Approved Minutes - 2008-07-14 (02)•
I.
· City of Lake Oswego d
Planning Commission Minutes r/8
July 14, 2oos ~ppro
CALL TO ORDER
Chajr Julia Glisson called the Planning Commission meeting of Monday, July 14, 2008 to
order at approximately 6:00 p.m. in th~ Council Chambers of City Hall, at 380 "A"
A venue, Lake Oswego, Oregon.
II. ROLL CALL
Members present were Chair Glisson, Vice Chair Philip Stewart and Commissioners
Adria.nne Brockman, Brian Newman, Mary Olson, Scot Siegel and Alison Webster.
Stl;lf:f present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Sidaro Sin, Senior
Pla.nner; Sarah Selden, Neighborhood Planner-; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and
Iris Treinen, Administrative Support.
III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
• Commissioner Brockman moved to nominate Julia Glisson to serve as Chair of the
•
---·
Planning Commission. Conirnissioner Webster seconded the nomination and it passed
7:0.
Commissioner Siegel moved to nominate Philip Stewart to serve as VIce Chair of the
Planning Cotnmission. Coinmissioner Webster seconded-the ncnnination and it passed
7:0.
IV. CITIZEN COMMENT
None.
V. MINUTES
Commis$joner Brockman moved .~o aPl~~()Ve ~e Minutes of June 9, 2008. CQmmissioner
Olson seconded the motion. and it passed 7:0.
I
VI.-PLANNING COMMISSION-.. WORK SESSIONS
Periodic Review (PP 08-00121
Sidato Sin, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He reported the Comprehensive
Plan and Community Development Co(;le (C])C) had last been updated in the early 1990s,
and the State had notified the City it was time for the next periodic review. Mr. Egner
related that current City Councilors were reluctant to bind the future City Council that
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of July 14, 2008 P,age I of7
'
was to be elected and seated by January 2009 to a visioning process. He suggested using
a two-step process to first make the changes mandated by the State, and then make
broader changes, which could reflect the results ofa visioning project. He explained that •
the SUite gave the City six months (or nine months with a three-month extension) to
submit a work program to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation. and
Development (DLCD) anq then three years to implement the changes. He clarified that
the State mandate was to make the Comprehensive Plan and CommUnitY Development
Code consistent with changes in State and regional planning and land use regulations.
Mr. Egner suggested accomplishing that' first, and then completing a second step to
address bigger issues. He hoped all the changes might be implemented iil three years'
time. However, if that were not possible, at least the deadline for State-mandated changes
would be met. He reported that the staff had been doing the preparatory work since 2003.
They had listed issues that needed to be addressed in "Outlook 2025," and they were
currently working on the Buildable Lands lnve~tory. He ~dvised that a njne~month
process would offer more opportunities for public involvement and more time for th~ new
City Council to consider whether or not to go ahead with the visioning program.
During the questioning period, Mr. Egner clarified that the cUtrent City Council did not
want to begin visioning workshops this fall. The Commissioners observed there would
also be a "new" Planning Commission during the third year of periodic review; They
agreed there Was a lot of work to be done and it was appropriate for staff to begin
organizing now. Commissioner Brockman favored the nine-month program becall,se it
gave the City more time to gain public acceptance. She advised the list of commUnity
issues in Outlook 2025 was outdated and did not list issues the public was already well
aware of and wanted addressed (whjch were issues related to land use, transportation and •
public services). Staff confirmed they had scheduled a staff meeting to discuss updating
the scope of issues.
Some Commissioners observed that the longer tiineliile and two-step process could result
in more public input and better decisions, and that it wo~ld be beneficial to encourage
residents to sUirt thinking about a City vision. However, Commissioner Siegel suggested
using one process (coordinated with the visioning process) because it might be a
challenge to mobilize the public in two separate processes, and because it would be better
to address complicated policy changes, such as reallocating density within the City, in one
process. He suggested the work program could compare the housing needs assessment
with the capacity of all residential zones and then the visioning process would determine
the rel~ted commUnity goal.
CoQllllissibner Brockman warned the City not to put off for another year dealing with
issues the community wanted addressed immediately, such as infill in neighborhoods and
lot coverage. The Commissioners observed they were already working on infill
regulation changes, CDC updates, and neighborhood planning th~t would provide the
"groundwork" for a visioning process and make it easier for the new City Council to
assess the situation. Staff agreed with the Commissioners that a contingency plan for
i~volving the public was needed if the visioni~g program was not initiated. The
Commissioners anticipated staff could ea_sily justify a request for a work program •
. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of July 14, 2008 Page2 of7
..
