Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2008-07-28 (02)• • • I. City of Lake Oswego d Planning Commission Minutes approfl July 28,2008 I' CALL TO ORDER Chair Julia Glisson called the Phmning Commission meeting of Monday, July 28, 2008 to otdet at approximately 7:·00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 380 "A" A venue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Ill. Members present were Chair Glisson, Vice Chair Philip Stewart and Commissioners Adrianne Brockman and Mary Olson*. Commissioners Brian Newman, Scot Siegel and Alison Webster were excused. *Arrived approximately 7:05 p.m. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris Treinen, Administrative Support. CITIZBN COMMENT None. IV. MINUTES Cormnissioner Brockman moved to_ approve the Minutes of June 23; 2008. Vice Chair Stewart seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. V. GENERAL PLANNING-WORK SESSION Community Development Code Amendments JPP 08~0002) Updl;lte on proposed text amendments to the Lake Oswego Code (LOC), Chapter 50 of the CottliiiUiiity Development Code (CDC) for clarifying, correcting and updating sections. Staff coordinator was Dennis Egner, ·Long Range Planning Manager. The Cominissioners continued to examine proposed CDC changes and categorize them a,s either simple, "housekeeping" changes, or policy changes that warranted more public input. The Historic Resources Advisory Board had requested -a change in a conditiona,l use provision that allowed non-profit office use in landmark structures on arterial streets . They wanted for-profit uses to also be . allowed. They believed the change would· City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of July 28, 2008 Page I of4 encourage more people to use, rather than demolish, historic structures. Staff advised they could support the change because there were only a few sites where this would apply; a conditional use hearing would be required; conditions of approval would be • applied to make the use compatible with the neighborhood; and the use would also be subject to other requirements, such as parking. The Commissioners generally agreed this was a change th_at neighborhood associations should have an opportunity to comment on. Staff proposed to revise provisions regarding nort-confotming uses. That section currently contained one provisioJJ-that set li 50% cost threshold to full compliance with the code when the structure was changed, but it contained another provisioJJ-that certain kinds of repairs did not count. They recalled the intent of the cost threshold Was to avoid expanding the degree of non-conformity, but some circumvented it by doing ''serial repairs," or demolishing all but a small part of the existing structure, They said the Infill Tas~ Force would recommend not subjecting single-family redevelopment to the 50% threshold, because members believed it encouraged people to demolish smaller, older homes, rather than improve them. The Cortuilissionets agreed this was a policy issue. Commissioner Broclan_lllJ-suggested making it easier to make such improvements as long as the design was compatible with neighbors' houses. She also suggested replacing the 50% cost thre~hold with a standard that required retention of a specific percentage of the existing structure. Staff proposed changes to provlSlons regarding an Overall Development Plan and Schedule (ODPS), that would clarify that uses in the approved project were limited to those specifically listed in the ODPS apptqVal. They confirmed that they had .- incorporated changes the Commissioners had suggested into the provisions fot scheduling developer/neighborhood association meetings under Section 50.77.025, Neighborhood Cop.tact. They presented two procedural options and the Commissioners agreed with the staff suggestion to incorporate Option J (which addressed notification of recognized neighborhood associations and "other organizations") into the final draft, but keep the text of Option 2 (which addressed different types of neighborhood organizations) in case the Commissioners later decided that was best. Staff explained they already tried to keep members of all types of non-recognized neighborhood groups notified and informed, and two residents of Westlake had gone through the City's pre.,application conference training program. The Commissioners exainin.ed proposed changes to the Ministerial Development Classificl:J.tion section. Staff advised that a large percentage of City properties were on weak foundation soils, and that, technically, the code did not consider structures on those lots "Ministerial development." However, City practice was to consider those houses "Ministerial Development" if they were lots in a subdivision that had been approved after a geotechnical analysis had been submitted. The Commissioners agreed this was a policy change that warranted more discussion because a house might be enlarged beyond what . the soil would hold; drainage had to be considered; and if such a development failed, that could affect the neighbors. Staff_ said that they proposed to tighten provisions that described how much and what .