Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2008-06-09 (02)• • • City of Lake Oswego · d Planning Commission Minutes fe ~pro June 9, 2008 I. CALL to ORDER Chair Julia Glisson called the Planning Commission meeting of Monday, June 9, 2008 to order at apptmdinately 6:00 .p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 380 "A" A venue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL III. Members present were Chair Julia Glisson, Vice Chair Philip Stewart and Commissioners Adrianne Brockman, Brian Newman, Mary Olson, Scot Siegel and Alison.Webster. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Ma,nager; Sarah Selden, Neighborhood Planner; Sidaro Sin, Senior Planner; Deborah Andteades, Associate Plartner; Evail Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris Treinen, Administrative Support . CITIZEN COMMENT None. IV. MINUTES Commissioner Brockman moved to Happrove~_ the }llinutes of May 12, 2008. Commissioner Olson seconded the motion aild it passed 5:0. Commissioners Newman and Siegel abstained. V. PUBLIC HEARING Amendments to Citizen Involvement Guidelines (LU 08-0031) A request from the City of Lake Oswego to approve proposed Ordinance 2512 amending the City's Citizen Involvement Guidelines to include new guidelines and criteria for neighborhood assoCiation boundary amendments, a new requirement for neighborhood association board officer terms, clarification on the procedure to remove neighborhood association recognition, and clarification on the City's annual meeting to review the citizen involvement program. Chair Glisson opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedure and criteria. She asked the Commissioners to declare any bias or conflict of interest. None were declared. City of LCike Oswego Plaru:iiiJ.g Commission Miil.JJtes of June 9, 2008 Page I ofl2 · Sarah Selden, Neighborhood Planner, presented the staff report. She highlighted key • changes proposed to the Citizen Involvement Guidelines for Lake Oswego related to requirements for recognizing neighborhood associations, modifying their boundaries, staggering neighborhood association board position terms, and the annual Commission for Citizen Involvement meeting. She suggested a procedure for amending neighborhood association boundaries. It was based on neighborhood a.Ssociation recognition criteria a.nci could be initiated by the Commission for Citizen Involvement (CCI), City Council, an existing neighborhood association, or a group of citizens. The process required evidence that the existing boundaries no longer met the criteria and that the proposed boundary would meet it. It provided that the change could not leave a former member property outside of and unrepresented by any neighborhood association. She re.called tha:t · existing neighborhoods ranged in si?:e from 100 to 1 ,500 households. She added that at the February 11th CCI meeting, the Commissioners wanted to · ensure a new neighborhood association was not too small; they wanted enough people involved in it to make it effective; and they wanted to see an adequate showing ofmember support for the change. She said the proposed criteria for forming a new neighborhood association called for a minimum of 300 households and as large an area as possible. She said that meant that if only a Jew properties were to be shifted from one neighborhood association to another, the result had to be that both associations had 300 members or more. At this point in her presentation Ms. Selden suggested further changes to the drafted language in Appendix D to account for tenants. She suggested it could call for a "double majority," with a written show of support from occupants of 67% of all the properties • within the area proposed to change, and 67% of the property owners; She said other proposed changes would help maintain neighborhood continuity and momentuin by requiring staggered, two-year board terms to ensure that no more than half the board changed in each election. She said the draft allowed a neighborhood association to be inactive if there were no current issues of concern, without losing its recognition. She recommended that the Planning Commission recommend LU 08.,.0031 to the City Council and arrange ajoint study session to discuss it. During the questioning period, staff explained they ha:d set the threshold at 300 members because they recalled that the Commissioners believed the City's smallest existing neighborhood association (of less than 200 households) was too small. They clarified the guidelines called for a new neighborhood association to have the largest atea possible to represent "common identity and social communication." Commissioner Brockman cautioned tbat the proposed 300-household threshold might not help increase citizen involvement because it would not be possible for SOJ11e areas to create a neighborhood associatjon with that many members. · · When asked, ·staff explained they proposed to require two-yea:r board terms because it ensured continuity; they had heard citizens lament the fact that a couple of neighborhood associations had swept out their entire board in one election; and most City boards and commissions were structured for staggered member terms. Cofilmissioner Olson said her experience was that effective board members were re.,.elected. She worried that • mandatory two-year terms would discourage those who did not want to commit to more · - City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2008 Page 2 of 12 • • • than one year. Comrn:issioner Brockman recalled hearing neighborhood association chairs say they found it difficult to conduct business a:t a board meeting at which new