess of what each block would be good for. He clarified that they had started with the primary north/south connection in the northern part of Foothills and added some east/west streets which created a gridded street pattern in the north. He added that streets might meander more in the south. Chair Gustafson thanked the development team and invited the Economic and Capital Development Department staff to talk about tying Foothills to Downtown. Mr. Williams related that the Mayor believed it was vital to connect Downtown to Foothills and the river. He indicated that Downtown core projects included the North Anchor/Library development; extension of Sundeleaf Plaza, a hotel development on the Wizer site and redevelopment of the Safeway site. He said the two latter projects would likely include housing components that Downtown needed more people on the street to support its retail uses. Jane Blackstone talked about the North Anchor/Library project. She explained that it would be mixed use with ground floor retail and public parking and that it would have a housing component. She said the objective was to create more of a matrix feeling than the current “corridor” or “one-block” feeling and that it would help create a network of uses that would help knit Downtown and Foothills together. Mr. Williams related the Council was still interested in discussing taking control of Highway 43/State Street, but Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) had not yet offered enough compensation City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of June 27, 2011 Page 4 of 8 for it. He related that staff supported locating the streetcar terminus in Foothills because that would maximize the value of properties on both sides of the streetcar; the timing would work better with Foothills development; and it would reduce the risk that terminus development might push neighborhood retail out of the shopping center. He said the streetcar could still be extended to the shopping center and even to Marylhurst in the future and that the shopping center owner had indicated they were interested when the time was right. Chair Gustafson suggested the illustrations the development team presented should illustrate the North Anchor and Wizer developments to the north as well as a developed Foothills so people would understand the effort was not just about Foothills. Mr. Williams offered to brief the Commission on LORA development plans at a future date. 5.2 Transportation Systems Plan (PP 10-0016). Update on request for proposal and schedule. Laura Weigel, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. She reported that the Transportation Systems Plan (TSP) had last been updated in 1997, that Clackamas County Transportation staff was helping scope the Request for Proposals and that a consultant would be on board by mid-October. Assistant City Engineer Erica Rooney would advise and the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) would be the technical advisory committee. Ms Weigel said staff would ask the Commission and the Comprehensive Plan Update Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) for feedback along the way. She indicated TAB and the CAC would forward a recommendation to the Planning Commission and the Commission would forward its recommendation to the Council. She said the technical work would be done first and the public involvement process would happen later in the process. She also indicated that sustainability staff was working on a greenhouse gas emissions inventory to inform the process. 5.3 Design Handbooks for Lake Grove Village Center & Infill (PP 10-0017). Presentation and discussion of consultant drafts for both handbooks. Associate Planner Johanna Hastay presented the staff report and consultant Philip Stewart was also present. Ms. Hastay reported the stakeholder meetings were well attended and former members of the Lake Grove Village Center (LGVC) Architectural Subcommittee had offered feedback. She explained that the Commission had previously agreed the LGVC code and standards should focus more on qualitative aspects than specific architectural styles. She said the consultant had drafted a handbook that illustrated qualitative design principles and that code amendments would be needed to implement them; she asked for Commission feedback. Staff also informed the Commission that there were interested parties who still wanted the list of specific architectural styles retained in the code, but others did not think it was necessary and that specifying styles might make it more difficult to get good design. Staff planned to refine the handbook after an additional formal stakeholders’ meeting and present it to the Commission later in the year. Mr. Stewart discussed the Infill Handbook. He pointed out that it illustrated how design principles could be applied to three different lot types and different topography. During the discussion the Commissioners expressed concern that the photographs used to illustrate things the code required also contained aspects that could not be done under the code. They also observed the fact that different districts required or did not allow different things complicated the effort. Chair Gustafson suggested just illustrating the broader standards. The Commission discussed how to make it very clear to the reader that he/she should not just build the house in the photograph, but refer to the code. They discussed inserting links to footnotes in the back, inserting hyperlinks to applicable City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of June 27, 2011 Page 5 of 8 code text in the online version and making it clearer which aspects being illustrated were required by the code and which were intended to be inspirational. Mr. Boone suggested a legal disclaimer that the photographs were intended to illustrate a certain aspect of the code; they were limited to that purpose; and the reader should not assume the whole house in the photograph met the code. The Commissioners discussed the section suggesting how to use topography to diminish scale and they asked staff to find