Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2004-01-26 • 1 1--1: ,ibrvirsi-v7FT A er'n ll,1 ,�Of LAKE OS E�, \J I=V A l City of Lake Oswego PQI ' Plannin Commi i ���, ) '' g Commission Minutes LG 'C/ January 26, 2004 FILE I. CALL TO ORDER Chair James Johnson called the Planning Commission meeting of November 24, 2003 to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 380 A Avenue Lake Oswego, Oregon. H. ROLL CALL Commission members present were Chair James Johnson, Vice Chair Frank Groznik and Commissioners Kenneth Sandblast*, Mark Stayer, Daniel Vizzini and Alison Webster. Commissioner Mary Beth Coffey was excused. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Susan Millhauser, Assistant Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Iris Treinen, Senior Secretary. III. CITIZEN COMMENT None. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Vice Chair Groznik moved for approval of the Minutes of November 24, 2003. Commissioner Vizzini seconded the motion and it passed with Chair Johnson, Vice Chair Groznik and Commissioners Sandblast, Vizzini and Webster voting yes. Commissioner Stayer abstained from voting. Commissioner Coffey was not present. There were no votes against. Commissioner Webster moved for approval of the Commission for Citizen Involvement Minutes of November 10, 2003. Vice Chair Groznik seconded the motion and it passed with Chair Johnson, Vice Chair Groznik and Commissioners Sandblast, Vizzini and Webster voting yes. Commissioner Stayer abstained from the vote. Commissioner Coffey was not present. There were no votes against. City of Lake Oswego Page 1 of 8 Planning Commission Minutes of January 26,2004 V. PUBLIC MEETING P 01-0002, Lake Grove Town Center Implementation Advisory Committee—Update Susan Millhauser, Assistant Planner, reported that the Lake Grove Town Center LGTC) Plan Implementation Advisory Committee had met five times since it was 3 rmed and planned to continue to meet once or twice each month. She noted the group i eluded representatives from businesses, commercial property owners, neighborhoods, the Transportation Advisory Board, the Planning Commission and a citizen-at-large. She distributed copies of the group's meeting schedule, charge statement, vision statement and map. She listed the five tasks the Committee was charged with completing and pointed out that the group's first task was to look ahead twenty years and define the vision for the town center, including a description of the character and a definition for "mixed use." She reported that the Committee members had recognized common themes at public meetings and each representative was soliciting comments from his/her constituency on the vision statement. She announced that information about the program would also be posted on the City website. She pointed out the meeting schedule set times for the Committee to report back to the Planning Commission. She said that there would be public notice of each meeting. Ken Sandblast, Chair of the Advisory Committee, reported that Committee work was proceeding on schedule, the members had endorsed the vision statement and the members were actively seeking input from their constituencies. He reported that the business representatives had conducted a survey and summarized the results in matrix format for future reference. Donna Jordan, 4713 Amherst Court, Lake Oswego, 970341 a Committee member who represented the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB), reported that she had recently rewritten the draft vision statement. She pointed out the staff had kept notes of the meetings and included them in the staff report. She reported that the representatives had focused on common interests at the meetings. She said they had identified what they did not want to see in 2024 ("Canyon Road") and they intended to make the character of Lake Grove obvious to people coming into the area. Carolyn Krebs, 16925 Denney Court, Lake Oswego, 97034, the Lake Forest Neighborhood Association Representative on the Committee, said the group saw the Lake Grove area as rural-rooted and independent. She reported the Committee had decided to name the area "Lake Grove Village Center." She described "village" as a central public gathering place where old and new development blended via a diverse mix of architectural styles and reduced mass. She said mass would be reduced by architectural design features, design standards that required higher buildings to be stepped back, and a focus on pedestrian use. She said parking would be located at the rear and sides of buildings and the Village Center would buffer its impact on adjacent neighborhoods and transition the intensity and scale of development going toward neighborhoods. She reported that drive-through businesses, adult businesses and "big box" retail uses would be restricted. She said the group anticipated the Village Center would evolve over time. She reported that they planned to protect trees, explore the feasibility of restoring water features, and encourage sustainable City of Lake Oswego Page 2 of 8 Planning Commission Minutes of January 26,2004 practices described in Metro's Green Streets Guidelines, including onsite storm water retention and use of pervious paving materials. She said the group envisioned decorative entry point monuments on Boones Ferry Road, consistent public signage, lighting and street furniture along the roadway, and opportunities to display public art, seasonal decorations, hanging baskets and special events banners. Jack Lundeen! a Committee member who represented Lake Grove businesses, reported the Committee members worked well together. He reported that the business community was currently viable and successful and wanted to stay that way through 