board members were not aware of what the board had already discussed. Commissioner Webster advised that recognition criteria that called for an area that was "consistent With comrn:on identity and social comrn:unication" should be made more objective and meaningful. She asked exactly how someone could demonstrate that a newly proposed boundary met the criteria and that the old on~ no longer met it. She also recommended against allowing a boundary change based on oilly one issue. Staff recalled the Pla.I)Il_ing CoiiliJlissioners had anticipated· a show of a change of circumstances, such as the result of a: major land use change or annexation. They explained that the City Council had the authority to change boundaries at any time, but the proposed criteria outlined a process for it. When asked, they clarified that a11 five common interests listed under Boundary Recognition Criteria: had to be considered, and that the criteria would allow a neighborhood association to use mail-in ballots as well as in-person votes to determine if there was sufficient support for a change. Brigitte Howley, 2560 Bree Court, a Palisades Neighborhood Association board member, said she had been elected a year ago a:nd recently re .. ~lected. She indicated that the board was structured so members represented all sub-areas of Palisades, but together they looked at the "big picture," compromised, lllld effectively addressed neighborhood- wide projects and issues. She cautioned tha:t dividing Palisades up into several smaller neighborhood associations would only create more problems. She said it was already a challenge for Palisades to find enough peop~e willing to sel'Ve on the boarci, and it might be even harder for a smaller neighborhood association. She said the Association had conveyed close neighbors' concerns about field use at Lakeridge High School and issues such as that should not be sufficient reason for a small group to create their own neighborhood association. Cathy Shroyer, 16727 Babson Place, former Chair of the Lake Forest Neighborhood AssociationlCPO. submitted a map showing the City's 20 neighborhood associations and the number of households they each represented. She questioned the proposed 300- household threshold. She said it conflicted with the criterion that the area was to be the largest possible. She calculated the average neighborhood association membership was 628 households, and that to reduce the threshold to 300 households could result in 40 neighborhood associations. She held there was no need to form any new neighborhood associations, because if and when a change were justified, some of the largest associations could transfer members to an abutting smaller ex:isting association and the members of each association would still share common interests, such as traffic. She acknowledged it was possible that the day might come when the largest neighborhood associations had to split up to operate effectively. She said that might be justified if they failed to meet their criteria, did not comrn:unicate with their members or hold public meetings, or were doing a ''bad'' job. She said that Lake Forest might transfer some households to Waluga; and Palisades might transfer some to South Shore. She said the proposal was vague and confusing, and a "solution in search of a problem.'' It was not specific er1ough about voti11g and irnplementat~on . City of Lake Oswego Planning Coininission Mir)utes ofJuile 9, 2008 · Page 3 ofl2 Ms. Shroyer said it would be hard to get volunteers to serve two tehns and the City should not mak:e that more difficult. She recalled previous boundary chailges had been decided based on coiilmon sense and the case the proponents made at the h~aring. During • the questioning period, she explained that although neighborhood representatives·-had been present at the February CCI meeting when the Commissioners had discussed the first draft, the subsequent notice had been too "generic," neighborhood association representatives could not understand the staff report; and they had not been involved in fashioning the proposal. She asked, for example, if the voting procedure was to allow one vote per tax lot or per adult resident. She suggested that the Comrni~sioners either recommend not changing the existing system or ask staff to work With the neighborhood associations before th~ joint Planning Commission/City Council study session. Sally Moncrieff, 2643 Rivendell Road; Chair of the Palisades Neighborhood Association, said recognition sho1.1ld not be removed from neighborhood associations that met all their criteria. She warned that the proposed process for amending an existing neighborhood association's boundary to form a new neighborhood association could result in 15 new neighborhood associations in which 201 (67% of 300) members agreed to form a new association, but 99 households had disagreed. She agreed with Commissioner Webster tha,t the proposed · language was not clear enough regarding exactly what had to be demonstrated to show the old· and new boundaries did not or did meet the recognition criteria. She agreed with Ms. Shroyer that the City could adjust boundaries between an association it determined was too large and adjoining existing neighborhood a.Ssociations·; that the proposal was a: "solution looking for a problem;" and that the proposed process had not been necessary to bring about previous boundary • changes. She recommended the City keep the existing guidelines. Barbara Zeller, 3335 Sabina Court, Lake Grove Neighborhood Association, said she had not had enough time to arrange for her Association board to discuss the proposaL- She worried that some people