Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2008-09-22 (02)·' • • • L City of Lake Oswego d . Planning Commission Minutes appro'IB September 22, 2008 I' CALL TO ORDER Chait Julia Glisson called the Platuiing Commission meeting of Monday; September 22, 2008 to order at 6:10 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL III. Members present were Chair Glisson, Vice Chair Philip Stewart and Commissioners Adrianne Brockman, Brian Newman, Mary Olson, Scot Siegel and Alison Webster. Staff present wete Dennis Egner, ·Long Range Planning Manager; Jonna Papaefthimiou, Natural Resources Planner; Sarah Selden, Neighborhood Planner·; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris Treinen, Administrative Support . CITIZEN COMMENT None. IV. PUBLIC HEARING Community Development Code Amendments A request from the City of Lake Oswego for amendments to the Community Development Code (CDC) and an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, as fol~ows: Ordinance 2527, LU 08-0051, CDC -Sensitive Lands Overlay District Amendments: Amends portions of the Community Development Code Article 50.16. Proposed updates pertain to the following topics: consistent usage of tetrhs, permitted uses in resource areas (second-story additions, utility tunneling, street or trail signs, access to new lots), "wildlife-friendly'; fences, "reasonable development" on property totally covered by wetland or stream resources, map corrections, development ptocedutes, water-dependent uses such as docks along the Willainette and Tualatin Rivers, hazardous lllaterials · storage, and ivy removal as a condition of development approval. Staff coordinator: Jonna Papaefthimiou, Natural Resources Plaililer. Ordinance 2525, LU 08-0052, CDC-General Housekeeping Amendments: Amends portions of the Community Development Code, Chapter 50, for the purpose of clarification, correction, formatting, and updating sections. Proposed updates pertain to City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 22, 2008 Page I ofll the following topics: definitions, the master plant list, uses, map administration, setbacks, structure heights, accessory structures, dwelling design, commercial development standards and requirements, accessory and temporary uses; flag lots, vision clearance, • exceptions, special standards, flood management area, building design, open space, landscaping, access, on-site circulation, street connectivity, street lights, downtown redevelopment district standards, Old Town neighborhood design standards, West Lake Grove district standards, variances~ conditional U.ses, and procedura:l requirements. Staff coordinator was Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager. Ordinance 2523, LlJ 08-0053, Comprehensive Plan -New Infill Policies. Adds policies in support of overlay zones for neighborhood plans and residential design review. Staff Coordinator was Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager. Ordinance 2524, LU 08-0053, CDC ...-Infill Amendments. Amends portions of the Community / Development Code, Chapter 50, for the purpose of enhancing the compatibility of infill developme11t and clarification. Proposed updates pertain to the following topics: lot coverage, maximum floor area, structure design, ~etback phmes, yard setbacks, sloped lots, residential infill design review, variances, non-conforming uses, duplexes and attached dwellings, flag lots, and seriaJ partitions. Staff coordinator was Dennis Egner Long Range Planning Manager. Ordinance 2526, LU 08-0054, CDC -Amendments with Policy Implications. Amends portions of the Community Development Code, Chapter 50, for the purpose of clarification, correction and-updating sections. Proposed updates pertain to the following • topics: definitions, map adniinistration, minimum density, lot coverage, structure design, lot depth, industrial uses, accessory and temporary uses, Greenway management overlay, planned development overlay, flag lots, exceptions, Oswego Lake setback, special street setbacks, home occupations, secondary dwelling units, . drainage standards, weak foundation soils, hillside protection, parking, and variances. Staff coordinator was Deimis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager. Chair Glisson opened the public hearing and asked the Commissioners to declare any conflict of interest. None were declared. Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager, explained that staff had broken the large package of updates into parts. He recommended that the Planning Commission consider the General Housekeeping and Sensitive Lands Overlay District amendments first and continue the hearings on Infill amendments and amendments with Policy Implications. He eXplained that would give the Infill Task Force time to finalize infill recommendations and it would give neighborhood associations time to organize their comnients regarding the proposed infill and policy changes. He reported that staff had already held or scheduled public open houses regarding all of the amendmems and offered to attend neighborhood association meetings to discuss them. Jonna Papaefthilniou, Natural Resources Planner, presented the staff report regarding proposed Se11sitive Lands-related amendments. She explained the Sensitive Lands • City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 22, 2008 Page 2 of 11 .. • • • chapter used map-based protection of vegetation and wildlife hl:lbitat and also helped protect clean water. The map was the Sensitive Lands Atlas. Property owners were requited to protect the mapped re~ource and a buffer around it. She explained the proposed changes would fulfill