a photograph that showed a more attractive design solution to illustrate how a driveway/garage could be accessed from the street on a steep lot. Commissioner Bhutani suggested that the images/diagrams be labeled for greater clarity. She also noted that the majority of information was grouped under the narrow right column making it hard to read and that this should be formatted to be more user friendly. Staff suggested revising the formatting so the captioned information clustered at the bottom of a page was located directly under each photograph and in a larger font. Ms. Hastay anticipated the handbook would be a working document that could be edited and added to by staff and that it could be changed to be consistent with the new, reorganized code the City would have in November. Mr. Stewart guided the Commissioners through the Lake Grove Village Center Handbook. Ms. Hastay acknowledged there was more work to do and that the Architectural Subcommittee had agreed. She and Mr. Egner wanted to see more about transitional areas moving away from Boones Ferry Road down local streets; they wanted the handbook to show ways to enhance the pedestrian experience along the narrow sidewalk where pedestrians encountered frequent driveways; and they wanted the handbook to focus on all the building facades – not just the Boones Ferry Road elevation. Ms. Hastay asked for Commission comments. During the discussion the Commissioners wanted to know if the handbook was regulatory. Ms. Hastay clarified it tried to illustrate regulations and then what could be done after the clear and objective standards had been met. She said for example, the code required a pedestrian friendly environment and that just having an awning coming out was not enough. She indicated that the handbook suggested other design aspects to enliven the ground floor. Mr. Boone advised the code sometimes referred to the handbook as regulatory, so the handbook had to clearly state when it implemented a particular section of code and when it was just illustrating a code. He said a prime example was permitted architectural styles, the code clearly stated the permitted architectural styles were to be provided in accordance with the building design section of the Lake Grove Village Center Design Handbook. He said until the handbook was adopted the code listed those styles and that the handbook needed to illustrate the permitted building design. Chair Gustafson agreed that if the code said one needed to activate corners and referred to the handbook, the handbook needed to be really clear about what options were available, it was not just a book of great ideas and options. Mr. Egner said the handbook was supposed to define the character of the district. He noted two sections that were not yet done: the streetscape (that would come out of the Boones Ferry Refinement process) and public spaces. Commissioner Glisson wanted to hear more about the specific concerns that came out of the meetings, that the direction staff and the consultant went in might not reflect what the Advisory Committee wanted. Ms. Hastay related they had discussed architectural styles because some thought it would be hard for a developer to know where to start designing, should they start with an architectural style and then make it meet all the other site development and building design standards, or should they start with building design standards and add on elements of a specific architectural style? She indicated that having architectural styles as a starting point had provided the original advisory committee with a level of safety, but it removed a lot of creativity from the process; it created confusion, and that did not City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of June 27, 2011 Page 6 of 8 necessarily result in the best design. She believed the combination of design principles; the high value of land in Lake Oswego, and the multiple reviews in the design review process was likely to result in good design. She reported the consultant had examined photographs the Architectural Subcommittee had given him; examined what they liked about those buildings; identified common themes; and then used them to develop the design guidelines. She said specific architectural styles had been intentionally left out and that might be a more subtle approach than people were expecting. Mr. Egner recalled many examples offered by the Subcommittee were examples of scale and fitting the pedestrian environment which was the good result they wanted. He said it was more about designing a good building than using any particular type of style. Ms. Andreades recalled finding styles in conflict with the text of the code and the feeling and character people wanted at the street. Commissioner Glisson hoped the sections on streetscape and public spaces would encourage people to create some gathering spaces. She and Commissioner Bhutani agreed the illustration on the cover needed more work and the handbook needed to make it clearer how everything, including the corner treatments and the String of Pearls, related to the framework plan. Commissioner Bhutani questioned how the proposal framework diagram related to the LGVC framework plan consisting of village commons, gathering places and gateways, and whether these two could/should be integrated. She asked whether there were any specific architectural guidelines for these spaces and if these could be articulated in the handbooks section regarding public spaces. She also questioned if the handbook should be organized to illustrate general principals applicable to all buildings separate from those applicable to specific areas like corner buildings, gathering places and village transitional areas. Currently they were all mixed together. Ms. Hastay planned to meet with the Subcommittee again, modify the handbook, and present it to the Commission again in the coming months. Public Comments Carolyn Krebs and Darcy Eaton commented on the draft handbook as part of the Architectural Subcommittee. Ms. Krebs indicated aspects of it were consistent with what they wanted to see, including