Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2011-09-26City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 26, 2011 Page 1 of 7 bt CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2011 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Jon Gustafson called the Planning Commission meeting of September 26, 2011, to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Santiam Room of the West End Building, 4101 Kruse Way, 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; Sidaro Sin, Senior Planner; Laura Weigel, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Support. 3. CITIZEN COMMENT None. 4. COUNCIL UPDATE Ms. Andreades reported the Council was meeting as the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency that evening. 5. WORK SESSION 5.1 Comprehensive Plan Update (PP 10-0007). Review Comprehensive Plan update process, Fall 2011-Spring 2013 Schedule and Action Areas and Products. Mr. Sin and Ms. Weigel updated the Commission. They reported that the City had applied for a Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) grant and the first community summit was to be held on November 3. They indicated they would convey the Commissioners’ feedback to the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) at its next meeting. They were asking all the other boards and commissions for feedback as well. They explained that the preferred scenario was the Hybrid Scenario which was now called the 2035 Vision Plan. They reported that it was mapped on the 2035 Vision Map and that the Plan and Map were primarily based on the existing Comprehensive Plan and its existing designations but drew on the LOconomy scenario. They indicated that the Map reflected the Metro 2040 plan’s concept of town centers and that Marylhurst University and Mary’s Woods were on the map because they wanted to be considered more a part of the City. They explained that the Map, the Vision and the sustainability filter would be used in the next phases of the process. They reported that the map reflected the following assumption: All future housing and employment growth can be City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 26, 2011 Page 2 of 7 accommodated within the existing Urban Services Boundary (USB). There was no need to expand into the Stafford area for housing or employment purposes. During the discussion Vice Chair Bhutani asked if the CAC had discussed whether the market was such that West Lake Grove would really develop the way the City wanted it to. Staff planned to use the DLCD grant to fund work that would help the City get a better idea of market conditions there and whether that area could be a mixed use area. Staff reported that trending information seemed to indicate that industrial employment was declining. Mr. Sin asked the Commissioners to look at the Action Area Order and Schedule and the Action Area topic summaries. He asked if it was okay to combine topics and reduce the number of summits and he also questioned if the summaries were understandable enough. He reported that staff was asking each board and commission to tell them what the most important, highest level, policy questions the community needed to answer were. Vice Chair Bhutani suggested staff ask the other City bodies what other groups to involve in the process. The Commissioners discussed staff’s suggestion to break workshop participants into smaller discussion groups and ask them to answer a few high level policy questions. Chair Gustafson agreed smaller groups might be more engaging. Vice Chair Bhutani suggested that asking the entire group to go through an exercise might lead to more meaningful discussions and be fun. Commissioner Prager suggested using technology to engage people. He stressed it was important to keep the questions very simple. He stated that as an example, participants could be asked what it was about library services that they liked or felt should be improved. Chair Gustafson noted the report indicated that was what neighborhood chairs wanted as well. Staff related they were looking into virtual workshops and using online surveys before and after workshops in order to increase the amount of feedback from workshops. The group discussed consolidating topics at summits. Chair Gustafson suggested addressing community culture at the first summit; inspiring spaces and places and complete neighborhoods at the second summit; and combining the remaining topics at a last summit. He opined that grouping topics would bring people with different priorities together at the same summit. Vice Chair Bhutani suggested grouping topics by category. She stated as an example Police, Fire and the Library were all public amenities and housing, economic development and transportation could be addressed together to help people understand the connections and the tradeoffs. The Commissioners suggested some things that were missing. Vice Chair Bhutani would add a discussion of limited lake access and a discussion of library siting. Commissioner Johnson advised that Luscher Farm should be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan and the community should discuss controlling lake vistas and views. Ms. Weigel reported that it had come out in the Parks master planning process that people wanted more access to water. She would insert that information. The Commissioners observed that the lake should be part of the discussion in most of the action areas, that it was