Metro requirements, clarify what protection was required, and codify practices staff already used. It o{fered a ministerial process owners could use to remove an overlay that was actually not there. It would allow owners to do work within ten feet of an existing structure without a permit. It would require a physical marker to mark the resource. It would allow the buffer to be averaged on a constrained lot if there was no other viable site plan. It would require invasive plant removal in an area twice as large as the impacted area when a development was built near protected resources. Ms. Papaefthimiou advised that the City had to allow a legal lot to be developed with one, reasonable; single-family house, even if the lot were completely constrained by the resource. She advised the current code did not define what a "reasonable house" was. She suggested the Commissioners consider four options. Option 1 ·was the current approach to allow the largest house that could· be built on the smallest allowable lot in the underlying zone. She advised this option did not factor in other site improvements, such as driveways, pa,tios and accessory struc.tures. Option 2 limited the size of the "disturbance area" (including the house, landscaping, driveways and other site improvements) to half the size of the zone's minimt.rrn lot size, half the size of the actual lot, or 5,000 sq. ft. Option 3 allowed the house to be the size of the biggest house on the smallest lot in the zone, and added 50% additional lot coverage for other. disturbances. Option 4 allowed a house the average size and height of the houses around it. Mr. Egner, summarized the proposed Housekeeping amendments. He said most clarified or reorganized existing code. He recalled the Commissioners had already sorted out changes they decided Were policy changes. However, he highlighted key changes in this ordinance that staff felt did have some "substance" to them, Such as the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) recommendation to allow general office use in historic structures on arterial streets; clarifying side. setbacks for zero lot line dwellings; limiting the height of accessory structures to that of the primary structure; adjusting the height limit for cabanas on Lakewood Bay to make up for the previous change in flood level; clarifying where housing was to be allowed in the downtown commercial area; replacing the term, ''leaseable arear• wit~ "gross floor area;" allowing daily pet care in the General Commercial District (GC); putting a time limit on temporary canopies and portable outdoor storage units; limiting sidewalk sales in commercial areas to three days; excepting solar panels from height limits; reducing the combined 40% landscaping and open space. requirement in the downtown commercial area by eliminating the 20% Open Space requirement~ offering a "pass-through'' variance to help developments comply with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or federal housing act requirements; requiring a new pre-application conference after a year of inaction; and creating an expiration date and criteria for minor changes to an approved development. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 22, 2008 Page 3 of 11 Public Testimony David Miller, 846 NE 79th Avenue, Portland, Oregon, 97213, said he was ail architect working on a lakefront lot that was fully constrafned-by th.e Resource Protection (RP) • District. He suggested 1 00% of an over-hillside deck should not have to be factored into the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) calculation, and there should be Lot Coverage exceptions for permeable decks and driveways. Ian Reid, 4959 Oakridge Road, who lived in Forest Highlands, testified that the proposed Sensitive Lands Overlay (Resource Conservation and Resource Protection District standards) would allow more unnecessary street connections to Carman Drive over Resotirce Conservation (RC) and RP resources and his neighborhood did not want that impact. Lauren Hughes, 18711 Westview Drive, had submitted. written testimony (Exhibit G-1 ). She said that. she had recently learned her property had a Sensitive Lands Overlay on it. She said she resented the fact that would devalue the extra-large, completely landscaped lot she owned, which was her biggest asset. She questioned why the drainage ditch on it was now designated as a protected resource. Staff said they had inserted a statement in the surtunary that explained that the currently proposed amendments and the upcoming Sensitive Lands Atlas update did not affect properties not currently designated or mapped RC or RP. They said they did not intend the amendments to designate any new protected land, and the amendments were intended to make the code clearer and work better in protectiiJ.g sensitive lands. However, Ms. • Hughes rec~led new maps she had seen in March indicated her property was designated, · and she anticipated -the City would ev~ntually formalize that designation. Staff explained there would be a public outreach effort at that time, but the currently proposed changes had nothing to do with that -it just addressed mapping errors and inconsisteQcies. Ms. Hughes confirmed for Conun.issioner Brocktn!llJ. that she had read the code and discussed it with staff, but she found it so hard to understand she had just hired a land use planner to explain it to her. Commissioner Siegel recalled the City historically applied resource protection to property as it wa_s ~exed. He and Commissioner Olson cautioned that the City should be sensitive to the impact OIJ. property that was already developed and whose owners