Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2011-08-22City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of August 22, 2011 Page 1 of 7 t CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2011 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Jon Gustafson called the Planning Commission meeting of August 22, 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 Puja Bhutani and Commissioners Bill Gaar, Julia Glisson, Jim Johnson and Todd Prager. Commissioner Russell Jones was excused. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Assistant Planning Director; David Powell, City Attorney and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Support. 3. COUNCIL UPDATE Staff reported that the Council was in recess during the month of August. 4. CITIZEN COMMENT None. 5. MINUTES 5.1 April 25, 2011 Vice Chair Bhutani moved to approve the Minutes of April 25, 2011. Commissioner Glisson seconded the motion and it passed 4:0:2. Commissioner Gaar abstained and Commissioner Johnson recused. 5.2 May 9, 2011 Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the Minutes of May 9, 2011. Commissioner Prager seconded the motion and it passed 5:0:1. Commissioner Gaar abstained. 5.3 May 23, 2011 Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the Minutes of May 23, 2011. Vice Chair Bhutani seconded the motion and it passed 5:0:1. Commissioner Gaar abstained. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of August 22, 2011 Page 2 of 7 6. WORK SESSIONS 6.1 Lake Grove Village Center (LGVC) Financing Strategy (PP 09-0019) and Upcoming LGVC Amendments. Assistant Planning Director Denny Egner reviewed the report. He explained that the financing study would determine the cost and assess the sustainability of each project and identify feasible financing strategies. He indicated that two consulting firms had responded to the Request for Proposal (RFP) and emphasized the importance of timing. He said the City would need to have an urban renewal district in place by September 2012 to benefit from the increased value of the shopping center and Starbucks developments. During the discussion the Commissioners wanted to know if the consultants felt the time frame was workable and why there had only been two responses to the RFP. Mr. Egner noted the responding firms proposed to finish the project in December or January. He clarified that the City had advertised in the Daily Journal of Commerce and sent the RFP to five other firms that did this type of work. Both of the responding firms had experience working with the City. The Commissioners discussed the scope of work. They questioned how necessary it was to have the consultant prioritize projects and were concerned that some high-rated sustainability projects might not be good catalyst projects. Staff anticipated the professionals would know from their experience which types of projects served as catalysts for private development. Commissioner Prager suggested offering incentives for developing sites like the pearls in the String of Pearls. Mr. Egner recalled that street and parking improvements had served as incentives for private redevelopment Downtown. He was expecting that to happen in Lake Grove too. Commissioner Glisson advised the Plan did call for using incentives and that the RFP called for the consultant to meet with developers and redevelopment experts to gauge their opinions on which of the projects would have the most impact on private investment. The Commissioners suggested also talking to stakeholders, including the local business association and neighborhood associations. They indicated that existing property owners could give the consultant a sense of what they might do, given the opportunity. Public Comment Jack Lundeen, 4040 Douglas Way, President of the Lake Grove Business Association, thanked the City for taking Lake Grove development seriously and moving the process forward. Mr. Lundeen reported the executive group wanted the City to “keep it simple” and that they expected redevelopment to happen incrementally – lot by lot- as opportunities arose for the owners. They believed that if the financing study spent a lot of time trying to prioritize projects into a grand plan it would never get done. They used Boones Ferry Road improvements as an example, that it was such a “big ticket” item that if it was to be the catalyst for redevelopment it would take much too long. Mr. Lundeen observed that in the “real world” one could not prioritize what was going to happen in what order and when. He said the Association was asking for better cost estimates and a pallet of financing tools, they understood that different tools would work for different kinds of projects and they wanted to know which would work when opportunities similar to the shopping center redevelopment or conversion of Kentucky Fried Chicken to Starbucks came up. They also wanted to know which types of financing might provide funding now versus down the road. During the questioning period, Mr. Lundeen was asked how the City would know which project to work on if there was no prioritization. He responded that when an owner decided to renovate a property that would inform what projects were to be done. He did not believe every owner could be convinced right now to agree to a parking lot, a pearl or a sidewalk in a particular spot. He said opportunity should be allowed to flower. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of August 22, 2011 Page 3 of 7 Chuck O’Leary, Palisades Terrace. Drive, President and Interim Chief Executive Officer of the Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce, and owner of 16325 Boones Ferry Road (Lake Grove Building) said the Chamber placed high priority on moving the process forward and giving Lake Grove the same level of attention Downtown had received. He asked the City to adhere to Mr. Egner’s recommended timetable so there would be no delay. Caroline Krebs, questioned spending the time and money to have the consultant gauge developer opinions, identify catalyst projects and prioritize projects. She recalled that the Lake Grove Village Center implementation group had already assigned low, medium and high priority to each Plan project and she noted that substantial redevelopment had already occurred at the site of the Lake Grove Market without any catalyst projects listed. She observed that it was moving forward despite the fact the nearby intersection had not been significantly improved. She held the factors that influenced a property owner to go forward were too complex for the rudimentary determinations to be done in the study. Ms. Krebs also questioned whether the proposed public process was sufficient and whether it met the stated policies in the Plan. She indicated that the policies called for an extensive, neutral and thorough public review and they called for giving funding priority to public improvements that would serve existing businesses and leverage private investment. She held a review by the Planning Commission was not enough opportunity for public input and she pointed out that the Plan specifically called for soliciting ideas from stakeholders, including residents, businesses and property owners. She asked when their opinions would be gauged and noted that the RFP did not talk about that. Ms. Krebs noted that abutting residents would be impacted by Lake Grove Village Center development. She explained that “creating leverage” was creating ways to work collaboratively as opportunities arose for owners wishing to redevelop. She said for example during the Oakridge Senior Housing project approval process a site between that project and the post office had been identified as a good location for public parking. She observed that those kinds of opportunities would come up and that City Hall should be constantly proactively looking for them. During the questioning period, Mr. Egner clarified that there were to be at least two more points in the process when the consultants would discuss the project with the Commission and public comment would be solicited. Ms. Krebs held the consultant should go to the stakeholders because it was their Plan, they were the residents, businesses and property owners (who may become developers). Commissioner Johnson questioned spending money to talk with developers to find out how to set priorities when the planning process had already settled on priorities. Ms. Krebs advocated using the consultants to identify which funding mechanisms could be used in concert with the priority projects that had already been identified by stakeholders. Vice Chair Bhutani and Commissioner Glisson suggested it would be useful to talk to developers too to identify what kinds of catalyst projects were marketable and could get financing, that the reality was those projects would rise in priority no matter what the neighborhood wanted to see happen first. Ms. Krebs advised the sustainability filter had to be better vetted in the community. She questioned how it could be used to decide whether it made more sense to install a sidewalk on Douglas Way or on Firwood Road. She wanted to see bricks and mortar soon. Ken Sandblast, 4 Falstaff St., who had chaired the Lake Grove Village Center Plan Implementation Advisory Committee, observed that there was already redevelopment activity happening in the district and the City should do everything possible to capture its value. He discounted the result of spending public money to talk to developers or neighborhoods and prioritize projects because it would be a “snapshot” that would not really matter. He indicated that what would matter was that the City had created the City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of August 22, 2011 Page 4 of 7 right environment; had more accurate cost figures; understood applicable funding mechanisms; and was ready to collaborate when a business or property owner decided to do something. He pointed out the Plan listed funding mechanisms to be explored. He clarified that the financing study would equate the adopted Plan and its project list with funding mechanisms and provide updated cost figures. He noted Plan Action Measures prioritized addressing the parking supply and that once a business or property owner wanted to do something the City should be ready to collaborate with them regarding parking. He talked about applying the sustainability filter and recalled it had been a challenge to apply it to roadway questions related to sidewalk width or the median, he noted that the corridor committee had gravitated away from that. He cautioned against letting the process get bogged down trying to apply the filter to the specifics of the roadway. Mr. Sandblast related that the Lake Grove Business Association was in the process of surveying membership and would provide very specific answers about their priorities. He discussed the issue of adequate public input and advised against pushing for a tax increment financing district without a substantial amount of citizen involvement. He observed that the shopping center property owners chose to remodel the center despite the current economic climate. He reported the business association wanted the process to stay focused and not “wander around.” He stressed the importance to the Council and to Metro of finding out what the district would cost. Mike Buck, Gubanks, 16008 Boones Ferry Road, concurred with the previous comments about the process. He said the priorities were already known and recalled the City Manager and the heads of the Engineering and Planning Divisions had walked a mile of Boones Ferry Road with representatives of the neighborhoods and the business association. He said he concurred with the priorities set out in Exhibit B, including parking, access management, the need for intersections and the need for pedestrian accessibility. Mr. Buck said the next steps were to involve the public in order to dissipate fears and then find the means to construct the district. He indicated that Lake Grove wanted to see its tax money returned as investment in Lake Grove. Chair Gustafson asked how the