- kinds of fayade modifications triggered compliance with design district standards. When City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission · Minutes of July 28, 2008 Page 2 of4 .j • • • VI. asked, they clarified that the fa~ade change was subject to land use review, and a change in signage, which was subject to the Sign Code, might be made contingent upon f~ade approvaL Staff clarified for Cmrunissioner :Srockm.an that if a neighborhood association Wanted to put a kiosk in a patk, or make it a "frisbee patk," that Would be accomplished by the City, if it were part of the Parks Master Plan; otherwise, the proposal was subject to development review. The City would file the application, but might ask the neighborhood association to do the work and pay the fee. Approval could be subject to conditions of approval regarding traffic and parking, and approval of the design of the kiosk building. Commissioner Brockn:um commented that the City should waive the application fee when community organizations ,Wanted to do things that were beneficial to the community. Mr. Boone advised in that case, the City Manager was authorized to waive the fee. Staff acknowledged that although notification mailing label lists could become outdated between the start and the end of the development review process, they proposed to use the most recent tax assessment roll for mailings (updated by the County in October and available to jurisdictions in November-December), and require the notice to also be posted oil the site. They clarified that the notice was mailed out the day after the application wa~ deemed complete, so there was not time to revalidate the list. Staff planned to present the categorized changes in the following order: First the easy, "housekeeping" changes~ then sensitive lands ordinance-related changes; then the policy chailges that the Commissioners had agreed would require more input and discussion. However, there would be one public notice about all the proposed changes . OTHER BUSINESS -PLANNING COMMISSION Neighborhood Plan Implementation Commissioner Brockman distributed a "Neighborhood Planning" outline she had fashioned which was based on her experience in another county. The county's overall plan and policies were based on locational information that developers might use with neighborhood pla,ns adding lllOre detail to the larger plan. She also submitted, "Example of How a Plan Policy and Implemeiltatiort Strategies Might Work,'' that started with a goal, then set related policy and requirements for new development; then described how they were to be implemented and funded. , Commissioner Brockman recalled the Palisades Neighborhood Association wanted a different Floor Area Ratio (FAR) applied to adult living facilities, and she said her experience was that a neighborhood pJa,n and the related zoning code should be adopted at the same time. Mr. Egner advised that there were ''pros'' and ''cons;' for adopting the neighborhood plan first, or adopting both the plan and related code at the same time. He thouglit the process would be completed faster if the plan were adopted first, and then the related code. Chair Glisson recalled that the Lake Grove Village Center Advisory Committee had found it helpful to be able to look at the potential code because it helped them better understand what the plan needed to say. Commissioner Brockman offered to draft a locational policy, including criteria to deterrtline "What goes where.'' Chair City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of July 28, 2008 Page 3 of4 6 •. Glisson observed that density would be subject to such locational policy and criteria. Mr. Egner advised that the Comprehensive Plan already included some locational policies, and requests for zone changes were few and infrequent in Lake Oswego. • VII. Chair Glisson recalled the Commissioners had been surprised to find such a lack of umierstanding between parties at the Palisades Neighborhood Plan hearing. She suggested assigning a Planning Collliilissioner to be a liaison with each neighborhood association, to help them clarify what they wanted as they developed their plan. Mr. Egner reported there were five neighborhood associations working on plan implementation. Chair Glisson anticipated the CoJll1)1issioners would discuss assignin~ liaisons at another meeting. When asked, Mr. Egner confirtned that the Palisades Neighborhood Association could a.sk for more time to work on their implementation plan. OTHER BlJSINESS-COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further b11siness before the Planning Commission, Chait Glisson adjourned the meeting at 8:42p.m. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of July 28, 2008 R(\~pmitted; y.~ Iris Treinen Administrative Support Pa~e 4 of4 • •