might want to remodel or redevelop. Ms. Papaefthimiou advise~ that the proposed changes would help owners repair and maintain their homes. Man Turnock, 4745 Oakridge Road, Chair of the Lake Forest _Neighborhood Association, said the sensitive -lands amendments summary did not adequately explain r what the ·impact would be on her ·neighborhood's values. She said her Association did not want to allow access through RC areas if there was other access available and they did not want the additional, unnecessary, cortilectivity they believed the proposed code promoted. She said the Association supported the addition of functions and values ~ definition,s, especially those that protected water quality and aesthetics. She said the "A-• N list" was not complete and should also list benefits such as air quality and noise City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission · Minutes of September 22, 2008 Page 4 of 11 • • • reduction. She said staff should be directed to clarify the sensitive lands changes and vet them with neighborhood associations . Ms. Turnock then referred to the housekeeping amendments and opined that the ordinance was too large to be just "housekeeping." changes. She asked that the hearing be continued so the neighborhood association had more time to examine them. She said there wete some changes she already knew the Association did not support: zero lot line development in single-family zones, up-zoning in West Lake Grove; height exceptions for solar panels; and removing the lot depth requirement. She asked why the code was to be· changed in .a manner that would adversely impact the neighborhood without consulting them. She asked that the proposed changes be remanded to staff and that staff be directed to clarify them and conduct outreach to seek public support for them. Sally Moncrief(, 2643 Rivendell Road, Chair of the Palisades Neighborhood Association, agreed with the Lake Forest chair that the proposed ordinances were not understandable ~d residents could not determine how they would affect them. She said they still did not know how the sensitive lands overlay amendments would affect "remapped" existing residences. She urged Commissioners to do more public outreach to ensure citizens understood, and to try to put the provisions in layman's language. She said residents did not support the wildlife fence provision, because it was ineffective fencing for their dogs. Kirk Smith, 15847 Sprhigbrook Court,· an attorney who lived along Springbrook Creek, observed that the code was hard for a non-lawyer to understand, and he worried it would not adequately protect neighbors or resources. He stressed that setbacks were important for many reasons, and he said he did not want zero lot lines allowed in his neighborhood. He cautioned the City not to allow Planning Department staff to modify setbacks at the planning department counter; he referred to this action as a "counter variance." He said there was too much material being modified, the edit-marked text was hard to follow; and he Suggested the Commissioners examine the proposed changes in "bite-sized pieces." Mr. Smith asked what the proposed definition of a ''single-family house" was. He recalled that the current code said a property owner was entitled to a single-family home, and it was the current practice of staff to base their recommendations on an informal opinion by the City Attorney of what was a "reasonable" house. Staff explained they were not changing existing code, just suggestipg some options the Planning Commission and the City Cou.ncil could consider using to clarify what was a "single-family house." They explained that what Mi Smith called a "counter variance" was a separate, minor · development procedure that required an application, public notice, and a Class II Variance-type review. They said the staff decision was appealable to the Development Review Commission (DRC) and the City Council, and an application and appeal fe~ were · required. They .said the proposed revisions did not change that existing process. "' Michaeliluck,·3155 Edgemont Road, asked if he would be allowed to rebuild his home ifit burned down. He estimated that after 70 feet was deducted from his IIO-foot-wide City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 22, 2008 Page 5 Of II lot for stream and construction setbacks, there might oilly be 20' to 30' width left to fit a house into. Ms. Papaefthimiou advised that when a non-conforming house was destroyed by any means, its replacement had to confon:n to the current code. When Mr. Buck • conunented that was "scary," staff explained the changes they were proposing did not significantly change existing stream buffering regulations -they just illustrated them better. The only proposed regulation modification wot1ld allow a legally filled area to be the top of bank, and that would actually benefit the owner. Mt. Boone advised the cutrent code allowed some adjustment of setbacks to increase the building envelope in a direction away from the resource, and, if that were not enough; the provision that allowed one single.,.family home on a constrained lot coilld be us.ed. He said staff was asking the Planning Commission and the City Council to provide guidance on what "single-family house" meant. He advised the adjustment process was not a "variance," but a procedure in the Sensitive Lands Ordinance that allowed exceptions, and that decision could be appealed. Audrey Mattison, 2929 Glen Eagles Road, related that the stream corridor protection area went right through her-house. She said she shared Mr. Buck's concerns. She noted that most of the lots