Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2008-08-25 (02)• • • I. City of Lake Oswego d Planning Commission Minutes fe August 25, 2008 NP'(J -CALL TO ORDE:R Chair Julia Glisson called the Planning Corn:rnission meeting of August 25, 2008 to order at 6:04 p.m. in the CoUncil Chambers of City Hall at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Members present were Chait Julia Glisson, Vice Chair Philip Stewart and Commissioners Adrianne Brockman, Mary Olson and Alison Webster. Brian Newman was excused and Scot Siegel was absent. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Sarah Selden, Neighborhood Planner; Paul Espe; Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Jean Hall, Administrative Support . III. MINUTES Commissioner Brockman moved to approve the Minutes of July 14, 2008. Vice Chair Stewart seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. tV. PLANNING COMMISSION-WORK SESSION Boones Ferry Road Refinement Studies (PP 08-0013). This discussion was continued to September 8, 2008 to give staff more time to address technical comments provided by City Councilor Frank Grozrtik and for a review by senior Engineering Departrtlertt staff. Comprehensive Plan Amendment -Goal 14, Policy 1 (LU 08~049). Review of a proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment allowing connection of City sewer service to unincorporated property within 300 feet of an existing City sewer line. Paul Espe, Associate Plann~r. preSented the staff report. He explained the amendment would officially allow the City to provide sewer service to 33 properties within Lake Oswego's Utban Services Boundary (USB) that were located adjacent to public right- of-way, controlled by the City of Rivergrove and could not be annexed to the City immediately. The property had to be within 300 feet of existing sewer service to qualify. The owner needed to provide a letter from Clackamas County Water Environment Services to verify the system was failing and sign an annexation contract City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of August 25, 2008 Page I of6 .. with the City of Lake Oswego iii Which they agreed to be annexed at a future time. He showed a map of the area at the boundary between the cities of Lake Oswego and Rivergroye and pointed out properties that would be affected by the change. Some of • those properties were in the City of Rivergrove. When asked if a group of properties could be annexed all at once, Mr. Boone advised that a specific number of those property owners woilld have to consent to annexation. Staff advised the City could accomplish an "island annexation" of a groqp of properties · when the land arotiild them had already been annexed, or if an annexation plan were approved by vote of those being annexed and a City vote. Mr. Espe confir:med that staff had invited 157 property owners to a workshop about the possibility of connecting to sewer. Approximately 42 hac:l responded to the invitation and 28 attended. Fourteen owners indicated they wanted to annex to either Lake Oswego or Rivergrove; 16 owners did not want to artnex; 9 deferred conunent; and 3 were und~cided. Staff estimated it would cost each property owner $20,000 to $30,000 to connect to sewer service. Mr. Espe confirmed that a failing septic system could be replaced with another septic system if the soils and lot size were appropriate for it, but most owners preferred to connect to sewer service instead. St~Uf indicated ~h~t the owner was responsible for extending the public and private sewer lines, which were subject to City review and approval. · The cities of Lake. Oswego and Rivergrove had an intergovernmental agreement that allowed Rivergrove lines to conuect to the Lake Oswego system. Mr. Espe said his research showed that most other jurisdictions had code provisions ~h~t allowed properties in their USB with failing septic systems to connect to their sewer syst.em. • Staff advised that State law did not allow them to connect to a property outside their USB or Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), except in a "health hazatd annexation" process required by the State. Commissioner Brockman indicated she agreed that owners should have to sign an a,t'UlexatiOJ:l agreement in order to connect to sewer service. Palisades Neighborhood Plan (LU 08-0045). Update on Palisades Neighborhood Plan Committee discussion and proposed changes to the dtaft Plan. Sarab Seide .. , Neighborhood Planner, presented the staff report. She also distributed ~ commqnjcation memo from the chair of the Palisades Neighborhood Association. Ms. Selden reported the Palisades Neighborhood Plaillling Committee wanted to control congregate and residential care housing developments in their own plan, ~d not leave that· to a citywide process. They had revised ail Action Step, leaving the proposed maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) at 0.6 and adding a proposal for a minimum toofpitch of 6:12. She explained they decided the steeper roof pitch would see111 more "residential," after they looked at two other congregate facilities in Lake Oswego. Vice Chair Stewlirt cautioned such a steep pitch would create some useless attiC space, and would not allow a (lower profile) hip roof. Chair Glisson commented that the envelope articulation the action step called for helped reduced the