would view the minimum two-year tertn requirement as a term limit. Staff explained the intent was to retain at least half the board each election for the sake of continuity, a:nd nothing in the proposal prevented a board member from being re-elected to another two-year term. Ms. Zeller stressed an established neighborhood association should have to consent before the City Council decided tb add land to it. Staff advised the City Council WliS now and would continue to be the boundary change authority, but they agreed with Ms. Zeller that the best approach was to gain concurrence of the neighborhood association. Ms. Zeller suggested staff hold a roundtable work session with the neighborhood liSSOciations to gain their support and then rewrite the proposal and ensure it wa.S cleat and understandable. Dan Vizzini, 13830 Verte Court, advised that neighborhood associations were formal extensions of ·cit)' govemiDent and served an important legal purpose related to land use regulations. He suggested the definitions in the proposed document were too "loose,'' but clarified that he wollld not redraw the neighborhood association map. He indicated that he was concerned that establishing a process to form a new neighborhood ~sociation could motivate people to create neighborhood associations of narrow .. issue, "affinity groups" rather tha:n stay in a neighborhood association in which diverse opinions had to • City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes ofJune 9, 2008 Page 4 of 12 J.. • • • come together. He suggested "membership" needed to be more clearly defined because the land use process expected voting members to be property oWrters. He recommended that households in an area proposed to be shifted from one neighborhood association to ~other should have their own separate vote. He agreed it was a good idea to hold a work session with the neighborhood associations and that the criteria needed to be clearer and more "defensible." During the questioning period, he recalled that boundary changes had been accomplished in the past crild the affected neighborhood associations bad participated in that process. He acknowledged the final decision maker was the City Council. He agreed there were both "internal'' reasons to change neighborhood association boundaries and citywide reasons, such as ensuring an unrepresented area was represented. Bob Barman, 1445 Oak Terrace; held that 300 households was too small a number and made it too easy to form a new neighborhood association. He stressed that a dissenting m.inority of households could be forced to be a part of the new neighborhood association. He suggested the right size was closer to 500-600 households, Which was a size that offered a large enough volunteer pool to fill boarg positions ~d wa.s harder for a few speCial interests to manipulate. He suggested boundary changes be considered on a periodic basis -evety five or ten years -and they should benefit the entire City, not just reflect the emotional issues of the day. He noted some neighborhood association boundaries were "screwy" and could be corrected during periodic review. He suggested staff discuss the issue with neighborhood association chairs. During the questioning period, he explained that it would be too easy to get 300 · members and a new _neighborhood association in an area that contained apartments. Vice Chair Stewart recalled the draft· called for the support of a majority of the membership at a general meeting of the association. He asked if that meant only property owners could vote. Chait Glisson recalled staff had just suggested a change in the draft that called for two different votes: of owners, and then of all households, ~t1sinesses and non-profits. Mr. Barman advised that the City had to allow renters to enjoy "full, vested rights," and that made it easier to turn an area of 300 apartment units into a neighborhood association. He asked if the Commissioners really WCIDted that He indicated he agreed the draft proposal needed work and staff should find out what the neighborhood associations thought of it. Commissioner Webster referred to the neighborhood association map Ms. Shtoyer had submitted and asked if the "household" numbers on it represented both renters and owners. Ms. Selden recalled that the numbers she had given Ms. Shroyer were the numbers of residence addresses on the City's neighborhood association mailing lists. She added that the City kept a separate mailing list of absentee property owners. Commissioner Webster saw a need to more clearly define "households.;, Carolyne R. Jones, 2818 Poplar Way, a Glenmorrie Neighborhood Association board member, related that she had been re-elected to multiple two-year terms: She said she did not support the 300 threshold because it would exacerbate conflicting interests between Glenmotrie's R-15 character and a nearby area that might be developed at a higher density. She suggested topography should be a factor because Skylands, Which was at the top of the hill, did not have the same interests as Glenmorrie. For example, they had asked Glenmorrie to cut down some trees that were blocking their view. She City.ofLal<e Osw~go Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2008 Page 5 of 12 said her neighborhood association would consider becoming part of the Mary's Woods residential area on the other side of the highway because that dev~lopment w~s limited by •. known factors, such as the conditions of approval of that Planned Development. Jaliene Hollabough, _1685 Cloverleaf Road, said ~he lived i11 Palisades Neighborhood Association, Area 9, and supported the staff proposal. She predicted that