around hers were over 20,000 sq. ft., and each of them had the potential to be two building lots. She asked how many properties Sensitive Lands Overlays affected, and she asked for examples of how the new ordinance would be applied. She said most of her neighbors would be shocked to find Otlt they were living on sensitive lands. Carolyne Jones, 2818 Poplar Way, 11 Glenmorrie Neighborhood Association b-oard • member, asked the Colilinissioners to examine the code changes "line by line" instead of . relying on the summaries. She opined that public open houses should not. be utilized because there was no public record of what happened there. She questioned why staff had not explained why the newly mapped designations were not included in the current proposal. She said the City treated owners of property affected by 11 streliiil corridor differently than lakefront property owners. The former lost land they could otherwise enjoy, but the latter enjoyed their boat docks on the Water. She said the City should compensate stream corridor landowners. She reported that her property was 'on the market and she had lost prospective buyers after they found out how much of the property Was un-buildable because it was in a stream buffer. However, she noted that the City had allowed applicant, Sisters of the Holy Names, to cut many trees and locate a structure 15 feet from a wetland. William Murphy, 49 Briarwood, voiced several objections. He said the notice of Sensitive Lands Ordinance changes wa5 not adequate and shoilld have been mailed to all owners within the Urban Growth Boundary. lie said the new regulations should apply to everybody, not just the people who were developing their property. He said the invasive plliUt .removal requirement shoilld not be an ordinance, and he felt all it took was making owners aware of the problem and encouraging them to remove ivy by offering them a discount on storm water management fees. He objected to the prohibition against putting a light in a Sensitive Lands Overlay area, and to the wildlife fence, which he said could not prevent a child from falling into a ravine or keep a dog penned in. Mr. Murphy said • City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 22, 2008 Page 6 of 11 l. • • • the development application fee should not expire after one year because that was not enough time. He also indicated that he had lost buyers after staff had offered different interpretations of how the code applied to his property to different potential buyers of his property. He said staff did not keep a record of their advice. Staff clarified that e-mail records were backed up and retained, not discarded. Jeff Kleinman, 1207 SW 6th Avenue, Portland, Oregon, 97204, spoke, onHbehalf of his client, Richard Rasmussen, 1614 Matthew Court., who was concerned about the proposed open space amendments in the General Housekeeping Amendments (Exhibit G- 1 ). He encour~ged the Coilll1lissioners to recommend keeping the existing definition of open space because it clearly stated its pUrpose; specified it was to remain in common ownership for use by the general public; and specified it was not to be fenced. He also suggested adding a new enforcement provision related to maintenance. During the questioning period, he. explained that his client lived in the Palisades Terrace IV subdivision where a neighbor had tried to landscape and fence off the n~tural area. ' Jim Bolland, 804 5th Street, said the amendment summaries were inadequ~te. He suggested tbe.Planning Commission address significant policy issues first. He explained that the ihfill amendments addressed what was to happen when a house burned down, but other amendments confused the issue, bec~use they also addressed demolition. He recalled the Infill Task Force had to work with Metro maps before the updated Lake Oswego Sensitive Lands Atlas was available, and they spent a lot of time considering how Lake Forest tree groves would be protected, Then, they were surprised to see the Atlas did not include those tree groves because it had determined those groves lacked qualifying understory. He stressed the Commissioners should exariline the Atl~s and hear testimony from Lake Forest residents before they recommended the sensitive lands amendments. He said the housekeeping amendments contained a lot of policy-related changes, such as eliminating the 20% open space requirement downtown, and eliminating the lot depth requirement. He said a lot of people would be shocked to learn that all residential zones allowed zero lot line development. He said the code was unintelligible and confusing, and adding more revisions would not change that. He said testimony highlighted the fact that Chapter 50 needed to be completely rewritten. During the questiolii.ng period, he urged the Commissioners to reconsider their ~pproach, hear policy-related changes first, and listen to what the public had to say .. The Co:tfirilissioners described the current approach as picking the "low-hanging fruit" first. Commissioner Siegel suggested the Coilll1lissioners attempt to "pare it down" to only those changes that were truly housekeeping issues and try to edit them so they were more logical, understandable, artd easier to explain at the Planning Department comtter. He suggested after that, they address the most pressipg policy issues. Commissioner Brockman recalled the local newspaper had reported the level of complexity of the code was an issue in the community. Commissioner Newman recalled the Pla:n:n:ing Commission and staff had already sorted out policy issues, He said codes were typically com.plicated. He said he could agree to examine