Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2011-12-12City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2011 Page 1 of 6 bt CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2011 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Jon Gustafson called the Planning Commission meeting of December 12, 2011, to order at 6:33 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 Bill Gaar, Julia Glisson and Todd Prager. Vice Chair Puja Bhutani and Commissioners Jim Johnson and Russell Jones were excused. Council Liaison Jeff Gudman was also present. Staff present were Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Dennis Egner, Assistant Planning Director; Jessica Numanoglu, Senior Planner; Leslie Hamilton, Senior Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Support. 3. CITIZEN COMMENT None. 4. COUNCIL UPDATE Councilor Gudman reported the Council had adopted the Streetcar/Foothills framework plan. 5. MINUTES 5.1 September 26, 2011 The vote was postponed until the January 9, 2012 meeting. 6. PUBLIC HEARING 6.1 LU 11-0036 (Ordinance 2579) – Code Reorganization. A proposal by the City of Lake Oswego to consolidate, reorganize and make minor text amendments to Chapter 50 - Community Development Code, Chapter 57 – Solar Access; Chapter 58 – Historic Preservation; and Article 45.15 – Fences. The proposal also includes renaming the following zoning districts for clarity and consistency (no changes to regulations or density were proposed): DD (Old Town Design District); WR (Waterfront Cabana District); R-2.5 (Residential 2,500 sq. ft.); OC/R-2.5 (Office Campus/2,500 sq. ft.); and OC/NC (Office Campus/Neighborhood Commercial District). Chair Gustafson opened the public hearing and outlined the applicable criteria. He asked the Commissioners to declare any conflicts of interest. None were declared. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2011 Page 2 of 6 Staff Report Jessica Numanoglu and Leslie Hamilton, Senior Planners, presented the staff report. Ms. Numanoglu explained that this was Phase 1 of the code overhaul and the purpose was to make the existing content of the code easier to read and use. She indicated that it was not intended to result in any substantive changes to the code and that if it inadvertently changed what was allowed by the current text the City Recorder was authorized to correct clerical errors made in transferring clear and objective standards to the reorganized version. She said that beyond that an applicant could seek a “code reorganization variance,” proposed specifically for that purpose. Ms. Numanoglu explained that the variance process would be a minor development decision based strictly on whether or not the development right would have been permitted by the previous code. She confirmed that Planning Commission suggestions had been incorporated into the current draft and staff had audited the table references. She added that inconsistent references such as those in “RP Resources” and “RP District” had been flagged to be addressed in Phase 2. Ms. Numanoglu advised the proposed code conformed to all applicable local, regional and state criteria and that the Council was scheduled to consider the proposed changes on February 21, 2012. Staff reported that after distribution of the November 2011 version of the draft reorganized code, staff had identified and corrected some formatting and table of contents issues. They asked the Commission to recommend that they be included in the adopted ordinance. Mr. Boone advised the Commission that they could decide to authorize the chair and vice chair to review and approve corrections to clerical errors before the findings were adopted. Public Testimony Chair Gustafson invited public testimony. No one came forward to testify. He closed the public hearing. Deliberations Commissioner Prager questioned why a code reorganization variance required public notice. Mr. Boone advised that applications would be processed under the new text and that when there was a question whether the old and new wording meant the same thing the variance offered a relief valve. He indicated that State law required notice when a legal question related to rights under a discretionary standard was to be resolved. He clarified that the burden was on the applicant in a land use decision process and if staff agreed with the applicant that the variance was warranted, staff would help move it forward. Commissioner Glisson commented that the burden should be on the City to look to the old code and make sure the new version had the same result as the old version and there should be no fee or a nominal fee for the variance process. She noted that the applicant would also have to bear the cost of time delay. Commissioner Gaar did not anticipate the issue would come up very often. He agreed the relief valve was necessary when it did and that the applicant would ask for what the previous text would have allowed. Chair Gustafson suggested including a statement in the findings that the Commission wanted to place the least possible burden on the applicant. Mr. Boone advised that the City Council set the master fees schedule and typically gave the City Manager the authority to grant a fee waiver if the waiver was in the public interest. He indicated that a code reorganization variance might be considered to be in the public interest. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2011 Page 3 of 6 Commissioner Glisson moved to tentatively recommend Ordinance 2579 with staff recommended revisions to Chapter 50.07 and give the Chair and Vice Chair authority to approve minor corrections. Commissioner Gaar seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. The vote on the findings, conclusions and order was scheduled for January 9, 2012. 