she could gain the support of 67% of 300 sub-area homes (those that were located around public spaces) in less than one month because her neighbors did not feel the Palisades Neighborhood Association (PNA) represented their interests and the current bylaws made it difficult for one of them: to be elected Area 9 representative. She reported that their minority view was alw~ys voted down. She agreed that topography should help determine where neighborhood association boundaries should be located. DU:ting the questioning period, she clarified that the general PNA membership voted on all area representatives, and Area 9 residents could not hold a separate vote to choose their own representative. Commissioner Brockman said the testimony i.ndica.ted to her that there was a gr~~ter need for the CCI to focus on how well neighborhood associations were operating than on a new process. Mr. Egner explained there was no current process in place for part of an existing neighborhood association to initiate a boundary change. He advised that they could bring their request to the CCI or the City Council, but staff had heard the Commissioners say they wanted a process, and it seemed a better situation to have one, so people who wanted a boundary change knew how to approach it. Chair Glisson invited Mr. Vizzini to discuss how recent boundary changes had been • . initiated. Mr. Vizzini recalled that most of them had been small changes initi~ted by the neighborhood associations arid considered during the annual CCI review. He recalled that the Lake Grove and Wa)uga Neighborhood Associations had brought their request to a Planning Comniission work session, which had been followed by a hearing, a· Planning Commission recommendation, and a City Council decision. He said no neighborhood association vote had been taken. Commissioner Webster commented that it was a good idea: to have a process in place so people knew how to proceed, but she agreed with Mr. Vizzini that the definitions and criteria needed more work. Comniissioner Newman acknowledged that the City Council was and would always be the final decider, but he agreed there should be guidelines and a process for boundary changes. However, he did not support allowing a part of a neighborhood association to initiate the process of bre~IJ.g away from. it, because the outlined process was too complicated and too vulnerable to appeal by contesting persons. He indicated that if the breakaway group could not get a reasonable outcome from their existing neighborhood association, they could still bring their request to the CCI, or the City Council, or during a regular CCI review of all neighborhood association boundaries. Comrtlissioner Newman agreed that the proposed criteria needed more work. He said he could agree to remove the requirement for two-year board terms because every neighborhood was diff~rent, the . requirement complicated things, and it was already a challenge to get vohmteer board members. Commissioner Brockman observed that although neighborhood representatives at the • February meeting seemed to favor two-year terms, that was not what they were saying at City of L~e Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2008 Page 6 of 12 • • • the current hearing. Vice Chair Stewart recalled the Coilliilissioners had reasoned that some sort of staggered board terms would ensure continuity by preventing 100% turnover. Commissioner Olson recalled that most neighborhood. association. chairs served more than one term because others were reluctant to take on that responsibility. However, she agreed that provision could be eliminated. She held that neighborhood associations were mote than just an extension of the City government for land use purposes. She suggested not burdening them with more process would enable them to function more effectively. CoiDII1issioner Brockman agreed that ensuring that every neighborhood association member had an opportunity to participate was more important than creating new procedures and processes. Commissioner Siegel recom:mended clarifying the criteria. He agreed that topography was an important factor to be considered. He said the language that called for as large an atea as possible "consistent with com:mon identity and social communication" needed to be clarified. He also suggested adding criteria related to the ability of a group of neighbors to manage a new neighborhood association, and the fiscal impact on the City of establishing a new neighborhood association. He suggested the same set of criteria could be used to justify adjusting a boundary or forming a new neighborhood association. He agreed it would be helpful to schedule periodic review of boundaries; He agreed that the staff should discuss Appendix D with neighborhood association chairs. He said he did not think the City needed to set up a separate tracking or voting system or procedures for that because currently any group could ask the City Council to direct the Commissioners to begin boundary change hearings. He observed the Commissioners still needed to discuss what was to happen to allegedly inactive neighborhood associations. He said he believed it was up to each neighborhood association to decide whether or not they wanted to require staggered terms or term limits. Commissioner Webster recalled the Commissioners had anticipated that the requirements for staggered board terms would offer an association more continuity, but they heard testimony that would make it harder for a neighborhood association to find volunteers to serve, so she could agtee to remove that requirement. She stressed that the criteria needed more work. She reasoned that