•
•
•
deadline extension to nine months that would allow more public involvement; involve the . . .
new City Cou:ncil; and accoininodate a visioning program. ·
Barbara Zeiler, Ch3ir of the LJ:ake Grove Neighborhood Association, reported
citizens were discouraged and "cranky" that compatibility related issues such as the size,
scale and setbacks of infill development had not been addressed. She said the "top-
down" process had proven to be less successful than anticipated. She suggested it might
be less confusing for citizens if the City addressed basic, "housekeeping" changes first
and then worked on policy issues. She counseled the City to "keep it simple," and have a
real dialogue with citizens. During the questioning period, she said it was hard to say
whether the Visioning process should be completed before larger policy issues were
addressed. -!
Mr. Egner summarized that the Commissioners agreed with the proposal for a 3-month
extension for submission of the work program; they wanted a cohesive; coordinated
process; they agreed to a contingency plan for public involvement; and they saw
important community issues that the visioning process should focus on.
Palisades Neighbor~ood Plan (LlJ 08-0045)
SJ:arJ:ah Selden, Neighborhood Planner, presented the staff report. She pointed out
Attachment A was the full version of the draft Plan and Attachment B contained the
goals, policies and action steps that directed the City, and would amend the
Comprehensive Plan. She explained there were two separate volumes so the City could
adopt the Comprehensive Plan amendments, but the Palisades Neighborhood Association
could change neighborhood association policies and action steps without having to
initiate a formal process to change the Comprehensive Plan. She and Palisades
Neighborhood Association representltives Sally Moncrieff, Don Irving, Becky Salsbutg,
~d Mike Hall described the neighborhood and the neighborhood plan.
During the questioning period, the Palisades representatives explained neighborhood
character varied with each decade in which a sub-area of the neighborhood had been
developed; They explained that they did not want to force replacement of a small, 1950s,
ranch house with a another small, two-bedroom/one bath, ranch, but they did want to
assure that new development reflected the scale and character of the existing
neighborhood. They asked for a change in the (CDC) that would control the scale of any
new congregate housing facilities in Palisades by limiting the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) to
.. 6, and the size of individual structures to ·s,ooo sq. ft. When asked, Ms. Selden advised
the existing congregate housing facility had FAR of .8 and its footprint wa.s many times
larger than the pr<>posed limit.
Commissioner Brockman observed there was nothing in the plan to prevent smaller
homes from · being replaced by very big houses. The neighborhood representatives
recalled the neighborhood had discussed the issue, but in the end they decided the
existing Code already limited the size of a footprint, it was not realistic to require that a
small house from the 1970s was to be replaced by another 1970s style, split level house;
the neighborhood was already very diverse _and there was no "Palisades Neighborhood
City of Lal(e Oswego Planning Commission
Minut~s of July 14, 2008 Page 3 of7
style," and different people had different ideas about what was beautiful. The
Commissioners observed that Palisades featured larger lots and more buffering vegetation
than other neighborhood$. Staff advised that although most Palisades Neighborhood lots .,
were latger than the minimum allowed zone size, only about 12% of them were large
enough to be subdivided, and development on those lots was constrained by topography
and natur~ resow-ce protections. They also observed that vegetation buffered homes
from each other and the building value to land v~ue was not as conducive to ''tear-down"
redevelopment.
Commissioner Siegel observed Palisades' ch~acter was "farmhouse," or neocolonial,
vernacular, but it was not "Lake Oswego Style." Commissioner Newman observed the
plan did not say whether the neighborhood wanted to see neighborhood-serving
nonresidential uses in adjacent areas, such as at the Rosemont/Stafford inJersection or at
Palisades Marketplace. Ms. Moncrieff pointed out the Association wanted to participate
in planning the Stafford triangle from the outset, and another representative recalled that
the neighborhood did not Want to see arty kind of commercial development in th~ sce~c
Stafford corridor. Ms, Selden pointed out the implementation strategy Was in an
Appendix. An implementation committee was to be appoin~ed to ensure implementation
progress.
Commissioner Brockman cautioned the neighborhood representatives th~t that some
things they envisioned might not become reality because they did not ask for related code
amendments. She said for exarnple, the Plan called for the City to apply Plan policies to
development decisions but did not propose any related code criteria. The Commissioners .~.
then discussed whether more code amendments would be necessary to give the Plan
regUlatory "teeth." Staff confirmed that the neighborhood association was oilly a.Skin.g for
two code amendments related to lakefront zoning and congregate ho11sit1g facilities. A
neighborhood representative explained that they anticipated that a future developer of
land along Overlook Road would be required· to .consider the neighborhood plan for
single-family development there, and he recalled that they had decided to rely on the Tree
Code to protect trees. He confinned that they had also discussed how extensive their plcm
should be. Ms. Moncrieff explained that she understood the neighborhood did not have
an option to add any code language or ask for anything that was not "in sync" with what
the City was doing.