7. WORK SESSION 7.1 PP 09-0019 – Lake Grove Village Center (LGVC) Financing Strategy. The session included a presentation by the consultant team working on methods for funding the projects listed in the Lake Grove Village Center Plan. Consultants’ Report Elaine Howard, Elaine Howard Consulting, LLC. and Lorelei Juntunen, ECONorthwest reported they had discussed the project with a group of about 20 stakeholders on December 7th. They indicated that they would use that input and the Planning Commission input to refine packages of preliminary scenarios and develop the recommendation to be presented to the Council in January. They explained the underlying assumption was that each package would fund all of the projects in the Lake Grove Village Center Plan; each package would prioritize Boones Ferry Road improvement ($28 million) so it would happen as soon as possible; inflation was likely to increase to 8% by 2016 and then flatten out again; and the sources of money were local dollars. They clarified that all costs were stated in 2011 dollars but they would be adjusted to account for inflation. Staff was looking for grants, but there were not many available and there was much competition for them. The four scenarios were reviewed: 1. A $40 million general obligation bond would fund all of the capital projects at one time in 2012. A citywide vote was required and everyone in the City would pay for it. 2. Urban Renewal would fund all the projects, but the roadway project might have to wait until nearly 2030. 3. A mix of tools, including urban renewal and local improvement districts, would allow the Boones Ferry Road improvements to happen in 2025. 4. The Boones Ferry Road project would be funded by a general obligation bond or some other source and urban renewal would be used to fund the other projects by 2030. The consultants cautioned that a general obligation bond could not be used to pay for many types of projects that might spur redevelopment, such as technical assistance to developers. They indicated that voters could be faced with the choice of voting for bonds for the Lake Grove project or for the new library. They clarified that unincorporated areas along Boones Ferry Road that would benefit from general obligation financing would not have to pay for it. The consultants advised it would take until 2030 for a new urban renewal district to collect enough money to pay for a bond for a project as big as Boones Ferry Road. They indicated that if the City could add another $500 million in assessed value to the urban renewal area it might be able to fund Boones Ferry Road by 2019. They suggested that adding Kruse Way and annexing the unincorporated areas along Boones Ferry Road might help, although an urban renewal area that large might violate state law. They clarified that with that large of a renewal district, other jurisdictions had to concur. The consultants advised that it did not look like urban renewal would work by itself. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2011 Page 4 of 6 The consultants explained that half of the mixed tools scenario funding was urban renewal dollars and the remainder was a mix of general obligation bonds, a variety of local improvement districts, systems development charges, and a small percentage of revenue bonds. They indicated that there were many ways to structure a local improvement district (LID). They suggested that it could be based on things like assessed value, length of street frontage or relative proximity to the roadway. They referred to a table in the report that estimated what the impact would be to individual property owners. The consultants were researching the answer to a question regarding whether a LID could be started before the actual construction project began and how much property owner support or opposition would affect whether a LID could be formed. They advised that the City could not form a LID in unincorporated areas, but the County Commissioners could. Mr. Egner estimated the percentage of affected unincorporated area could be 10% to 20%. He reported that the City could not just annex property within a certain proximity of the roadway; it had to either annex all of unincorporated Lake Forest or all of the unincorporated islands in the area. The consultants explained that the fourth scenario would use a 2012 general obligation bond to pay for the Boones Ferry Road project and that the rest would be funded by urban renewal by no later than 2030. The consultants advised it could be made to happen even sooner by adjusting the urban renewal boundary to add assessed value and making different assumptions about what was to happen in the early years. They suggested that the timing might be gateways and parking lots first and festival streets last. Chair Gustafson asked about the role of the Planning Commission. Mr. Egner clarified the Commission would hold a public hearing for a proposal for an urban renewal district if that turned out to be the selected strategy, but otherwise it was being consulted as a sounding board and source of guidance. Ms. Howard talked about the public meeting the previous week. She indicated there had been a lot of consternation that the consultants did not have an obvious answer regarding how to fund the plan and that the only funding strategy that accomplished the roadway first was a general obligation bond. She recalled that participants wanted to know if additional tools could be added and they wanted to know how to make Lake Grove more of a City priority. She added that participants questioned why the report did not show Metro, state and federal funding and they had suggested business owners should step up to fund part of the project. Ms. Howard explained that they wanted to know what had worked for Downtown redevelopment and what had helped fund the 10th Street green street project and if those funding sources would be available to Lake Grove. The consultants advised that they had not included other government funding because there was no certainty that grants would be available. They said the City would continue to pursue grants as the project went forward. Mr. Egner recalled it took 20 years to start generating tax increment funding before Downtown projects were constructed. He noted that A Avenue improvements, a public/private partnership; and public projects like the City parking garage and Millennium Park development had spurred private development there. The Commissioners discussed the question of equity between the incorporated and unincorporated areas and that Boones Ferry Road would benefit both. Ms. Howard suggested that if a general obligation bond required a City property owner to pay $171 per year for a $300,000 house, a property owner in an unincorporated area could set up an LID to pay an equal amount per $1,000 of assessed value. The consultants clarified they had not talked with the county about that yet. Commissioner Glisson reasoned that since 60% of the traffic was through traffic, a way should be found to draw the funds City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2011 Page 5 of 6 from a larger area than the typical LID area. The Commissioners discussed the