a splinter group might not enjoy being the minority in a democratic system, but they could still bring their case directly to the·-City, so there was not a pressing need to include a new process in the amendments to "fix;' their minority status. Chair Glisson agreed the criteria needed more work. She wondered what would keep a small, single-issue, "splinter" group together after they had formed a new I neighborhood association and the issue that had driven them away from the ·original neighborhood association had been resolved. Commissioner Webster said the criteria should be holistic and global and require more than dissent related to one issue. Vice Chait Stewart recalled testimony that a small part of an existing neighborhood association did not feel they had a "voice." Chair Glisson suggested that lack of representation·might be a "bylaw issue." When asked, Mr. Boone advised that the City Council examined a neighborhood's bylaws before the Council recognized it. Ms. Selden reported she had suggested that PNA first tty to resolve the problem by amending their bylaws, and that required a vote of the general membership at their anniJal meeting . City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of Ju:ne 9, 2008 Page 7 of 12 Comniissioner Newman observed the Commissioners wanted to avoid being drawn into short-term disputes and allowing a smaller, narrow interest group to break off over one issue, but they also did not want very large neighborhood associations that did not • represent the conun.on interests or provide an appropriate forum for issues. He suggested a reglilarly schedliled, dispassionate, review of neighborhood association boundaries based on census and other data, maps, the neighborhood association boundary criteria, and public input. Commissioner Siegel pointed out the PNA situation was somewhat Wl.ique because that area abutted un-annexed land and featured large institutional and public land uses. Commissioner Brockman stressed that all neighborhood association members should be able to participate in neighborhood decisions. She wanted to spend more time on making sure of that, rather than working on writing new rliles. Commissioner Olson anticipated that improved definitions would make it easier to clarify the criteria. Chair Glisson summarized the discussion. She saw agreement that the criteria needed to be worked on first, before any process was developed, and that the process needed to clearly say what was required to initiate a change. She recalled that the Commissioners w~ted more public input and neighborhood association involvement in the disc'ussioh. Mr. Egner asked if there sholild be a process for a "splinter group'' to use to form a new neighborhood association, or if they sholild simply approach the CCI or the City Council with their request. Commissioner Brockman suggested that their request sholild not be based· on only one issue. Commissioner Olson suggested they could be encouraged to discuss it with the staff first, because the staff would help them compare their request with the (revised, clarified) criteria. Mr. Egner asked if a petition, or a minimum number of requestors, should be required to initiate a request. Commissioner Olson said any size • group, with any kind of issue, should be allowed to let the CCI know about it. Commissioner Webster reasoned that if the saille recognition criteria (including "as large as possible") were applied to the ''splinter" group request, how many of them requested it did not matter. Commissioner Siegel agreed the number of requestors was not as important as the quality of the request. He said the request might be something other than to -bre~ off with the parent neighborhood association -it might be to bring about a bylaws change; for example. He suggested the splinter group have to show th.ey could be a functional organization. He said if the request related to a Comprehensive Plan amendment, or creating a new neighborhood association, the ·Commissioners colild recommend that the requ,estors take their request to the City Council and allow the Council to decide whether to direct the CCI to hear the matter. Coil1lll.issjoner Brockman agreed that the number of requestors was not important and she stressed that the CCI wanted to hear from the conun1,lllity. Commissioner Webster said the definitions and criteria should be clarified. She suggested they sholild require the break.:off group to show there had been a signific~t change in circumstances. Commissioner Siegel suggested the group sholild talk to staff so they did not have uilrealistic expectations. Commissioner Olson anticipated the situation would not co:Qle up very often and it was not a big enough problem to justify fashioning a special process for it. She said staff colild offer the group help and guidance and ask the CCI or the City Council if they wanted to heat the matter. Chair Glisson ··- agreed with Mr. Egner, that it would take a compelling argument to form a new City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2008 Page 8 of 12 • • • neighborhood association. She anticipated that well-defined criteria could be in place for the requestors to compare their request with. She said if the request were based on a single issue, staff could help them find some other way to resolve it. Cotnmissioner Webster suggested a "compelling'' argument could be that there had been some breach in the previously existing common~ity and they needed to form a new neighborhood association. When staff asked which body a break-off group should go to first, Cha:ir Glisson recalled that each Planning Commission agenda offered an opportunity for anyone