2024. He said they preferred to see the Village Center evolve slowly and always reflect what was economically feasible and attractive to property owners. He explained they wanted a focus on locally owned, independent businesses in the core area. He reported the business owners preferred plan language that offered choices, instead of mandates, especially in the "Commerce and Economic Vitality through Mix of Uses" section of the vision statement. He said they anticipated a mix of businesses that included retail, services and offices - and residential development only when it was economically feasible and attractive to property owners. They wanted a strategy that would attract locally owned business and diverse shopping opportunities and allow for adequate parking. Syd Smither, a Committee member who represented commercial property owners, related that he lived in Lake Grove and owned a business there. He anticipated that it would take a year to complete the plan and that the Village Center would evolve over • the next twenty years. He reported the Committee members all felt that the Lake Grove area should be viewed as unique and different from any other town center, including Downtown Lake Oswego. He explained the term "Village Center" reflected a desire to integrate, one block deep commercial and business center with the surrounding community. It was to feature an entrance at each end and a focal point in the middle and afford excellent access and an enjoyable experience to customers (who were primarily residents of the area). He said they wanted to make the current mix of business and traffic more aesthetically pleasing using standards calling for brick and wooden buildings and stepped back buildings. He stressed that the property owners wanted density to be voluntary, they wanted more parking opportunities, and they did not want mandated "mixed use." He explained they were not sure they wanted to see a fifth lane through the corridor, but they did want to see more turn lanes that would facilitate access and increase safety in the area. Julia Glisson, 3920 Upper Drive, Lake Oswego, 97035, the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association representative, discussed access and transportation. She said the plan should enhance connectivity and safety and promote multi-modal transportation. She explained that easy pedestrian access and amenities like arcades and covered walkways, safe crossings, planned bike routes and good access to public transportation would encourage people to walk or bike or use public transportation instead of driving a vehicle. She suggested that design strategies should be used that would calm traffic along Boones Ferry Road and discourage cut-through traffic in neighborhoods. City of Lake Oswego Page 3 of 8 Planning Commission Minutes of January 26, 2004 Commissioner Sandblast explained that although the business core of the Village Center was designated in yellow on the map, the Committee intended the "Village" to include the surrounding residential areas. Jay Medley, P.O. Box 1101, Lake Oswego, 97035t stated he lived on Douglas Circle and was a cyclist. He expressed his concern that although the Boones Ferry Corridor Plan provided for bike lanes, he had heard that the business community survey had stated there was very little bike traffic along Boones Ferry Road. He stressed that bike lanes were absolutely necessary. He explained that cyclists tended to use side roads because they believed that Boones Ferry Road was not safe. He also reported that the existing bike lanes to and from the Village Center dead-ended, leaving a cyclist with nowhere to go. Commissioner Vizzini observed that the vision statement anticipated more access and transportation options, such as on street bike lanes along Boones Ferry Road and major collector streets, a neighborhood bike route around the Village Center, and secure bicycle parking. The Commissioners encouraged Mr. Medley to discuss biking issues with his neighborhood representative, or Ms. Jordan, the TAB liaison to the Commission. Commissioner Sandblast left the meeting at 6:30. • Mitch Ellison, 3645 SW Lanewood Street, Lake Oswego, 97035, asked if it was true that the Village Center would redevelop school property currently used as a playing field for the elementary school. Mr. Egner confirmed that the concept to locate a public gathering space along Boones Ferry Road in front of the school where the field was located had been suggested at a community workshop. He recalled that it was one of many concepts presented in early Planning Commission discussions. He advised that if the concept was included in the final Village Center plan it could take several decades to accomplish because the school's playing field would have to be relocated to the current location of the bus barn at a future time when the school was renovated. He noted that one Advisory Committee member also served on the Lake Grove Elementary School Site Council. Matt Finnigan, 178 Condolea Drive, Lake Oswego, 97035, opined that "village" described the area's character better than Metro's term, "Main Street." He reminded the Commissioners that the corridor plan called for a five-lane roadway with City developed and funded off-street parking, and he recalled that businesses were to get credit for those parking spaces. He indicated he supported the goal to "design strategies to calm Boones Ferry Road while improving the area." He observed that the Committee had not mentioned that synchronizing the lights would enhance access to businesses by reducing roadway speeds. He confirmed that it was technically feasible to facilitate traffic flow and still provide parking, sidewalks and crossings. He applauded the Committee for their work. City