Commissioners felt about the proposed time frame and the proposed public process. He asked how to “keep it simple.” Mr. Egner observed this was not a brand new planning effort, that many aspects were already in place, including the set of projects. He indicated that the City needed to find out what tools were available to finance the projects and cautioned that the process should not get distracted looking at new projects. He said if the Council decided to move forward with an urban renewal plan it might consider using incentives to leverage certain projects. He wanted to ensure adequate public involvement and was open to adding more opportunities for that, but for the most part the people who would be interested and want to participate were already involved. Mr. Egner explained that the City could conduct outreach to the shopping center owners, existing businesses, and the developers who had redeveloped Downtown. He observed it was not too late to ask the two consulting firms that had responded to the RFP if they could do that for the same amount. He indicated that both firms were very familiar with Lake Oswego and that was a big advantage. Commissioner Gaar agreed the consultants should start with what the City knew now and talk with the stakeholders in the area, but he noted that professionals would also reach out to their contacts across the country. Commissioner Prager agreed it would be important to take advantage of opportunities as they came up, that it was also important to talk to developers to get ideas regarding what strategies stimulated development. He indicated that stimulating private development was the right approach and public/private partnerships would be important. He assumed that the results of past surveys and the Plan’s priorities were the results of past public outreach and that information should be reviewed as well. He advised the right City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of August 22, 2011 Page 5 of 7 approach would also apply the sustainability filter, that it could be tailored for the project so it would work. Staff explained that the RFP Task 1 called for the consultants to prioritize plan projects. Commissioner Glisson asked that they take the priority list generated by the implementation committee very seriously. She suggested adding more stakeholder involvement activity that could include talking to the implementation committee and local businesses who wanted to be involved and had ideas about what they would do in the future. She agreed with the comments about creating the right environment for redevelopment. She advised the City to be prepared to adapt to a changing environment and not to simply complete the study, put a funding mechanism in place and leave it at that. She indicated the City needed to keep watching for opportunities as they arose. Commissioner Johnson observed the Plan had been in place for three years. He saw a need to keep the pressure on so it would actually happen. He said sustainability could be used as a filter, but it would be one of many types of filters and not the deciding filter. He indicated that Plan priorities should be considered the focus and the highest filter and that sustainability could be used to make a decision when alternatives “a” and “b” were equal. Vice Chair Bhutani observed the cost study would estimate the tangible aspect of the project and that the trick was to make that work with the intangible aspect of opportunities and what was happening on the ground. She indicated that stakeholder input was needed to bring them together. Chair Gustafson observed the comments indicated the Commissioners were all generally going in the same direction and that should help the staff. He said it was disappointing to hear that the stakeholders who had come to comment did not think the proposed funding study would be a catalyst that would spur redevelopment that would not happen otherwise. He favored the concept of the City collaborating with developers as a project came forward. He commented that if development was going to happen on its own the City would be there to cooperate and encourage it and that was that kind of environment that would help spur redevelopment. Code Amendments Mr. Egner explained that the staff report offered two sets of potential code amendments, the first was the set of implementation amendments recommended by the Boones Ferry Road Corridor Project Advisory Committee (PAC) to implement the district and the second set was a list of items current planners recommended be addressed because they created problems during development review. Mr. Egner added an item to the development review list to allow staff brokering of shared access/connectivity. Chair Gustafson observed a consensus to move the roadway-related amendments forward and address the other set in a separate process. Mr. Egner noted possible exceptions to the timing decision might be a couple of current planning amendments that might be more urgent: an amendment to clarify that specialty food stores (such as coffee shops) could not be drive-through and an amendment to clarify open space standards. During the discussion the Commissioners questioned staff’s suggestions to combine the three Village Transition Areas (VTAs) and to amend the architectural styles section. Staff indicated they had found that VTAs were hard to explain to developers and property owners. They explained that putting the most clear and objective architectural standards in the code and illustrating discretionary ones in the handbook would help applicants and the Development Review Commission (DRC) understand what was required and what was discretionary. Commissioner Glisson recalled the VTAs had been arrived at after the advisory committee had looked at specific sites and negotiated with property owners. She recalled the purpose of the design handbook was to illustrate what the code expected. She advised staff to be proactive and talk to the stakeholders before they fashioned the related amendments. Commissioner Johnson was concerned