The Commissioners and staff observed it was not ~ways necessary to implement plan
aspects via a code amendment. Commissioner Brockman advised the neighborhood
representatiVes that the Evergreen Neighborhood Association had developed a design
overlay zone and Palisades Neighborhood Association could do that too. A planning
committee member explained that the committee had once leaned towards calling for· an
overlay, but the idea "died" because committee membership changed and because· they
understood they had to have their plan dr~ed within a year so other neighborhoods could
bendit from planning assistance.
Mr, Egner observed that Palisades wanted to see a scenic concept plan along Overlook
Road, which might require some design controls. Mr. Boone advised the neighborhood •
could adopt design guidelines that would have to be considered during the Residential
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of July 14, 2008 Page 4 of7
••
•
•
Infill Design (RID) process. He cautioned .. the neighborhood to make it very cleat that a
policy was intended to be regulatory. For example, they could say, "The City shall adopt
regulations regarding ... " . Commissioner Brockman said she saw no approval criteria ip.
' the documents that required a developer to demonstrate that a major development met
neighborhood standards. Commissioner Siegel suggested that if the .Palisades
representatives felt they had omitted something and wanted more regulations, they should
confer with staff. However; they coulq also implement some projects by getting them on
the CIP project list. Chair Glisson agreed that every neighborhood plan had policies.that
. . .. . . I .
were implemented by neighborhood action, not by the Code. She reasoned that beca~se
all neighborhoods were told at the start of the planning process that any policies they
proposed had to be· consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, that may have led Palisades
Planning Committee members to believe they could not go beyond that. However, she
te.called that ·the Evergreen Neighborhood Association had knowingly adopted a fishing
policy that was the opposite of City policy. CoiiliJJ,issioner Olson observed that no matter
what guidance staffhad provided, the Planning Commission had to deal with the fact that
Palisades had drafted their plan based on the beliefs that they could not m3ke changes to
the Cocle, and that they had to complete their work within one year. She held that the
largest and most complex neighborhood in the City should have a right to propose any
code changes they wanted and should not be pressured to ~complish th:e plan in a year.
Collllllissioner Newman pointed out they had proposed the two· Code changes regarding
lakefront zoning and congregate care facilities. Commissioner Webster suggested staff
could go through the Code. with them again to help them better understand it and identify
any missing Code links they might want to propose to implement the plan. She reasoned
that if the Palisades Neighborhood was not as prone to ''tear downs" ancl featured hrrge
lots and trees, a design oveday might not be as important to them as it was to other
neighborhoods. She recalled testimony that they planned to work with City staff to
implement pathway and transportation-related items ..
The Commissioners then obserVed that some neighborhood representatives had left the
hearing room. Ms. Selden recalled that there had been no consensus of colhiilittee
members to ask for any other specific code amendments than the two they had proposed.
One neighborhood representative saw a need to close the "understanding gap," and
clarified that Palisades assumed the· City was ali'eady working on funding their pathway
projects. Chait Glisson apologized for· any misunderstanding and· suggested the
neighborhood representatives work with staff to determine if anythl_ng they wanted to see
needed to be supported by code changes. St~ agreed to help them do that and to also
consider whether the implementation strategy included the right tools to ensure the pll:lll
would be carried out. Chair Glisson suggested that even if the pathway project were
already on the CIP project list, the, plan should call for the City to build it. Ms. Selden
assured a neighborhood representative that the, plan did not Stop the neighborhood from
accomplishing things outside the Plan or . proposing future Comprehensive Plan
amendments.
Staff asked for direction regarding the caJl to limit congregate housing to 8,000 sq. ft.
Commissioner Newman observed tha~ FAR Was a "blunt instrument/' and the 8,000 sq.
ft. limit might be too small to allow a facility that housed residents who needed more care
to function well. He also advised it was better to apply such limitations citywide than in
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of July 14, 2008 Page 5 of7
\
only one neighborhood and he suggested that could be considered during periodic review.
He advised there were Ways to make a large building look smaller. He recalled the
Oswego Place Assisted Care facility on Pilkington Road was an ex~ple of a facility that .•
1 looked good and fit the neighborhood. Ms. Selden advised the FAR there was .48.