central to the City and impacted the community. Commissioner Prager observed the document was focused on the Lake Oswego School District and the budget, but missed the other educational aspects of the community, including private and pre-schools. He indicated that people might choose to go to other places because there was only half-day kindergarten in Lake Oswego. Vice Chair Bhutani suggested a discussion of educational opportunities at all the universities around the city. Commissioner Johnson advised the process was about land use planning, not social planning and that some of the topics were not land use related. Commissioner Prager questioned why Arts was a topic. Commissioner Johnson suggested it could be connected to a land use policy to have a mixed use downtown. Commissioner Prager observed the Greenway Trail was in the Recreation section when it could be in the City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 26, 2011 Page 3 of 7 Connected Community or Transportation sections. Staff clarified that the list of recreation facility needs was a list, and that not all the needs were to be served by just one facility, the list came from the Parks and Recreation plan. Mr. Sin explained that the current process was intended to find out what people value as much as fulfill the state mandate for periodic review of the Comprehensive Plan. It was a paradigm shift. He said that back in 2007 the City had geared the process strictly to prepare for periodic review (using the statewide planning goals as the framework) and found it hard to engage the community. He said this time they started with a statement about the vision and values of the community, they believed people could relate and respond to that. Mr. Sin reported that the Comprehensive Plan would be based on what the community wanted. He explained that if the community wanted to support schools, using housing options to attract young families was one way of doing that. Mr. Boone observed that the process was gathering up all the issues into a broad net. He advised that goals could be tied to land use later on, after the community figured out what its vision was and how it wanted to accomplish it. He indicated that non-land use matters could be put into a companion document. Staff planned to return to provide another update in October. 6. PUBLIC HEARING 6.1 Ordinance 2526, LU 08-0054 – Community Development Code – Policy Related Housekeeping Amendments. Amendments to Chapter 50 for the purpose of clarifying and updating various code provisions identified as having policy implications. Chair Gustafson opened the public hearing and described the applicable procedure. Each Commissioner had an opportunity to ask for discussion about particular provisions he/she was concerned about. The Commissioners discussed the following provisions. Section 50.05.012, Effect of Multiple Zone Designations Staff proposed to resolve the issue of which zone applied on a split-zoned lot by applying the commercial zone’s standards to the entire site, but also applying residential density and residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements to the residential uses there. Vice Chair Bhutani asked staff to explain how split zoning played out in mixed use, would the structure look half commercial and half residential? Staff explained that in cases where a building was sitting on two lots with different zoning, each part of the building had to conform to the zone it was in. They related they had not yet encountered a case where a building on a lot with split zoning was split vertically. They anticipated that some buildings would have commercial on the ground and residential in the upper floors, however, the code change might mean the upper floors would be stepped back. Commissioner Johnson agreed it made sense to apply the residential standards to the residential portions and commercial zone standards to everything else. His experience had been that it was problematic to allow developers to pick and choose what zone they would conform to in a mixed use zone. He indicated that the best long term solution was to move away from having split zones. Section 50.06.050 Yard Setbacks, Buffers (R-0, R-2, R-3 and R-5) The Commissioners observed the R-2 Zone setback table indicated that an accessory structure had to have a larger side setback than the primary structure. They indicated the setback should be similar to that of the primary structure unless the type of use was home occupation, or some other type of use that should be setback further. They planned to consider the relationship of use to setback later. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 26, 2011 Page 4 of 7 Section 50.06.055 Height of Structure Vice Chair Bhutani wanted to know why staff proposed to establish a 24-foot specific height limit for an accessory structure, rather than use the zone’s height limitation. She also wanted to know the distinction between “lots with sloped topography” and “sloped lots.” Staff explained they proposed the height limit to address the problem of inconsistent provisions between zones and that some zones did not differentiate between primary and accessory structure height. In that situation, if the zone also allowed 6-foot height exceptions, the accessory structure could be 28 feet high, plus another 6 feet. Mr. Boone recalled the second Infill effort specifically addressed steeply sloped lots and applied different