perception of mass. Surtl agreed to do further research oil roof pitch. • . City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of August 25, 2008 Page 2 of6 • • • Mr. Egner observed that the term, "lot pattern" was not relevant in the revised Action Step, which called for a building design that reflected the single-family character of surrounding development. The Commissioners considered how to improve the wording of that provision so the resulting design would reflect that of residences (not Lakeridge High School) visible from the site,· and ·in the immediate vicinity. Commissioner · BTockman recalled court rulings allowed a jurisdiction to define what "immediate are~" was. She said the neighborhood association could create compatibility criteria (which addressed compatibility of scale, materials, landscaping, etc.). Mr. Boone advised that Conditional Use standards already requited compatible development. { Public Comment Annie Miller indicated she believed the A vamere development had been allowed because its design had been compared with·. the high school and the nearby church. ·She said new congregate facilities should look like· surrounding residences. Mr. Boone recalled that comparison had related :to the materials to be used. Commissioner Brockman suggested the neighborhood association could decide to define "structure" in terms of the scale, materials, and architectural features they wanted to see. Ms. Selden reported. the comlilittee wanted to strengthen existing Code language that architectural details and materials of congregate and residential care housing were to be residential in character. Mr. Boone advised that "house" was not defined in the Code and Ms. Selden suggested using the term, "single family dwelling.;' Ms. Selden reported ~he committee discl;lssed a new action step to consider using overlay zones to preserve neighborhood character in certain parts of the Palisades Neighborhood Association. However, they would tecolilmend that effort take place as an implementation step, once the Plan was adopted. They did not want to delay Plan adoption for this in-depth process to take place. She confirmed th~t staff had recoii1Illended they use the Evel'green· neighborhood as a model for overlay development. She noted that an implementation matrix was attached to the draft plan. The formal hearing was scheduled for September 8, 2008. Citizen Involvement Guidelines (LU 08-0031). Follow-up on neighborhood work session and revised.amendments to-the Guidelines. Sarah Selden, Neighborh()od Planp.er, presented the staff report. This discussion was intend~d to prep<l.fe the Commissioners for the September 22, 2008 hearing. At their July 9th meeting the Commissioners had suggested changes to the draft amendments and asked staff to discuss them With neighborhood representatives. Ms. Selden reported that neighborhood planning staff had met with a group of neighborhood ·association representatives to discuss proposed changes to the Citizen Involvement Guidelines. She reported th~t attendees had indicted they felt they could rely on existing criteria for forming a neighborhood association, arid additional "boundary criteria" Were not necessary. They had also indicated it was better for the City to help neighborhood associations resolve issues OI' become more active than to add procecil.rres for amending boundaries or derecognizing neighborhood associations . Staff had revised the draft amendments related to removal of recognition. the d11tft City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of August 25, 2008 P~ge 3 of6 listed three reasons the City CO\lld remove recognition and it provided that the City was to work with a neighborhood ~so~iatiQ11 to help bring it back into compliance. The Cori:ltniSsioners suggested adding a provision to allow th~ neighborhood association to • come to the Cortliilission for Citizen Involvement (CCI) to explain why they should retain recognized status. Stll.ff explained the current guidelines did not allow a neighborhood association to remaip. inactive. The proposed change would give the city a tool to use to take a closer look at a neighborhood ~ssociation after it had been inactive for several years, and it might encourage some neighborhood association members to decide to become more active. Staff said they wanted to ensure the neighborhood associatio11 was distributing notices about matters that affected the neighborhood to its residents .. Mr. Egn~r recalled neighborhood planning staff had already helped one neighborhood association get sumed ~d a.nother to reactivate. Commissioner Brockman reasoned that some areas would not form or reactivate a neighborhood association until something happened there to motivate them to do that. She questioned why the City should care if they were inactive. She said the City could continu~ to send notices to the address on tile for the neighborhood association representative, and a resident there could decide to try to reactive the neighborhood association if they wanted. . Cortunissioner Brockman suggested instead of simply sending them a letter telling them they were in danger of being derecognized, the City should notify the residents if it had not heard from a neighborhood association in three years and tell them the City would help them reactive their neighborhood association by offering them