Commissioner Newman and Commissioner Brockman suggested that the planning
committee show examples of facilities they liked that met their proposed limit11t_ion. Ms.
Selden reported Palisades Neighborhood had two potential sites for congregate housing
facilities that 'Vere 2.5 .acres and 6 acres. Chair Glisson recalled the Lake Grove Village
Center Plan used form-based zoning to transition across. a hll'ge site so the edge that
abutted a residential area stepped down to the scale of the neighborhood but the opposite
edge could be larger scale.
The Commissioners suggested that the Plan explain what the neighborhood wanted to see
in the Stafford corridor and explain what they liked and disliked about the existing
congreg11te care facility. Chair Glisson cautioned against asking for a change in density
that Would set a precedent that would be hard to reverse when the City addressed the
issue later on. She anticipated the issue of bow congregate housing facilities fit into
residential neighborhoods would come up again in other neighborhood plans, and
suggested that a related policy should be proposed.
The Commissioners generally favored the idea of a lakefront zoning pilot project after
staff confirmed that Palisades Neighborhood lakefront lots were similar to other lakefront
lots. Staff suggested the pilot zone should extend back one layer of properties behind
lakefront lots. CotniniSsioners who had served Oil the Planning CoQUlliSsion in the past e:
recalled the CoiiliJlissioners had previously discussed the issue of public access and lake
viewsheds between the houses. Chair Glisson announced that the Planning Commission
had received a letter dated July 11,2008 from Jeff Ward, Lake Manager, Lake Oswego
Corporation, confmning that the Corporation supported the pilot zoning project.
Cheryl Uchida, Waluga Neighborhood Association, reported that her Association had
identified areas where the Waluga Neighborhood Plan conflicted with the Lake Grove
Village Center Plan. She asked which plan was to prevail in that situation. She reported
Waluga was considering applyiiJ.g a code overlay. Mr. Egner advised the plans had to
agree with each other, arid ifWaluga had identified conflicts, they should bring the issues
to the Planning Commission.
Barbara Zeller, Chair of the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association, reported that her
Association was trying to implement their plan and give it some regulatory "teeth." She·
advised the Palisades Neighborhood Association representatives that it was better to
submit a plan with the necessary Code amendments than to wait to propose the
amendments. She had emailed other comments in an email dated July 4, 2008.
Staff agreed to go over the Comprehensive Plan 11nd the Palisades Neighborhood Plan
with the planning committee, revise the request for limitations on congregate care
facilities, and identify any neighborhood priorities that were not yet supported by
proposed code amendments. They anticipated the next meeting would be in August. Mr. •
I
I
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of July 14, 2008 · Page 6 of7
·~·
•
•
•
Egner said he thought staff had discussed the possibility of overlay zoning with the
neighborhood planning committee many times, but heatd no consensus to do that. The
Cotniilissioners wondered if the turnover of neighborhoog planning staff had created a
break in communications during the planriing process; Chair Glisson encouraged the
neighborhood representatives to take a little more time to reassess the draft Plan and then
bring it back to the Planning Commission.
Community Development _Code ~mendments_(PP 08-0002)
Dennis Egner, Long Range Development Manager, presented the staff report. He said
staff planned to issue one notice covering both CDC and infill amendments, but they
would split the hearing into separate components that would address "time sensitive"
items, such as Sensitive Lands Ordinance amendments, first. He anticipated the hearing
could start September 22°d. He confirmed that staff was drafting documents with the
staff-recommended changes to send to the DLCD and the Commissioners. He confirmed
that he planned to invite members of the Infill Task Force to the· hearing, and that staff
planned to hold public open houses a,nd arrange special meetings with neighborhood
associations. Coillrtlissioner Brockman suggested asking all neighborhood association
. chairs to collaborate and come to agreement about what proposed changes to the
Commission for Citizen Involvement Guidelines they would support.
Mr. Egner reported that staff pla,nned to propose a,n amendment to remedy a unique
situation where a property was inside the City's Urban Service District and needed to
connect to a City sewer line, but could not be annexed because there was no City owned
right-of-way past the property.
VII.· OTHER BUSINESS-PLANNING COMMISSION
Coniniissioner Olson moved to begin the July 28. 2008 Planning Commission meeting at
7:00p.m. Corrunissioner Siegel seconded the motion and it passed 7:0.
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS-COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
None.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Glisson
adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m.
City ofLak:e Oswego Plaru:ting Conunission
Minutes of July 14, 2008
Respectfully submitted,
!J~
Iris Treinen
Administrative Support
Page 7 of7