standards and design requirements and the Code reorganization project would provide diagrams so people could tell which type of lot they had. Article 50.22 Exceptions to Site Development Standards and Special Determinations/Section 50.22.020 One Year Exception to Height/Setback/Lot Coverage Requirements for New Subdivision Lots Staff proposed to remove a provision that applied when a residential building permit was applied for within one year of the date of recordation of the final plat of the subdivision. They explained that it required a review pursuant to the setbacks, height and lot coverage standards in effect at the time of the application for the subdivision. Staff indicated that if the Commissioners concluded the provision should be retained, they would recommend it be changed so it also applied to partitions and the scope of review be expanded to include all the standards, not just three standards. After a relatively lengthy discussion the consensus was to agree to remove the provision. During the discussion staff reported the provision was very rarely used, the situation had only come up once that they could recall. Staff indicated that if the provision were eliminated, the variance and Residential Infill Design Review (RID) processes were still available. They explained that it made things confusing for applicants when it applied to subdivisions, but not partitions and when it froze some standards, but not others. Staff recalled that in recent years subdivisions typically came in as Planned Developments (PDs) because of the open space requirements, they essentially created their own zones. Mr. Boone posed the following situation: the applicant submitted an application for a subdivision in 2011. The approval process took a year, to 2012. The developer asked for an extension in 2013 to record the final plat because the market was not good. Then they applied to extend it to 2014 because the economy was still bad. The project might be finished in 2014 using 2011 regulations. Chair Gustafson observed that it might not be used very often but the process was pretty burdensome and the fact it typically took a year to get through the approval process was not the applicants’ fault. He indicated that keeping the provision would be a safety net, it would give the developer a year to finish up and it made sense to include all the standards so the development would comply with all the rules that were in place when the developer submitted the application. He said it was unfair to move the goal posts halfway through a project and force the developer to use the variance or RID process. Commissioner Johnson did not favor allowing a developer to continually extend a project; they should have to start over. His experience was that subdivions typically took a long time to process because of all the necessary surveys and technical work. He noted the Infill effort had started because people got fed up with the approved subdivisions they saw. Mr. Boone suggested the Commissioners consider the neighbor’s expectation that a project would be built to current regulations. He clarified that staff did not feel strongly about the proposed change, the real issues for them were City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 26, 2011 Page 5 of 7 that the provision only applied to subdivisions – not partitions; and that it only applied to some zone standards and not the others. Commissioner Prager explained that whenever the Commissioners agreed to change code he assumed related changes were made to the rest of the code. Mr. Boone recalled he was asked to codify the first Infill changes and that the Infill Task Force took three years and focused on particular sections they were interested in and did not touch others. When Commissioner Johnson asked, Mr. Boone related that staff leaned toward eliminating the provision because it had only been used one time and subdivisions typically came in as PDs and a PD allowed the developer to have smaller lots so there was room for the required open space. Chair Gustafson saw no harm in keeping the provision with the scope expanded to include all the standards. Commissioner Johnson recalled his experience with developers who stretched their projects out five to ten years. He did not feel sorry for them when they complained the rules had been changed on them. Commissioner Prager was inclined to remove the provision. He questioned why it should be in the code if the City was trying to simplify the code, the provision was rarely used; it created confusion; and the only benefit had been that it had been used in one case many years ago. Vice Chair Bhutani said she was “on the fence” about what to do with the provision. She questioned how much confusion it could create if it only affected a few people, that it might create a greater level of comfort to keep it and that removing a few lines of code might not make the code more specific. Ms. Andreades agreed with Commissioner Johnson that a variance was for situations that did not come up very often, but she cautioned that for a Class 2 variance, an applicant had to prove a hardship, however the RID process was still available. Commissioner Johnson observed that there were options to use some type of process for exceptions. Mr. Boone observed a consensus to take the provision out of the code after Commissioner Johnson agreed with Commissioner Prager that it should be removed and Chair Gustafson said he