of Lake Oswego Page 4 of 8 Planning Commission Minutes of January 26,2004 Scott Seigel, Cumin Math and Reading Center, Lake Oswego, 97035, stated that he and his wife also favored the "village" concept. He related that almost 100 students visited his business regularly and if the area developed a more pedestrian focus, 80%of them could easily walk there, rather than be driven there. He asked for a mid-block pedestrian crossing over Boones Ferry Road, wider sidewalks and turn lanes to improve the flow of traffic. He asked the Committee to encourage, rather than mandate shared parking and driveways. He said the presence of a City parking facility in the village center would encourage property owners to share. He asked that language restricting adult businesses be strengthened so Boones Ferry Road would not change to resemble Barbur Boulevard. The Commissioners complimented the Committee on what they had accomplished so far. Chair Johnson and Commissioner Vizzini cautioned the Committee to keep in mind in planning the Village Center that it had to meet Metro's "Town Center" minimum standards (found in the Metro Functional Plan) and serve both the City of Lake Oswego's and regional goals. Chair Johnson noted that a "Town Center" included mixed use and accommodated housing, although the change could be allowed to evolve over time. He observed a regional trend toward building mixed-use communities. Vice Chair Groznik encouraged the Committee look for "win-win" solutions and compromises that would result in a better community, but not at the expense of someone else. Chair Johnson announced a two-minute break in the proceedings and thereafter reconvened the meeting. VI. GENERAL PLANNING—WORK SESSION P 03-0006, Sloped Lots — Possible Amendments to Community Development Code Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manger, advised that a Sloped Lot was a lot where the grade dropped by at least 10 feet across the building envelope. He noted that maximum structure height was limited to 35 feet at all points along the slope. He described three different options for a variance to allowable height on a sloped lot: Class 1, Class 2 and a special variance for sloped lot. He explained that all current variances related to height were Class 2 Variances and were tested by four criteria. He said the criteria include 1)that the variance would prevent a hardship; 2) it would not be injurious to the neighborhood; 3) it was the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the hardship; and 4) it did not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. He advised that a Class 1 Variance applied certain specified incremental changes to a development proposal (e.g., setbacks) and was granted if the variance would not be injurious to properties within 300 feet of the site and if it would not have an adverse affect on physical or natural systems (i.e., traffic or environmental features). He suggested that a Class 1 Variance might be applied where the slope was over 30% or 40% because the current height limitation seemed to become an issue on very steep slopes. He showed an example of a building envelope on a lot that was 100 feet deep with a 40% slope. City of Lake Oswego Page 5 of 8 Planning Commission Minutes of January 26,2004 Mr. Egner reported that the staff believed that variance requests could be reduced if the height requirement could be adjusted according to the degree of slope. He suggested criteria for a special variance for a sloped lot: 1. The hardship was caused by topography. 2. Similar properties had been given that right to height. (Chair Johnson commented that"similar"should refer to similar circumstances.) 3. No significant impacts. Mr. Egner then discussed the issue of appearance. He recalled the Planning Commissioners and the Development Review Commissioners had agreed that a support structure should be enclosed and wall plane standards should be applied. He advised the Infill Standards limited wall planes to 750 sq. ft. (R-7.5) and 500 sq. ft. (R-5 and R- 6). He reported that the staff's experience administering the Infill Standards showed that "plate height" was a confusing term that should be removed from the standards; that the currently required two-foot offset could be reduced to a one-foot offset; and that the area of windows and doors could be exempted from the calculation of wall area. He advised that current Infill Standards allowed certain roof features (such as dormers) to project above the height limit by as much as six feet under certain circumstances. He clarified those exceptions did currently apply to Sloped Lots, but did not apply to Flag Lots. He related the staff suggestion to consider allowing additional height on steep slopes according to a sliding scale - perhaps by allowing one additional foot of height for every 3% of slope. He said that might allow a 40-foot house on a 45% slope and a 45-foot house on a 60% slope. He used the example of a new, three-level, 45-foot tall (to the midpoint of the roofline) house on a steep slope in Mountain Park that had been constructed just before the Infill Ordinance was adopted and was about one-third larger than would be allowed by current regulations. He noted that if the house were constructed today it could not be more than 35 feet high. He showed illustrations of how the structure's envelope would have to change on different degrees of slope and how it would look (with five to ten feet additional height allowed over the 35—foot limit) if the standards were changed to allow additional height on steeper slopes. Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, explained that under the Class 2 Variance process, four factors determined whether a hardship existed: 1. Physical circumstances (i.e., topography). 