Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2011-09-12City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 12, 2011 Page 1 of 6 t CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2011 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Jon Gustafson called the Planning Commission meeting of September 12, 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 Jim Johnson and Todd Prager. Commissioners Bill Gaar, Julia Glisson and Russell Jones were excused. Staff present were Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Joel Komarek, Project Director, LO-Tigard Water Partnership; Eric Day, Associate Planner, LO-Tigard Water Partnership; Denise Frisbee, Director, Planning and Building Services Department; Andy Gulizia, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Support. 3. CITIZEN COMMENT None. 4. COUNCIL UPDATE Denise Frisbee, Director, Planning and Building Services Department, reported the Council had adopted the IP Zone findings. She said the upcoming Council agenda included quarterly review of the Comprehensive Plan; presentation of the Downtown Parking Study Implementation Work Plan; consideration of Community Development Code amendments and the finalized Infill Handbook. She said the Council had also held study sessions regarding the Stafford area and the Lake Grove Village Center and Boones Ferry Corridor Refinement Plans. She explained that in November the consultant was going to discuss the Code reorganization at a joint Council/Planning Commission study session. 5. MINUTES 5.1 June 13, 2011 Commissioner Johnson moved to adopt the Minutes of June 13, 2011 as amended by Vice Chair Bhutani. Commissioner Prager seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 12, 2011 Page 2 of 6 5.2 June 27, 2011 Vice Chair Bhutani moved to adopt the Minutes of June 27, 2011 as she had amended them. Commissioner Prager seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. 6. PUBLIC HEARING 6.1 LU 11-0018 – Amendment to Lake Oswego Community Development Code (CDC) Modifying the Definition of “Minor Public Facility.” The definition of “minor public facility” currently excludes sewer, water, and storm water “trunk lines.” By exclusion, trunk lines are “major public facilities.” The amendment will include all underground sewer, water and storm water pipes, as well as “trunk lines,” under the definition of “minor public facilities.” Chair Gustafson opened the public hearing and described the applicable procedure. None of the Commissioners present declared a conflict of interest. Associate Planner, Andy Gulizia reviewed the staff report and memorandum from Joel Komarek, Project Director, LO-Tigard Water Partnership, who was also present at the hearing. Vice Chair Bhutani stated that her primary issue was to balance the need for adequate public review and comment for these facilities with the need for a more streamlined and efficient process. She asked if the current project and similar projects would receive enough public review. She wanted assurance that the Council would review future similar projects after the code change. Mr. Komarek explained the water project’s facilities were in different jurisdictions and that each facility would undergo its own conditional use process in each jurisdiction. He recalled the interceptor sewer project pipeline had not come to the Commission and Council for land use review, but the Council had heard public testimony and reviewed and compared alternatives before it chose the alternative that routed the line through the lake. He explained that the impacts of buried utilities were temporary construction impacts and that once a line was buried he did not believe there were any lasting impacts to be reviewed. He clarified there was very little flexibility to change the locations of the water line without significantly impacting its cost and timing. Mr. Komarek was asked to talk about construction impacts. He said open trench construction was sometimes used to avoid other facilities already in the ground and that the cuts were typically six to eight feet deep. He clarified that construction impacts included traffic and access to businesses which were temporary impacts that could easily be managed. He explained that the water project had chosen to use less- impactful horizontal drilling technology that created an underground tunnel 30 to 100 feet deep to pull the piping through. Vice Chair Bhutani wanted to know what forum would be used for public review of construction impacts of an open trench installation if there was no conditional use review. She also wanted to know about post-construction maintenance and operation of the facilities. Mr. Komarek did not see a need for public hearing of construction impacts. He said the water partnership’s approach was typical of the City’s approach to such projects, that it met with affected property owners and neighborhoods to hear and address their concerns before construction started. He advised that a buried pipeline required very little maintenance, that a couple of workers would go out every year or every few years for a few minutes to access a valve box in the pavement and turn on the valve to ensure it was working. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 12, 2011 Page 3 of 6 Mr. Gulizia explained that conditional use review was designed to address permanent, post-construction, impacts like noise, lighting and traffic which were not related to a buried utility line after it was constructed. Public Testimony Carolyne Jones, 2818 Poplar Way, related that she had attended the July 15th preliminary application conference. She asked seven questions, which Mr. Komarek responded to. 1. How many private property easements will be necessary for the LO/Tigard Water System? Response: The project is only in the early stages of the design process. There are no firm alignments/affected properties yet. Those that come to mind are about 6 between the south and north sides of the lake; 4 or 5 in Gladstone and unincorporated Clackamas County on the east side of the Willamette River; and potentially 2 or 3 on the west side of the Willamette River in West Linn. 2. How many of those properties have been identified as having Sensitive Lands? Response: At this point we only know for sure about one - Waluga Park. 3. The Pre-Application Notes state that Resource Conservation (RC) and Resource Protection (RP) delineations are not subject to an appeal. Does that mean that owners who may not now be delineated won’t be able to appeal and will this change with the adoption of this proposed amendment? Response: Mr. Komarek asked Deputy City Attorney Boone to answer this question. Mr. Boone advised the change in the definition did not affect the RC or RP delineation process. He added that the code made delineation a ministerial process. 4. Will the city need to conform to the same standards of the RC and RP delineated areas that sensitive lands owners must abide by? Response: The city has to conform to the Sensitive Lands standards. 5. Is the City compensating the affected private property owners for the easements, or will this be a taking without compensation? Response: The city has to compensate affected private property owners for the easements, whether it gets them via condemnation or negotiation. Details need to be worked out with the property owners. 6. What is the proposed width of the water pipe easement expected to be and what will be the construction setback from the easement for the owner? Response: We are not far enough into designing it yet to know that. 7. Have the affected property owners been notified so that they may be included in this decision? Response: We have had conversations with each property owner we think we will need to acquire an easement from. We let them know we don’t have final designs yet, but possibly may need to acquire from them. We will sit down with them to discuss that at the appropriate time. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 12, 2011 Page 4 of 6 Ms. Jones explained that she felt there should be just one standard that applied to both citizens and the City. During the remainder of the questioning period, Mr. Gulizia explained that nothing would change related to sensitive lands regulations for a given project as a result of the proposed amendment. He said the visible, above ground, components typically associated with underground pipelines would be reviewed as minor public facilities as well. He indicated that the amendment would not change the fact that a larger, major public facility, such as a reservoir, was subject to the conditional use permit process in most zones. Deliberations Chair Gustafson closed public testimony. Commissioner Johnson stressed major trunk lines had long footprints, they would not be subject to any land use compatibility criteria and unless federal money was involved there would be no environmental review. He said his experience was there were lasting impacts (such as the impacts of easement use restrictions and repair activities) that could affect a wider area than just the land the footprint was on. He recalled people were concerned about the way the City does business. He held it should not be exempt from the permitting process that other entities were subject to. He was concerned that when the public right-of-way was much wider than the paved roadway in it, the impacts of an easement there could affect traffic flow and surrounding properties. He stated that he would not support the proposed amendment. Mr. Komarek confirmed that a problem routing the line past one property (one of the Cabanas in the Waterfront Cabana Zone) had spurred the proponents to start the amendment process. Chair Gustafson observed the rest of the lake (the R-7.5 zone) was not an issue, so if the line had been routed slightly different the Commission would not be hearing the matter. He was not as concerned about a water-related line as a gas pipeline. He recalled the conditional use process did not have criteria to evaluate the issues Commissioner Johnson raised. Commissioner Johnson held size was a factor, that a large size facility would have impacts and should have to go through a review process related to all the zones. He suggested adding more conditional use criteria to address those impacts; as an example, a major facility providing water to an entire region should be compatible with the primary use of the zone, that a primary use in a residential zone would be residential use. Vice Chair Bhutani observed that the City was built out; infrastructure under the public right-of-way was not subject to public review; and the proposed amendment specifically applied to “water, sewer and stormwater trunk lines” (not gas lines). She explained she was concerned that without the conditional use process there would be no forum to consider construction impacts and perhaps the impact of maintenance on private property. She indicated that she could not think of any long term issues related to compatibility of a stormwater, sewer or water system in a built out community. Commissioner Johnson explained that the possibility of storm or sewer water overflows during heavy rains needed to be discussed in a public review. Chair Gustafson agreed with Commissioner Johnson that utility easements affected development patterns, they could affect the amount of developable land, prevent adding density, and result in a waste of land in places like Lake Grove. He noted the pipelines could not always be underground and that some of them had to be trenched. Vice Chair Bhutani noted that this might not be a major concern, since developers of such properties would be active participants in ensuring minimal reduction and compensation for the loss of any developable areas and densities of their sites. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 12, 2011 Page 5 of 6 Mr. Gulizia explained for Commissioner Prager that staff had discussed making “trunk line” a permitted use in the Waterfront Cabana Zone, but the problem was the code did not define, “trunk line” and staff could not pin down what the trigger for “trunk line” was or which impacts of an underground line were great enough to trigger an enhanced review process. He said that was why they were proposing to classify all water, sewer, and stormwater lines as minor public facilities instead. He reported that if leaving the use of “trunk lines” out of the WR zone had been an oversight, it had not been corrected later when the zone was amended to allow “minor public facilities” in order to allow a pathway. Chair Gustafson explained he shared the concerns the other Commissioners had raised, but he noted the proposal was to classify water-related utilities as minor public facilities. He would have been more concerned about energy-related utilities, such as a major gas pipeline going through, but those were not at issue in the current hearing and they were already classified as minor public facilities. Chair Gustafson said the only review option seemed to be a conditional use review, but the current set of conditional use criteria would not address most of the concerns the Commissioners raised. Commissioner Prager saw the proposed amendment as more of a housekeeping fix. He was inclined to approve it as proposed. Vice Chair Bhutani observed the conditional use permitting process was not set up to address the concerns the Commissioners raised. She wanted to see some kind of public review of a major infrastructure project at the Commission or Council level and if that was the Commission recommendation, she would approve it. Chair Gustafson observed that the City had now addressed its sewer and water systems and those big projects had gotten lots of public attention and review. He said if the issue came up again it would be related to a new line that was attached to a large project and he questioned how could it not be noticed? Commissioner Johnson explained a meaningful review was not just that the project went to the Council, but that it was a structured process with land use type criteria. He said if the option was the conditional use process, he would start with that and add criteria. When Chair Gustafson asked what the process difference was for major and minor public facilities, Mr. Gulizia advised that a major public facility was subject to a conditional use permit in most zones. Commissioner Johnson advised that different zones had different criteria and a conditional use was supposed to be similar or compatible with the primary use (industrial, residential, etc.) in the zone. Chair Gustafson anticipated that if the current conditional use criteria did not “fit” a pipeline, and there was not much that could be heard or seen to review, it would be easily approved. Commissioner Johnson advised that the vast majority of permits were approved, usually with conditions. He said the important thing was that a review be conducted, including public involvement; and there be an opportunity to raise issues of there were any. He advised the conditional use process not only applied the standards of each zone, but it also applied general, citywide, criteria. He held larger linear facilities should go through a review process and it was ridiculous that the pipeline that had just been installed in the lake did not have to get a single land use permit. He would not support a Commission recommendation to approve the proposed amendment. Vice Chair Bhutani observed most of the City’s basic infrastructure system was already approved and a lot of the pipeline would be in the public right-of-way and the issue before them related to a small section of it that did not. She did not know how a review of a small section would influence the larger infrastructure. Commissioner Prager moved to approve LU 11-0018. Chair Gustafson seconded the motion and it passed 3:1. Commissioner Johnson voted against. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 12, 2011 Page 6 of 6 7. WORK SESSION 7.1 PP 09-0016 – Housing Strategies. Recap and discussion of Planning Commission housing tour on June 24, 2011. The Commissioners decided to reschedule this item so more Commissioners could be present. 8. OTHER BUSINESS – PLANNING COMMISSION None. 9. OTHER BUSINESS – COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT None. 10. SCHEDULE REVIEW Ms. Andreades stated that the next meeting was to be on September 26. She said the Commissioners were to continue reviewing LU 08-0054 (pages 29-67 and 91-97) and they would also have their housing tour recap and discussion at that meeting. The Commissioners planned to discuss whether to schedule a “working agreement check-in” with Sue Diciple when more Commissioners were present. Ms. Andreades distributed an updated Rolling Agenda. She confirmed that she had asked Parks staff to update the Commissioners on parks planning. 11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Chair Gustafson adjourned the meeting at 7:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Iris McCaleb /s/ Iris McCaleb Administrative Support