would agree with that. Section 50.22.045 General Exceptions for Building Projections and Decks to Setbacks (5) Equipment for public service, E.G., utility meters, transformers, telephone switching equipment. Commissioner Prager recalled that whenever he saw that kind of equipment placed in ugly and awful locations he wondered if they could have been in a better place. He wondered if those who put them there should have to demonstrate there was no other location for them. Commissioner Johnson wanted to know if their size mattered and whether a large public substation was exempted. Mr. Boone asked for more time for staff to consider the matter. Ms. Andreades explained that staff typically encountered applicant inability to tell them where they were going to put those kinds of big boxes in commercial projects because the location is often driven by the utility companies. She recalled the example of a project on Boones Ferry Road/Madrona. She asked the applicant to bury the electrical box, but they put it along the roadway in front of the building anyway. Before final occupancy, it was buried. Commissioner Prager recalled seeing that happen in Tigard too, all of a sudden a metal box was sticking out. Staff was told it had to be there because there was no other possible place for it to be. Commissioner Johnson suggested the applicant should be required to demonstrate that. Staff indicated that they would take this issue back to Development Review staff for further discussion. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 26, 2011 Page 6 of 7 Lot Depth Ms. Andreades explained that she had previously written a memorandum on the lot depth issue to respond to Commissioner Jones’ and Commissioner Johnson’s concerns. Staff had proposed to eliminate the lot depth requirement. Commissioner Johnson had suggested using the “circle method” that some other jurisdictions used. Her memo showed how that method might apply in different zones. She indicated that if lot depth were eliminated there would still be minimum lot width and minimum lot frontage requirements. Chair Gustafson and Mr. Boone recalled the Commission had previously reached consensus to eliminate lot depth. Mr. Boone’s notes indicated it had been 3:2. Commissioner Prager announced that he had been one of the two Commissioners in favor of keeping lot depth, but after reading the staff report he had changed his mind and was comfortable with what staff proposed. Mr. Boone noted that made it a 4:1 consensus. Commissioner Johnson cautioned that there were a lot of weirdly shaped lots in the city. Commissioner Johnson moved to continue LU 08-0054 to October 24, 2011. Commissioner Prager seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. The Planning Commission planned to start with pages 68-90; and then examine pages 98-156. 7. OTHER BUSINESS – PLANNING COMMISSION 7.1 Findings, Conclusions and Order LU 11-0018-1767 – Community Development Code Amendments – Modifying the Definition of Minor Public Facility Commissioner Prager reported he should have declared that he was an employee of the City of Tigard at the hearing. He indicated that he had discussed the matter with Mr. Boone who had advised that there was no actual or potential conflict of interest. Mr. Boone explained that was because the impact of the decision was not likely to actually have any impact on Commissioner Prager’s salary because he was not compensated that way. Vice Chair Bhutani had submitted suggested edits. Chair Gustafson was not sure about the first change, but he liked that the edits removed words like “regardless” and “although” and made the findings more definitive, he said he would agree to the edits. Commissioner Johnson announced that he could not support the findings or the conclusions because he had not agreed with them from the start. Vice Chair Bhutani suggested a final wording change to the effect that the City was exempting itself from complying with standards and staff made that correction on the final draft. Commissioner Prager moved to approve LU 11-0018-1767 Findings, Conclusions and Order as amended by Vice Chair Bhutani. Vice Chair Bhutani seconded the motion and it passed 3:1. Commissioner Johnson voted against. 8. OTHER BUSINESS – COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT None. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 26, 2011 Page 7 of 7 9. SCHEDULE REVIEW Ms. Andreades announced that the next meeting was scheduled for October 10 and the Commissioners were to meet early for a “check in” with Sue Diciple prior to the meeting. She recalled they had continued LU 08-0054 to October 24. Staff planned to hold an open house at some point in that process. Commissioner Johnson announced the Council was going to hold a study session on urbanization of Stafford on October 11 and he planned to attend. Ms. Andreades explained that in November the Planning Commission was to meet jointly with the Council to discuss Clarion’s work on the code reorganization and they would also be presented with the draft parks system master plan. She clarified that she did not think the Planning Commission would be asked to make a recommendation regarding the plan. Commissioner Johnson explained he had an issue with that because it was land use related. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Chair Gustafson adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Iris McCaleb /s/ Iris McCaleb Administrative Support