Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2008-08-11 (02)• • • I. City of Lake Oswego d Planning Commission Minutes appro'~~ August 11, 2008 I' CALL TO ORDER Chair Julia Glisson called the Planning Commission meeting of Monday, August 11, 2008 to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon, II. ROLL CALL ill. Members present were Chair Julia Glisson, Vice Chair Philip Stewart and Commissioners Adrianne Brockman, Bria.Il Newman, Mary Olson and Scot Siegel. Alison Webster was excused. Staff present Were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Paige Goganian, Senior Planner; Sidaro Sin, Senior Planner; Evan Boone, Dep\lty City Attorney and Iris Treinen, Administrative Support. · MINUTES The vote on the Minut~s ofJuly 14. 2008 was postponed. IV. CITIZEN COMMENT None. V. PLANNING COMMISSION-WORK SESSION Boones Ferrv Road Refinement Studies (PP 08-0013). Review and discussion on. finalizing a draft Request for Proposal (RFP) for a refinement study focusing on: • Traffic a.Ild safety analysis • Economic impacts analysis, and • Stortnwater management feasibility Paige Goganian, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. She said the draft outlined a project that carried out the next steps of the Lake Grove Village Center (LGVC) Plan irnplemenU;ltion: tests and confirmation that the concepts in the Plan could be refined into a viable design that meets the goals of the Plan; estimates ofwhat it would cost; and ways it could be paid for. She a.dvised that more survey work would need to be done. She said the study would consider how all of the concepts the LGVC Pla.n. recornrnended might be City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of August II, 2008 Page I of8 fiti.nto and designed to function well in a primarily 82.,foot right-of-way. She stressed that public involvement was an important aspect of the scope of work, and she pointed out the timeline. She said staff planned to publish the RFP the following week and she • . suggested that a review committee be formed that would inch1de representatives of the Planning Commission, City Council, and Planning and Engineering Divisions~ Public Comments Carolyn Krebs, 16925 Denney Court, Lake Oswego, related that she had served on the Lake Grove Village Center Plan Implementation Advisory (LGVC) Committee and also had experience reviewing engineering-related RFPs. She advised against relying op the consult~nt to evalllilte the effectiveness of forming an advisory committee, develop the public involvement strategy, or identify funding mechanisms. She said staff should take the lead in those areas because they knew more about potential sources of funding · (including what Metro would want to hear fro~ the City) and they knew the history of public involvement in the LGVC Plan. She indicated it was normal 31_1d appropriate to ask a consultant to focus on evaluating design refinements, estimating costs, and comparing the costs of alternatives. She opinecl that the public should be involved in the process before the review criteria were developed. Ms. Krebs suggested the City form an advisory committee similar to the LGVC Committee, which she recalled had been a representative group that had been su.ccessful in achieving consensl,Js of stakeholders. She cautioned that the cost of a study depended on how many models and tests were run, so the RFP should be more specific. For example, City engineers -not the consultant -should specify the list of impacts the traffic • safety analysis was to consider. She observed document language was too open-ended, general and ambiguous, and should give clearer direction and priorities. She cautioned that the language in the Scope of Work section favored an urban renewal program. The Commissioners examined tlie draft RFP. They considered whether the consultant should be charged with developing a public involvement process and investigatjng potential funding mechanisms, or if the staff should do that. They considered Who should develop the review criteria and how it might be properly and publicly vetted. Dennis Egner, Long Range Planni_ng Manager, stressed it was important to know what each element of the Plan would cost early in the refinement process so construction and fi_n~cipg could be reconciled. He antiCipated that consultants' proposals might outline how to do that. Ch~r Glisson related that her experience was that it was helpful to have a specialized economic development consultaitt on the consultant's team because they often suggested newer or updated strategies, and the City might not have that kind of expertise on staff. Commissioner Brockman added that it would be helpful to have a team member who upderstood the legal complexities of tax increment fmancing, and that person should work closely with the City Attorney. She also suggested that if a new advisory committee were formed, it should include some of the experienced members who had served on the LGVC Coinmittee. Coinmissioner Siegel suggested the RFP should be fashioned in a manner that would • make it easier to compare submitted proposals with each other, but Commissioner City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of ~uglist 11, 2008 I , Page 2 of8 f • • • Newman said the current draft would allow vendors leeway to suggest creative, problem- solving approaches. He also suggested the RFP should provide that the consultant was to suggest a public involvement plan to the staff and work with them to refine it. Commissioner Siegel suggested the RFP should specify that the consultant was to facilitate aJJ. advi_sory conimittee appointed by the City Council. Staff clarified that the "preferred refinements'' to be incorporated into the Boones Ferry Road Refinement Plan-were LGVC Plan-implementing ame_ndments that might be necessary after the study was done, and that preferences were to be established through a public process. They explained RFP language that referred to creation of an urban renewal district reflected LGVC Plan language, which