to bring up a CCI-related issue .. Coiilii1issioner Broclanan suggested they should be asked to complete a: fortn that would .help them organize and prepare a well-thought- out request and then submit it to the CCI in a letter; Mt. Egner sUin.I'narized what he heard. He observed that the Commissioners wanted to take a more holistic approach. they wanted to establish a regular, periodic review of boundaries with neighborhood association input. Commissioner Newman agreed, adding that even if the splinter group were in a unique circumstance, the City had to consider the ef'fect of the request on tbe City's neighborhood association system. The Commissioners generally agreed that it was better ·to schedule two-year reviews than five-yeat reviews and -,it would be best not to wait a year to schedule the initial review because the Commissioners were aware there was at least one group who would want such a: review. Commissioner Brockman suggested 'the Planning Commission was the appropriate body to conduct the regular boundary review. Commissioner Siegel suggested recommending that a:ny group who wa:nted to modify neighborhood association boundaries should present their request to the CCI or the City Council first, before the Planning Commission heard the matter. Chair Glisson said the CCI should be a:n "open port" through which anyone could come to explain their problem. She anticipated staff would ask them to do their ''homework,'' and guide them tow~d an understanding of the neighborhood association role and criteria. She observed that staff agteed that Was doable. Chair Glisson observed a consensus that the Cm:ru:nissioners could agree to drop the requirement for staggered board terms. Commissioner Siegel reminded them they still needed to discuss how to relax the standards so an inactive r;teighborhood association did not necessarily lose its recognition. Staff advised the Guidelines provided that the City Council could tenninate recognition after notifying the association and inviting them to appear to argue their case for continuing recognition. Commissioner Siegel clarified that he wanted to ensure all members of the neighborhood association were notified. C01nmissioner Webster observed that the Commissioners were inclined to agree to relax the recognition standards for inactive neighborhood associations. Staff recoii1II1e11ded the hearing be continued so they could discuss the issues with the neighborhood associations and return with a better proposal with tightened definitions arid criteria and work on the process. Commissioner Siegel moved to continue LU 08-0031 to September .22. 2008. Commissioner Brockman seconded the motion and it passed 7:0. The Commissioners also generally agreed to Wait to schedule a joint work session with the City Council because they were not ready to accept the current draft and they wanted staff to solicit more neighborhood association input. When Chair Glisson found there were not er;tough volunteers to form a CCI neighborhood planning subcoii1IIlittee, she volunteered to City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Miil\ltes ofJune 9, 2008 Page 9 of 12 VI. participate in the staff/neighborhood association discussions. She announced a five- minute break in the meeting and thereafter reconvened it. PLANNING COMMISSION-WORK SESSION Buildable Lands Inventory (PP 07-0009) Sidaro Sin, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He explained that staff had examined the potential dwelling unit capacity within the Urban Service Bom1d~ (USB) and estimated how many dwelling units could be built under current zoning. He said the study results could be ~sed during the community visioning process, periodic review of the Comprehensive Plan, neighborhood association planning, and to track how well the City was meeting Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, Title 1 (Requirement for Housing and Employment Accommodation). He clarified that Metro had determined the City was in compliance in 2001 which meant that based on 2001 zoning, the City was able to provide the opportunity for the number dwelling units required by Title 1. He added that the City was not required to do this study to prove to Metro it was still in compliance. When some Commissioners questioned whether market conditions, creation of open space, and existing development would support tb.at amount of dwelling units creation, staff explained that Metro required the City's zoning to provide that capacity. They pointed out the draft study showed that by 2007, actual, approved, development had only • been 60% of estimated maximum density. Staff explained they had changed the method • of analysis since the original capacity study. The original study had been a parcel-by- parcel analysis, btit the clirrent study used GIS technology, removed protected land and right-of-way, and looked at how land in each zone could be re-developed in the future. They advised that a subdivision was reqUired. to meet the minimum density requirement (which was 80% of maximum density), but a partition wa.s not subject to the density requirement. They explained that a lot of land had been partitioned up through 2007 and that had contributed to the "under-built" percentage of 60% of the potential density the City had plailhed. Col'nrhissioner Newman observed that the 2007 data was not Gom.plete because some subdivision applications were still in the land use process. Mr. Sin then discussed how Floor Area Ratio (FAR) factored into the methodology. He explained there was no maximum or minimum density requirement in multifamily zones, · but a F AR.limit was applied. He recalled the City's