Loading...
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