acknowledged that an urban renewal plan rnight be the most effective mechanism to im.plement the District. They confirmed the Planning Commission had previously agreed that the posted speed was to be 25 mph -even though Boones Ferry RQad was a major arterial street -because the posted speed was not likely to be actual speed of traffic, and because synchronized lights would slow the flow. Chair Glisson explained that almost half the traffic flow in the segment was ''through" traffic, and Village Center planners hoped the Plan would encourage sorne of those drivers to stop and patronize local businesses, but prevent them . . . \ from cutting through the neighborhood. She confir111ed the planners also anticipated higher intensity use in the corridor that people could live in and walk to. Staff confirmed that part of the consultant's initial work would be to examine the assumptions underlying LGVC Plan concepts, including traffic volume. Commissioner Olson stressed the need for heavy citizen involvement and said she wanted the advisory COlllJilittee to be formed as soon as possible and to include as many members of the previous LGVC Committee as possible. When she observed the RFP seemed to give priority to pedestrian facilities, Commissioner Siegel recalled that the Planning Commission had agreed that pedestrian accessibility and safety was a high priority and that the Plan should specify that where there were constrained areas of right-of-way (i.e., where the right-of.;.way was too narrow for all the street components), the sidewalk was to be the last component to be reduced. Mr. Egner advised it was becoming less likely th~t the City would get Metro funding for Boones Ferry Road in the future. He anticipated the consul:tartt would conduct an urban renewal feasibility Study of how rnuch taX increment revenue could be generated and what street improvements it would pay for over what time period, and then present the ''best case scenario." If they found that aJJ. urban renewal program would not work, the City woul,d need a financial consultants' help detetmining what combination of other funding mechanisms could be used. Commissioner Newman cautioned that the consultants should be encouraged to make realistic recommendations for funding, including a strategy for matching available funding with phased construction over time. Chair Glisson saw a need for the consultant and staff to help the public understand what an urban renewal project was. Mike Buck, urged the City to keep the momentum going and improve Boones Ferry Road as quickly as possible because the roadway was not functioning properly. He added City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of August 1 I, 2008 Page 3 of8 th~t a recent resurfacing project had blockecJ gutters, resulting in flooding on some parts of the roadway and sidewalk when it rained. · Chair Glisson observed a consensus to form an advisory committee early in the process and she directed staff to incorporate that into the RFP. The Commissioners also favored asking 'the consultant· to suggest how to balance costs of specific elements of the plan (such as an un-signalized crosswalk) with phasing of improvements. Commissioners Siegel and Newman suggested a representative of the new advisory committee should be involved in the consultant selection process as art advisor, not a selector, who could indicate which of the finalists he/she preferred. Staff recoifirtlended the RFP review panel be composed of a Planning CoiiUrtissioner and City Councilor, and planning and Engineering Department staff. The panel would review proposals and recommend finalists to the City Council. Commissioner Olson suggested the committee shoUld also include a member of the LGVC Committee. When asked, Mr. Egner said staff had estimated the project would cost $150,000 to $200,000, but the survey work might cost another $50,000. Chair Glisson and Ms. Krebs recalled the LGVC Committee had worked well because its members_represented stakeholder groups and kept them informed. Ms. Krebs suggested that a similarly composed committee would work well, but it should be an advisory body and not the sole decision maker. She stressed that public vetting was important. Staff anticipated the consultant would conduct stakeholder il).terviews in the startup ph~e. • The Commissioners observed that the LGVC Plan called for consideration of an urban • renewal district, so they generally agre~d that the consultant should do such an analysis to help the City "rule it in. or out." However, they worried that type of analysis would be costly, and significantly increase the cost of the refinement study. Staff offered to find out how much of that work cotJld be don~ by staff if they had the help of a financial advisor. The Commissioners agreed to revise language regarding potential traffic , "bottlenecks" to reflect that possibility should be examined wherever it might happen in the corri<Jor. They agreed the consultant shoulQ. ensure supporting data was updated and relevant wJlenever the consultant believed that was necessary to ensure models and forecasts were correct. . They anticipated the contract would be further refmed during ve11dor-s~ co11tract negotiations after the consultant was selected. Staff agreed to make the suggested revisions to the RFP and present the revised draft at the next Planning Commission meeting. Buildable Lands Inventory (PP 07-0009) Sidaro Sin, Senior Planner, presented the staff report dated August 4, ~008. He reported that st~f had refined the data since their previous report. Staff research found that between 1998 and 2007 residential development was occurring at approximately 84% of the allowed max:imum. He reported that after subtracting the nilni.ber of units created since the previous Metro target dwelling unit number had been set (in 1998), the calculations showed that the City still had to provide the opportunity for 2,653 dwelling City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of August II, 2008 Page 4 of8 • r' • • • units. He clarified th~t too few secondary dwelling units had been cre~ted to sigxlifica,ntly reduce the target number (20 between 1996-2007) . Mr. Sin pointed out the staff report presented the results of a methodology using several different assumptions to estimate the City's dwelling unit capacity for lands within the City's Urban Service Boundary (USB). He noted that with the assumptions, we could show the City was in compliance with the Metro target dwelling unit number. He asked the Commissioners to indicate the option they prefeiTed. He e;xplained the underlying assumptions for each option. He advised that Version 2b (Option 2-Mediwn) was the most realistic approach because it was based on local knowledge of which parcels were or were not likely to be redev~loped with more dwelling units. It showed the City had a capacity that would exceed Metro's target number for Lake Oswego by about 400 dwelling units. When asked, Mr. Sin observed that if the City adopted a method that showed it had excess capacity, the City might have more leeway to flex zoning of neighborhoods that believed they were inappropriately burdened with providing too much density. Jie added that would also make it harder for a property owner to justify an up- zoning request. He tonfirmed the next logical step would be to conduct a housing needs evaluation. Although the study did not show the relative predictable percentages of attached and detached hou$ing, he observed that many residential zones allowed attached dwellings, and the :tnixed•use zones· could offer more dwelling units. When asked, he said he believed Version 2b (Option 2-Medi.um) was a good approach,· a sound methodology that could be tweaked, and it did not overestimate dwelling unit capacity. Jim Hoiland recalled th~t a Metro representative had advised the Lake Oswego Neighborhood Action Coalition (LONAC) in 2007 that Metro had no fol1llula for participating jurisdictions to use to calculate housing cap~city, so different jurisdictions used different methods. He ~ked the Commissioners to use caution adopting a capacity- estimating method that would drive City policy: Commissioner NeWII1an observed the Metre targets were established regional policy and it would be difficult to change them now. Commissioner Siegel was encouraged by the 84% efficiency the, City was achievipg and said he could agree to use the method staff recommended because it showed the City Was meeting its obligation and it would not have a significant affect on City policy. Staff explained that Metro had found the City was in compliance with its density target in 2001, a11d the current study was not necessary to prove that to Metro. However, they apticipated that Metro WoUld ask the City to revisit its target capacity in the near futute, and that the regional governme·nt might even tie transportation funding to additional capacity. they said the study was a way for the City to know that it was continuing to meet its obligation, and the results Would be useful during the ne:xt periodic review of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff clarified that the study had considered all land in the USB within the current Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), but that the Stafford ~ea that was outside the UGB. Chair Glisson observed a consensus that Version 2b, Option 2 was the best choice, because of the parcel size and application of local knowledge. However, the Commissioners saw no reason to specify low, medium, or high capacity. Staff re- confirmed that the study would not be suJ:?initted to Metro and that they would refine the City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of August II, 2008 Page 5 of8 VI. methodology after conferring with staff at the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). OTHER BUSINESS-PLANNING COMMISSION Upcoming Schedule Mr. Egner distributed a calendar showing future Planning Commission meetings and open house dates. He noted the proposed schedule would require one extra Planning Commission meeting each month in September and October. Commission~r Siegel suggested the Commissioners fashion a protocol for the hearings to help them make the best use of their time. Infill Update (PP 05-0007). Presentation about current infill requirements and process to update them. Mr. Bolland commented on the current schedule and parallel process of considering Community Development Code (CDC) and infill code revisions. He said the work program should be organized and prioritized to allow more public Vetting and interfacing of CDC and infill recommendatioits. He reported the Infill task Force had not finished their Work or met since early May, and he clarified that they had not discussed eliminating the lot depth requirement, which was a staff-recommended CDC change. Chair Glisson asked staff to present policy-related CDC changes and infill \ • recommendations together. Commissioner Siegel suggested that if a proposed CDC • change had not been discussed by the task force they should be asked to consider it. Mr. Egner confirmed that "housekeeping" CDC changes would be presented first (in September 2008), and th~ Commission would consider poli~y issues starting in January 2009. Open houses were to be held prior to consideration of policy changes. Commissioner Brockman suggested that all the neighborhoods and LONAC should be ' invited to offer comments at the work session on the infill changes. Mr. Egner confirmed that staff Would include information about when the information packets would be available in the hearing notice. lnfill Code History and Overview Mr. Egner presented an overview of how and why infill code axn~ndlllents had been developed. He explained the original Infill Task Force had been formed almost eight years ago to· consider how the City might deal with a perceived problem that infill development was not compatible with the size and scale of existing homes, especially ip the area atou:nd the lake. He advised that L~e Oswego was different from many other jurisdictions because it was an older, higher-income community with high land values . that created a demand for larger houses. B:e said Lake Oswego was also different because half of all new houses were another single house replacing a single, ''tear down" house on the lot. He advised the market wanted 2,000 sq. ft. houses in the 1970s and 1980s, but ' now wanted homes that were 4,000sq. ft. or larger. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of August 11, 2008 Page 6 of8 • .. . \ • • • Mr. Egner recalled the first Infill Task Force had worked with a consultant to examine actual and theoretical examples of infill development in the First Addition Neighborhood (FAN) and La.ke Grove; developed concepts and models related to how infill should be massed and how it should relate to the street and the neighbors; and then recommended concepts for the code that was adopted in 2003. The code addressed size and compatibility by regulating height, lot coverage, garage setback, and Floor Area Ratio (FAR). It addressed the relationship to the street with regulations that applied a front setback plane and directed how garage doors were oriented. It addressed the relationship to the neighbors by regulating the sideyard setback and sidewall appe~ance. Mr. Egner observed there were ongoing questions regarding whether the problem was actually "big," or "ugly" houses (or both), and what kind of review process was to be used. He explained the "tools" of infill control included FAR limits, Which regulated the relationship of the volume of the building to the size of the lot. He advised there was a FAR limit in all single-family residential zones that varied according to the zone and a sliding scale that tied allowable FAR to lot Size. For example, FAN's R-6 zone allowed up to 0.5 FAR (typically res\llting in a 3,000 sq. ft. house on a 6,000 sq. ft.lot). Other residential zones allowed up to 0.4 FAR on a 10,000 sq. ft. lot. He observed that the City featured even larger lots, and it was still possible to build a very big house on a very large , lot. He confirmed that FAR did not count finished basement area, because it did not add to the perceived mass of the building, but it did count half of a daylight basement. He confirmed th~t FAR generally did not count the garage area, but the current Infill Task Force recommended changing that. He said there was an ongoing debate about how much ratio affected house size when a house had vaulted ceilings . Mr. Egner said another factor in perception of house size was how much of the lot it covered. He recalled. the original Infill Task Force h~d incorporated incentives into the code to encourage people to build smaller scale houses by allowing mote lot coverage for lower height structures. For example, in FAN a house less than 22-feet high CO\lld cover up to 45% of the lot, but a higher structure could cover 35% of the lot. In the other residential zone the drop ~as from 35% to 25%. Mr. Egner recalled that based on original InfiH Task Force recommendations, the City changed the way house height was measured. The old method of measuring to the midpoint of the roof was changed to measure to the roof peak. However the new height regulation allowed exceptions for some roof features in order to have variation and interesting roof forms that helped reduce the perception of rnass. Mr. Egner discussed infill's relationship to the street. He recalled the original InfiU Task Force was concerned that infill tended to crowd the front setback and the street, so a new front setback plane regulation had been adopted to push the bUlk of the structure back on the lot, and new regulations had been adopted that limited the gar~ge front~ge to 50% of the house fac;ade and ensured the garage would not stick too far out frorn the house front fa9ade. Mr. Egner discussed infill's relationship to the neighbors. He said infill standards required large sidewall planes to be broken up. , FAN limited them to 500 sq. ft., and other zones applied a 750 sq. ft. limit. He said the current Infill Task Force had looked at City of Lake Oswego Plruwiilg Coirimission Minutes of Auglist II, 2008 Page 1 of8 exarr1ples of how the requirement had worked, or not, and was considering additional requirements related to buffering landscaping and a side yard setback plane. Staff recalled the current Infill Task Force was discussing whether the design review process could prevent "ugly" houses that met the other infill standards, and apply neighborhood design· standards so t1eighborhoods got infiU that reflected the appropriate character of their neighborhood. He said they planned to submit a related recommendation. Mr. Egner advised that the original infill code had been deliberately crafted to apply clear and objective standards to infill development, but the City had adopted an additional review process, ~e Residential Infill Development (RID) process, as an alternative process. He advised the RID process was a staff-level, discretjonary, design review (the staff used contracted architects to advise them) and that decision was appealable to the Development Review Commission (DRC). He clarified the RID process was not intended to be a variance process~ and the reviewing body had to find the proposed design was ·equal to or better·· than what could be built under the clear and objective standards of the code; and it had to have a good relationship to the street and the neighbors. Mr. Egner said the RID process required public notice; and staff sometimes sent a controversial case directly to a DRC hearing. He anticipated that the current Infill Task Force recommendations would be ready to preset1t to the Planning Conunission in October. VII. OTHER BUSINESS-COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT None. Vill. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chait Glisson aqjoumed the meeting at 9:12p.m. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes ofAugust 11, 2008 Respectfully submitted, Administrative Support Page 8 of8 • • •