original dwelling units capacity study had excluded FAR-based projects where the potential number of development units was not based on the square feet of the lot. Mr. Egner advised that the City's R-0 zone allowed relatively intensive density. Theoretically, one could fit almost 50,000 sqUate feet of apartments on one acre of R-0 zoned land. But in actuality, common area, open space, parking area, hallways, etc. took up much of the lot. He related that many jurisdictions estimated they could actually get 20 apartments to perhaps as many as 50 high-rise apartments (with stlilctured parking) pet acre. However, the current study showed Lake Oswego's average built density in multifamily zones was only five units per acre. The Commissioners observed that high-density zones seemed to be "unde:r-• performing" and they might offer the greatest potential for meeting hotising targets. Staff City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2008 Page 10 of 12 • • • said they pla,IU1ed to re-exi;Ulline th9se zop.es to ensure the data related to multifamily zones, which they had collected late in the process, was correct. Mr. Sill the11 discussec,l Atta,chment 7, Dwelling Unit Capacity Analysis (DUCA) Quick Reference Sheet ( 6/2/08) and ~xplained the methodology and vari~bles the staff had considered. He reported that there was no "standard" methodology, and staffhad chos~n methods that both Metro and the Department of Land Conservation and Development , (DLCD) staff found to be generally acceptable. He asked the Commissioners for their feedback. He pointed out that redevelopment of condominium projects had been excluded froro Gross Buildable Land. Be explain~d staff anticipated they would be very difficult to consolidate and redevelop. He explained a 20% "underbuild" factor had been applied to reflect the fact that the City featured physically constrained land that could not be counted as "net buildable land;" Staff pointed out that the results were categorized into Version 2a, which included all lands that showed up in the study as "bUildable" regardless of perceived constraints (a DLCD recommendation); an<i Version 2b, which reflected assumptions based on local knowledge related to what parcels were actually unlikely to be redeveloped. They had also applied other variables to both Version 2a and 2b to find the potential range of unit density (low, medium and high) depending on how liberally or strictly the code was applied to development there, and a liberal or conservative estimate reg@l'ding whether a parcel that was 2 times the zone's minimum lot size could actually be divided into two lots, or if constraints, or the need for a buffet or an access drive for a flag lot, would require the parent parcel to be 2.5 times the zone's minimum lot size in order for the result to be two appropriately.,.sized lots . Staff confirmed they assumed that redevelopment could be served by the sani~ sewer system. They explained their projection did not count accessory dwelling units because they were not an outright permitted use, it was a discretionary decision to allow them, and the Building Depa,rtment staff said th~t there were not that many in the City. They confirriled the inventory factored dwelling units in tnixed-ilse development in commercial zones. Commissioner Brockman observed the City had a lot of steep topography, and that the Reference Sheet indicat~d that under the Version 2b, low-density scenario, the City would be many units short of the target. The Commissioners discussed the assUJl1ptions. Commissioner Siegel suggested there might already be enough right-of-way available for infill development, but he acknowledged that a flag lot would need to create an accessway. Staff said they believed it made sense to apply the "underbuild" factor if they were making a very general calculation' of net buildable land by dividing the aggregate total of a zone's land by the zone's minimum lot size. The Commissioners wondered if the "2.5 times" assumption might underestimate potential density; they observed that which assumptions the Planning Commission chose to recommend could drive policy and affect the character of the community. They anticipated their choices would affect planning decisions such as how to meet affordable housing needs. Staff recalled the Affordable Housing Task Force recommendation had been to allow accessory dwellings outright in some zones in order to provide more affordable housing. Commissioner Newman recalled the City of Portland assumed that 3% to 4% of all dwelling units built over a 20-year period would be · City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2008 / Page II of 12 "granny" flats. Commissioner Brockman cautioned there had to be ample' parki11g to serve such units. Staff agreed to double"check the data, explore the accessory dwelling issue, and arrange another work session. They recommended that the Planning Commission narrow the range of options presented in the staff report because it was possible to assume the City could build to the maximum potential capacity, but that was unlikely. Chair Glisson thanked staff for their work. Community Developme~t Code AmendmentsJPP _08~0002) This discussion was postponed to the next meeting. Vll. OTHER BUSINESS -PLANNING COMMISSION None. VITI. OTHER Bt]SINESS...,. COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENt None. IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Glisson adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.111. • City o{Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes ofJtine 9, 2008 Respectfully submitted, J2. Iris Treinen Administrative Support • Plige 12 of 12