it in pieces . City ofLake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 22, 2008 Page 7 of 1 I Jeannie McGuire, 144 Wilbur Street, had submitted a Citizen Input form, but had left the meeting by -the time her name was called. Tia Ross, 1557 Childs Road, former chair of the Historic Resources Advisory Board, asked the Col11m_iss1oners to recommend a code change that would allow a small "for profit" business to use an historic structure on an arterial street. She explained the code currently only allowed a "nonprofit" business there. She said the change would help protect the historic Worthington House at 885 McVey. The current occupant was rehabilitating it and wanted to have his office there. Commission~r }3rockman thought there might be an alternative way to allow that by modifying the home occupation provisions. Barbara _Zeller, 3335 Sabina Court, Chair of the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association, urged the Planning Commission to take Mr. Boliand's advice to clean up and simplify the code and reduce the number of exceptions it allowed. She said she did not feel qualified to explain the code to her Association members. She commented that expert irtterpretati~n of the code was a "cottage industry." Commissioner Olson agreed, and said people should not have to hire an expert to help them understand the code. She suggested that now was a good time to rewrite the code since the City was beginning the process of periodic review of the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Brockman agreed that the tim~ had come to put the code in simple, understandable language and address conflicts caused by exceptions. She said_ when people buy a house they want to know what will happen on their lot and next door to them. Commissioner Stewart said he was intrigued by the challenge to achieve a "readable'' code. He remembered someone had provided the Coinmissioners with the Del Ray Beach code. He cautioned that the Lake Oswego code should be compared with the codes of other cities with similar characteristics. Commissioners Siegel and Newman confirmed they had experience writing code. Chair Glisson suggested that better diagrams and case studies· would help. Commissioner Brockman agreed it should be broken up into biie-sized pieces and writers should ensure the text was more understandable. She suggested the Coinmissioners take another look through the Housekeeping amendments to ensure none of them would set new policy. Mr. Egner explained there were some Sensitive Lands changes that needed to be adopted in time to comply with Metro's Title 13 deadline. He offered to separate them out for the Commissioners to address at their next hearing and to also isolate the "easy fixes" General Housekeeping changes for them to examine. He agreed the code was too complex and needed to be rewritten, instead of patched again, but he noted that'was a huge project to be started from scratch with ~ clean framework. Chair Glisson suggested the Con:unissioners address what had to be done immediately -in smaller pieces -and then consider the larger project. Commissioner Newman suggested the Commissioners utilize a work session to look at all the items before the Planning Commission now to get a sense of it and then decide how to !lpproach periodic review and amendments to Chapter 50. Commissioner Olson agreed. Chair Glisson observed~ consensus to slow down a bit, divide the work up, address the things that absolutely needed to be dealt with first, and invite more public involvement. Commissioner Brockman stressed the City of Lake Oswego Pla,nning Commission Minutes of September 22, 2008 Page 8 of 11 • • • • • • Planning Commission needed to keep the neighborhood cha_irs informed so they were all aware of what was going on . The Commissioners wondered if the Sensitive Lands Atlas should be considered at the same time as the Sensitive Lands Overl,ay District amendments. Mr. Egner suggested that at the time the proposed mapping changes were examined it might be found to be necessary to reopen consideration of the related code. He explained the Goal 5 designation process required a new Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy (ESEE) analysis of each site to resolve conflicts between protection and individual owner uses, and that might necessitate creating some new zone or removing the overlay from a site. For example, the amendments assumed that the RP designation would be applied along the Willamette River, and that water-dependent uses would be allowed in ~he RP zone. However, the l:lllalysis IIlight conclude a new and different type of river•resolii'ce zone Was warranted. {;hair Glisson asked if stream corridor protections should be relaxed on properties that were already developed. Mr. Egner said the ESEE analysis and designation process might conclude that a drainage-way ~ha~ was clearly intermittent and going through managed ground cover did not require as much regulation. He said the people who testified that they knew the mapping changes the City was considering applied to their property would be included in the mailing of notice of that hearing. , Commissioner Brockman indicated it would make sense to give a stream that fed into and floated sediment into the lake a different classification and greater setbacks than a drainage ditch. Coin111is~ioner Siegel wanted to see the map and the text changes together, see case studies, and test the code before it was adopted. Mr. Egner explained the sensitive lands code was complex, but it met state and Metro requirements. He offered to provide a list of items in the amendments that Would be necessary to comply with Metro Title 13 at the next meeting. Commissioner Siegel suggested looking at the West Linn ordinance. Commissioner Brockman stressed the goal Was not necessarily to reduce the number of pages of code, but to make it simpler to read. Commissioner Olson commented that City staff needed to be able to explain it to the public. Chair Glisson asked how the Commissioners wanted to address, housekeeping amendments. Commissioner Brockman suggested forming a study group to meet just before the regular Monday Planning Commission meetings, go through the amendments, and serve as an advisory group to the full Comii1ission. Mr.