question of equity between City property owners within the Lake Grove Village Center area and the rest of the city if Boones Ferry Road was funded by a general obligation bond. Mr. Egner suggested making the bond slightly bigger than what Lake Grove needed and using the excess to fund trails, bikeways and sidewalks in other parts of town. He said it would help make everyone feel they got some benefit from it. The consultants reported the people they had talked with had made it very clear the roadway was their number one priority. Commissioner Glisson commented that resolution of the question of impacts to properties and businesses along Boones Ferry Road should not be dragged out because it would have a ripple effect. She referred to Michael Buck’s December 9, 2011 letter to the City Council and Planning Commission which stated that the area needed to be made safer and more appealing. She suggested that finding funding sources for the smaller projects that would make the area more appealing would prime the pump for a general obligation bond and garner support from the other neighborhoods as well. She noted that parking was going to be a problem; that if there were going to be bigger buildings they would need more parking. Carolyn Krebs suggested the Commission recommend surveying people in unincorporated areas, such as Lake Forest. She anticipated they would be opposed to annexation, but would support a funding strategy such as combining a general obligation bond with a LID for their area because they understood the roadway project would benefit them as well. Chair Gustafson thanked the consultants for their update. The Planning Commission took a five minute break and then reconvened. 8. OTHER BUSINESS – PLANNING COMMISSION Review of 2011 Accomplishments and Goals for 2012 Staff provided the Commission with a draft list of work plan items which included on- going projects, known new projects and potential projects of interest to the Commission in 2012. Chair Gustafson opened a preliminary discussion of what the Planning Commission’s goals were for the coming year. Vice Chair Bhutani had sent an email suggesting they add improving civic engagement to the Commission for Citizen Involvement (CCI) work plan. Ms. Andreades suggested that due to the fact that there were so many work plan items, the Commission could form subcommittees for getting some of the work completed. She referred to Foothills code amendments and the code reorganization as two examples of items that would benefit from work by subcommittees. Chair Gustafson observed a consensus to put Annual Amendments to the Community Development Code (CDC) on the 2012 work plan. He indicated he was interested in serving on the Foothills Subcommittee. Commissioner Gaar indicated he was not able to serve on that subcommittee. Chair Gustafson planned to ask Vice Chair Bhutani if she was interested. The Commissioners anticipated the Comprehensive Plan update process would set the policy for green building and they would wait for that rather than making it a goal of their own. Commissioner Prager suggested the Planning Commission wait to address lakefront zoning until the Comprehensive Plan Update addressed the question of lake access. He stated that if the update process did not address the issue of lake access he planned to raise the question during the Commission zoning discussion whether it was private or public space. Chair Gustafson did not favor tying the issue of who had the right to access the lake to the lake zoning discussion. He suggested that the Commission could recommend that the question of zoning for Lake Oswego Corporation-owned land that was under water and currently not zoned, be reviewed during the current City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2011 Page 6 of 6 Comprehensive Plan Update. He suggested it was likely an oversight that the area was not zoned now. Commissioner Prager suggested it could be zoned to allow recreational use and that he saw a link between access to the water and potential zoning that would allow use of the water. He suggested zoning could affect use from City-owned properties such as Sundeleaf Plaza and the two should be considered together. Commissioner Glisson questioned how useful if would be for the Commission to have its own separate discussion that did not fit into the larger City process. With regard to potential Commission goals for 2012, Commissioner Glisson wanted the Planning Commission to address home occupations and the problem of the cumulative effect of telecommunications facilities that were popping up all over town. Mr. Boone suggested that the Commissioners could first resolve the question of whether telecommunications facilities could be on an existing pole or whether they had to be located on a building; and the question of how they should be screened. He added that they could wait until they had more time to address the cumulative problem. Commissioner Gaar related that the Comprehensive Plan CAC had discussed home occupations and that he would update the Commission. Chair Gustafson suggested waiting to finalize the work plan until the January 9 meeting when absent Commissioners were also present. He observed that the Commissioners had a tentative project list of goals that included:  2012 Amendments to CDC  Telecommunications Facilities  Accessory Structures; Secondary Dwelling Units; Housing Options  Home Occupations The work plan did not include items such as Planning Commission members reporting about subcommittee work and improving civic engagement because those could be incorporated into the process - they were not projects. The Commissioners talked about formatting the communication to the City Council in a manner that would make the Council aware of how much work there was for the coming year that was not initiated by the Commission, and those additional items the Commission desired to work on. They would ask for Council feedback. 9. OTHER BUSINESS – COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT None. 10. SCHEDULE REVIEW The next meeting was scheduled on January 9, 2012 when the Commission would hear about the Metro Southwest Corridor Plan. Councilor Gudman related the corridor study group was looking at a potential light rail connection from I-5 to the Kruse Way corridor. 11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Chair Gustafson adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Iris McCaleb /s/ Iris McCaleb Administrative Support