2. Whether reasonable use, similar to like properties, could be made without the variance. 3. Whether the hardship had been created by the applicant and the economic impact on applicant if the request was denied. 4. The request was the minimum necessary to make reasonable use of the property. Mr. Boone encouraged the Commissioners to recommend a standard for "reasonable use" and to describe examples of approvable exceptions and adjustments in order to provide more certainty to applicants and the staff. He suggested the City should not adopt a Class 1 height variance, but apply either a Class 2 Variance or a Special Variance for a Sloped Lot. He suggested the Commissioners might base reasonable use on some percentage of what amount of main floor living area could be built on a City of Lake Oswego Page 6 of 8 Planning Commission Minutes of January 26, 2004 flat, R-7.5 lot. He explained that after that amount of main floor was achieved, the applicant's development would have to fit the topography and follow the slope. He asked them to consider whether the first floor had to be at street level. He recalled properties in the City where the house was accessed via an articulated railway from the street-level garage. Several commissioners agreed that development should follow the slope. The staff confirmed that they believed that every lot in the City was buildable with sufficient engineering. During the ensuing discussion the staff confirmed that the Infill Standard for a front plane applied to a sloped lot. The Commissioners observed that to set a steepness threshold for special treatment at a 30% slope could be seen as unfair to the owner of a lot just under the threshold. Commissioner Vizzini suggested a solution that allowed height could be increased on a sliding scale of slope, starting with 25% slopes. He noted the downhill setback would be increased by five feet for every foot of additional height. He explained that it would move a massive rear wall further away from downhill neighbors. He agreed that the uphill (street level) height limit should be the same as the zone. He also urged the Commissioners to use the Class 2 Variance process for height and to prohibit open support structures. Commissioner Vizzini and Chair Johnson also agreed there should be incrementally applied landscaping requirements to screen the downslope mass. The Commissioners discussed how to set a reasonable size for a main floor. They heard suggestions to calculate the average square footage of a house in each zone, or the citywide average, or Mr. Boone's suggestion to set the amount of main floor square footage that could be achieved on a flat lot in an R-7.5 zone — or a certain percentage of that. Mr. Boone indicated that it would legislatively establish what was a reasonable development opportunity for the main floor on a sloped lot. If the builder could not achieve that under the standards, he could then apply for a variance. He cautioned that although linking increased height with increased rear setback eliminated topography as a hardship, it created another reason for a variance: lot size. Chair Johnson directed the staff to prepare sample Code provisions that addressed height on sloped lots according the concept of a fixed "flat lot"basis amount and the concept of the incremental linkage of additional height and increased setback suggested by Commissioner Vizzini. He anticipated the concepts would be presented for public comment. He indicated that he would prefer not to add the responsibility for overseeing another task force to the current Commission workload. VII. OTHER BUSINESS P 03-0008, East End Redevelopment Plan Update The Commissioners reviewed a draft memorandum to the City Council. The communication clarified that the Planning Commission had decided not to make a recommendation, but wanted to identify issues related to the East End Redevelopment Plan Update. The Commissioners discussed what kind of anchors were appropriate for each end of the First Street retail shopping area. Vice Chair City of Lake Oswego Page 7 of 8 Planning Commission Minutes of January 26,2004 Groznik commented that a parking garage would not be an appropriate anchor, especially if it were located next to the First Addition Neighborhood. He advocated specifying "retail"anchor. He observed that Block 138 served as the other anchor. Commissioner Vizzini moved to forward to the City Council the memorandum, "Request to Review East End Redevelopment Plan Update (P 03-0008)," modified to specify "retail" anchors. Commissioner Webster seconded the motion and it passed with Chair Johnson, Vice Chair Groznik and Commissioners Stayer, Vizzini and Webster voting yes. Commissioners Coffey and Sandblast were not present. There were no votes against. LU 03-0075, Findings, Conclusions and Order—Citizen Involvement Guidelines Commissioner Vizzini moved for approval of LU 03-0075-1528, Findings, Conclusions and Order. Vice Chair Groznik seconded the motion and it passed with Chair Johnson and Commissioners Coffey, Stayer, Vizzini and Webster voting yes. Vice Chair Groznik recused himself. Commissioners Coffey and Sandblast were not present. There were no votes against. Council Retreat Mr. Egner announced that he planned to e-mail the Commissioners the results the City Council's recent goal-setting work session. He advised the Commissioners that the Councilors had decided to re-initiate and staff the Neighborhood Planning Program. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business before the Planning Commission, Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 8:09 p.m. Res ctfully submitted, Iris Treinen Senior Secretary City of Lake Oswego Page 8 of 8 Planning Commission Minutes of January 26, 2004