design principles, semi-public spaces, pedestrian-oriented ground floors and articulated corners. However, she indicated they were disappointed that it did not contain sketches and drawings that took architectural styles and showed the elements that were important and showed what the Advisory Committee wanted to evoke by naming those styles. She said they wanted words and pictures that described a diverse mix of styles – a palette of diverse architectural styles that were in Lake Grove now and what they wanted to continue to see in a redeveloped district. Ms. Krebs acknowledged it was a challenge to describe diversity instead of just prescribing a style. She indicated that having the list of architectural styles helped and offered a lot of latitude to an architect, who could build on a classical style, make it contemporary, and make it fit the district. She recalled a lot of committee work had gone into identifying those styles and coming to agreements about which were appropriate styles for different areas. During the questioning period, Ms. Krebs confirmed that when the committee created the list of permitted architectural styles they had also rejected some styles, such as Mediterranean and Spanish styles. She noted the handbook had a lot of photographs, but she was expecting drawings and sketches that would take the architectural styles the committee had specified and help a developer understand how they could be made more contemporary. She clarified she did not expect the handbook to have every single style that was listed - that would be an incredibly labor intensive job – but she expected it to take a couple of the styles and show how each style could be respected, but made contemporary. Ms. Eaton indicated that the developer’s/architect’s role in the creative process was to take some of those elements and show how they would bring them about in Lake Grove. Ms. Krebs and Ms. Eaton confirmed for Chair Gustafson that they were City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of June 27, 2011 Page 7 of 8 concerned that the district might end up with a mish-mash of styles on one building. Chair Gustafson asked if banning some styles was to achieve a cohesive representative style. Ms. Krebs explained they wanted to ensure that the district did not end up with a “Lake Grove look” that was one particular building style that every developer would expect would be easy to get approved because it was the same style. They wanted to see a mix of styles. Ms. Eaton cited the example of Lakeview Village, that it had different buildings with different materials on them, but it “flowed” and the designs did not fight each other. Ms. Krebs clarified that they were worried that the opportunity to have the consultant provide the kind of drawings they were hoping to see would end soon, that the handbook should list the permitted architectural styles. She explained that the handbook should highlight a few styles and offer examples of a few important elements of those styles and how they could be expressed in a contemporary building; it would not be prescriptive, but just show what the district expected to see with that particular style. Mr. Boone advised the code language did not permit diversity that resulted in defining a dominant style of the block and it called for building components to be in proper proportion as determined by the architectural style of the building, each building was supposed to have one style. He explained that to allow a building to have multiple elements of multiple styles would require a change to the code. Mr. Egner explained the problem was that the code requirements and standards did not match the listed styles and they restricted the ability to pick some of those styles. He said staff intent was to extract from those styles and insert language that got at the design elements that made up those styles. Ms. Krebs and Ms. Eaton indicated that was not what they were asking for. Ms. Krebs recalled the applicable Comprehensive Plan chapter called for the building design section to have descriptive text, regulatory references and visual examples to illustrate the architectural styles and features. She said there had been one development since that code had been developed, the veterinary clinic on Douglas Way. She indicated that at the neighborhood meeting the architect had called it Oregon Rustic and he might have said it was also Italianate. She added that the building looked great and it was what the neighborhood wanted. She said the architect had not found the code regarding architectural styles to be too troublesome and that made Ms. Krebs question what the problem was the staff was trying to fix by limiting architectural styles. Mr. Egner recalled after the code was written staff tried to apply it and found it difficult. Commissioner Glisson observed a need for staff, Ms. Krebs, Ms. Eaton, and the original group who worked on the plan and design concept to have more discussion regarding the issue and resolve it. She did not take a position, but wanted to hear more about what staffs’ concerns were. Commissioner Glisson indicated that she could support having some architectural styles included, if it could be done without making the handbook sound too prescriptive; she also understood the concern about making it so narrow that it eliminated creativity. Mr. Egner reported that staff would insert the graphics related to the Boones Ferry Refinement process when they were available. Ms. Eaton advised the handbook should be titled, “Lake Grove Village Center Design Handbook.” 6. OTHER BUSINESS – PLANNING COMMISSION None. 7. OTHER BUSINESS – COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT None. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of June 27, 2011 Page 8 of 8 8. SCHEDULE REVIEW Ms. Andreades said the Commission was to elect officers and consider accessory structures and definitions at the next meeting on July 11. 9. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Chair Gustafson adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Iris McCaleb /s/ Iris McCaleb Administrative Support