> Bolland volunteered to participate in the study group. The Coll1Illi~sionets noted there were still some policy- related changes in the housekeeping portionthat should be sorted out and heard later, after more public process. For example, the change to allow for profit business in an historic structure in a residential neighborhood; the "wildlife fence,, and how to deal with frontage on a lot that fronted on two streets. Chair Glisson directed staff to report at the next meeting what sensitive lands changes were necessary to comply with Metro Title 13. She urged all Commissioners to take time before the next meeting to study the proposed amendments so the next meeting was productive. Staff offered to send ail email to neighborhood associations and people on the City's email contact list to tell them about the September 29th work session. The City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 22, 2008 Page 9 ofll Commissioners agreed to invite public testimony at that meeting. Chair Glisson observed that the Planning Commjssion also needed to continue their discussion of the work plan . Commissioner Newman moved to continue LU 08-0051 (Sensitive Lands Amendments) and LU 08-0052 (General House~eeping Am~ndments) to September 29. 2008; to continue LU 08-0053 (Iri.fill amendments) to October 27, 2008; and to continue LU 08- 0054 JAn1endments with Policy Implications) to January 26. 2009. Commissioner Webster seconded the motion and it passed 6:1. Commissioner Siegel voted against because 'he was not able to attend a meeting on that date. Amendments to Citizen Involvement Guidelines (LU 08-0~31) A request from the City of Lake Oswego to approve proposed Ordinance 2512 amending the City's Citizen Involvement Guidelines to include new guid~lines for m~ighborhood association boundary amendments, clarification on the procedore to remove neighborhood ~ssociation recognition,, and clarification on the City's annual meeting to review the citizen involvement program. Continued fromJune 9, 2008. Staff coordinator was Sarah Selden, Neighborhood Planner. Chair Glisson opened the public hearing. S3rab ·Selden, N~ighborhood Planner, presented the staff report. She pointed out that Craig Stephens had raised technical issues in his September 20, 2008 (Exhibit G-2). She recalled the Chair of the Rosewood Neighborhood Association had raised some new issues at the Augu_st 5th work session. • She suggested the Planning Commission could recommend the currently proposed • amendments and ~ddress the new issues at the next annual Commission for Citizen Involvement (CCI) meeting in February 2009. The Commissioners agreed to th~t because they felt they h~d to complete the work that was already in progress. Ms. Selden reported the newest proposed changes to the CCI Guidelines reflected what· the Commissioners and 11eighborhoods had suggested. The procedure to remove neighborhood association recognition en~m;rraged the neighborhood to reactivate. The neighborhood boundary changing process allowed a neighborhood association to ask the Planning Commission for a change any time and called for the Planning Coiilttlission to help them work through and try to find an alternative solution to the issues that gave rise to the request. The Plaru'ling Commission was to review neighborhood bol1Ildaries during periodic review. The revised Guidelines expanded CCI meeting notice requirements and encouraged citizens to attend and voi~e their concerns. Ms. Selden explained the new Guidelines called for making it cleat to citizens they would have an opportut1ity to raise issues not on the agenda because Coil)Illissioner Brockman had heard that some neighborhood representatives did not understand they could bring general_ commellts to the meetings. Commissioner Webster moved to recommend approval by the City Council of LU 08..: 0031 -:-._Amendments to the Lake-Oswego Citizen Involvement. Guidelines. Commissioner Olson seconded the motion and it passed 7:0. - City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 22, 2008 Page 10 ofll • • • • v . OTHER BUSINESS -PLANNING COMMISSION Findings, Conclusions and Order L U 08-0045 -Palisades Neighborhood Plan Commissioner Brockman moved to approve tU 08-0045 -Palisades Neighborhood Plan. Findings. Conclusions and Order. Commissioner Webster seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. Commissioner Siegel abstained. LU 08-0049-Connection of City Sewer Service to Unincorporated Property Commissioner Brockman moved to approve· LU 08-0048 --Connection of City Sewer Service to Unincorporated Property. Findings. Conclusions and Order. Vice Chair Stewart seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. Commissioner Siegel abstained. VI. OTHER BUSINESS -COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT None. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Glisson adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 22, 2008 Respectfully submitted, Iris Treinen Administrative Support Page II of II