that so many amendments would change the Plan itself. Mr. Egner recalled the infill code had City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of August 22, 2011 Page 6 of 7 been adjusted after a few years of use. Commissioner Gaar asked staff to invite the Natural Resources Advisory Board to comment on potential open space and tree protection changes before they proposed related amendments. Commissioner Prager cautioned staff against completely eliminating architectural styles, that there could be both requirements for design elements and requirements related to architectural styles. He recalled other green street projects that did not transition well to adjacent land. He said the City should be obligated to do more than complete its project and walk away, leaving nonconforming adjacent sites. Mr. Egner indicated that the Boones Ferry Road PAC had also been concerned about that and the City would negotiate with adjacent land owners so the land would not be left nonconforming. Chair Gustafson invited another round of citizen comments. Ms. Krebs thanked Commissioner Glisson for raising the VTA issue. She advised a VTA change would be very controversial. She agreed the two different sets of amendments should be dealt with separately and she stressed that staff should consult stakeholders and that development review related amendments should be vetted in a public process. She was concerned that the staff suggestion regarding architectural design standards could muddy and complicate the standards. Mr. Sandblast pointed out that the letter from the Lake Grove Business Association urged the City to go forward by focusing on financing and necessary plan amendments this fall and letting a consensus regarding needed development code amendments develop separately until Commission hearings next spring. Until then he encouraged all stakeholders to come up with their “top ten” amendments lists. Mr. Buck did not support modifying VTAs. He agreed the Boones Ferry Road PAC amendments should go forward right away, but not the development review list. Commissioner Glisson stressed the process needed to include the stakeholders. Chair Gustafson observed a consensus to address each list separately. He appreciated that staff had flagged the development review issues in a public setting to alert everyone. 7. OTHER BUSINESS – PLANNING COMMISSION 7.1 Review of the City Council decision regarding the zoning overlay for the Industrial Park (IP) District (LU 10-0042) Chair Gustafson had asked staff to update the Commissioners on the changes the Council had made to the version of the ordinance the Commission had recommended. Mr. Egner distributed copies of the latest draft of Ordinance 2561 (revised 06/24/11), which reflected the changes. He reported that the Council was scheduled to vote on it in September, that they had expanded the list of uses and that new uses would be allowed in new buildings as well as existing buildings. He explained that the Council decided to allow Commercial self-storage facilities and that since they were already subject to a maximum FAR of 1 there could not be a minimum FAR of 1.5. He said the Council wanted any commercial self-storage use in the district to be an intense use so a small facility did not waste its site and the facilities would not be subject to a maximum Floor Area Ratio, but their size would be affected by height, lot coverage and the size of the parcel. He clarified that basically they would have to be three-story buildings. Commissioner Glisson was concerned the end result of the commercial self-storage changes would be a “massive box.” 8. OTHER BUSINESS – COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT Commissioner Johnson offered to step down as the Commission representative on the Comprehensive Plan Update Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC). He indicated that because his work involved travel, he was unable to attend all meetings. The City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of August 22, 2011 Page 7 of 7 Commissioners asked him to stay and agreed that if he missed a CAC meeting Commissioner Gaar could report to the Commission since he also served on the CAC as the representative to the Natural Resources Advisory Board. 9. SCHEDULE REVIEW Commissioner Johnson reported that he had been asked to attend the joint Sustainability Advisory Board/Natural Resources Advisory Board meeting regarding Luscher Farm planning as a Department of Agriculture land use expert – not as a Planning Commissioner and when asked he had expressed his personal opinion that the Farm was so large it should be treated as a district and not an individual park plan. He reported that both boards believed the plan should be reviewed by the Commission because there were policy-related questions to be considered, such as how what happened to the Farm influenced what happened in the Stafford basin. Chair Gustafson noted that Commissioner Jones’ opinions had been published in the newspaper. He said it was important for the Commissioners to find out what their role in the process was in the event the Farm plan came to the Commission for review. He asked staff to find out. Mr. Egner explained that almost all of the Farm was outside City limits and all of it, but the playing fields, were outside the Urban Growth Boundary and that the Community Development Code did not apply there and no conditional use review was required. He indicated that Parks & Recreation Advisory Board would recommend a master plan to be adopted by the City Council. Commissioner Johnson observed the Farm was very large and impacted multiple properties with multiple land uses at its edges. He held it was irresponsible not to deal with that impact. Commissioner Gaar observed the process was “upside-down” and not a good decision making process even if a formal process was not required. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Chair Gustafson adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Iris McCaleb /s/ Iris McCaleb Administrative Support