a place to meet in City Hall and elect officers.. . Neighborhood Planning staff haci added a new section, Boundary Amendments, which . specified a request for a boundary amend,ment could not be based on a ''narrow issue," and called for looking for an alternative approach to resolving th~ problem. The Commissioners considered. whether "narrow issue" was too vague. They indicated they felt a change should npt be because of a single land use issue. Staff advised them the "single issue" change would not discourage anyone who wanted to secede from a neighborhood associatio11 from. arguing that it was a bigger issue. Ultimately, it was the City Council who would decide how big the issue was, and the resulting neighborhood association would have to meet the same criteria as a forming neighborhood association. The Commissioners then generally agreed to retain the term, "narrow issue." They suggested specifying exactly what "level of support'' was necessary to make the change. Staff recalled a suggestion that all neighborhood association boundaries be reviewed . every few years, or at the same time a$ periodic review of the Comprehertsive Plan. The Commissioners generally agreed the draft Boundary Amendments section should specify there was to be a boundary review every three years, or "as needed." They agreed the Guidelines should convey a more positive message, and tell residents of an inactive neighborhood association that the City would help them reactivate, and list benefits they would lose if their recognition were removed (for example, the ability to appeal land use decisions at no cost; to have the City mail their newsletter for them; and to receive a wide range of Planning Commission and City Council information packets) . City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of August 25, 2008 Page4 of6 • • "' • • • v. Cottunissioner Olson recalled that one issue in Palisades Neighborhood Association was that their by-laws provided there Was to be a representative from each sub-area of the neighborhood, but each area representative was elected by general vote, and not by vote of those residents of the sub-area. She asked how that could be resolved. Staff explained that a neighborhood association could have by-laws that provided direction beyond what the City required if the association wanted them, and the City did not control that Staff noted that the Palisades Neighborhood Association was currently in the process of updating their by-laws, and addressing the sub-area election process. Public Comment Mark Easley explained that a neighborhood association might be dormant simply because the residents did not know they had a neighborhood association. He said the City should take action after two years of inactivity; send a notice to the residents to advise them they had a neighborhood association; and tell them that if they wanted to keep it alive they needed to speak up, or they would lose recognition. Ms. Selden distributed written coiilments from Peter Klaebe, chair of the Rosewood Neighborhood· Association/CPO, which she said discussed requirements for neighborhood associations and his concern about asking them to do too much. Ms. Selden agreed to remove C., Neighborhood Association Criterion, 4(b) from the draft. That section would have removed neighborhood association status fot faihJte to remain organiZed and actively involved hi solving current problems over several years. She planned to add language to the draft to indicate that if a neighborhood association were not active for three years the City would notify its residents that they had an opportunity to reactive the neighborhood association. OTHER BUSINESS-PLANNING COMMISSION Some Commissioners wanted to minimize e-mailed discussions that they felt essentially created "online meetings," and some indicated they preferred to receive all documents inside one, e-mailed, meeting preparation packet. When asked, staff advised them they could ask questions and get clarifications via e-mail if all were included in the distribution, but they should debate the issues at an official Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Brockman invited other Commissioners to join her the following Wednesday when she was to meet with the Natural Resources Coordinator to gain a better understanding ofresowce zones. M_r. Egner announced that a public open hot1se regarding the Sensitive Lands Ordinance would be held on September 18, 2008. VI. OTHER BUSINESS '-COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT Staff confirmed that the Infill Task Force had no quorum at their last meeting, but the staff hoped the Task Force WO\lld be able to finalize a package of code amendments staff had prepared for them to recommend to the Planning Cottunission . City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of August 25, 2008 Page 5 of6 / Chair Glisson volunteered to be Planning Commission liaison on the Neighborhood Association Coalition of Lake Oswego when that body met on September 11, 2008 to review the insurance program that covered neighborhood associations. • VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Glisson adjoUJiled the meeting at 7:40p.m. City ofLake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of August 25, 2008 Respectfully submitted, Jean Hall Is/ Jean Hall Administrative Support Page 6 of6 , • •