18.1 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mayor Studebaker and City Council Scot Siegel, Director of Planning and Building Services Update on Planning Commission Goals and Key Issues DATE: July 13, 2016 MEETING DATE: July 19, 2016 ACTION Review progress on Planning Commission Goals for 2016 and provide direction on key issues. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION This report summarizes the Planning Commission s progress to date and key policy issues with respect to the Commission s 2016 Goals. The goals were prioritized by the Commission and City Council in a joint study session facilitated by Planning staff on January 11, 2016. ORK PROGRAM STATUS AND KEY ISSUES A. Complete ork-in-progress 1. Southwest Employment Area (SEA) Plan LU 15-0077 The Planning Commission completed its review of the SEA Plan and Overlay (recommended by the project advisory committee) earlier this year and recommended approval. The Council enacted Ordinance 2706, approving the package with only minor changes to the proposed code. The Overlay is now in effect. Key Outcomes: Local street connectivity, residential-industrial interface, infrastructure needs, manufacturing/retail balance, food cart pods. Removed regulatory obstacles to business expansion and relocation. Adopted clear and objective standards for new development and redevelopment, and recommended capital improvements and traffic control measures. (Complements recent establishment of an Enterprise Zone).
Page 2 of 11 Realign Lakeview Blvd. and Jean Road in conjunction with Morse private development. Incorporate infrastructure projects into Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Updates to the Community Development Code s (CDC s) Commercial and Industrial Use Table (see below). Amend code to allow food carts/food cart pods in SEA. Question for City Council: The SEA Plan calls for code changes allowing food cart pods in the Industrial Park (IP) zone north of illow Lane. Currently, restaurants are not allowed in the IP zone, and food cart pods are not an allowed use anywhere in the city, although food pushcarts are permitted in the East End Commercial (EC) and General Commercial (GC) zones, and in Lake Grove Village Center (LGVC) public gathering spaces. The Planning Commission is seeking Council direction on whether individual food carts (trucks, trailers, etc.), in addition to food cart pods, should be an allowed use in the SEA, and whether the geographic area should be broader (not limited to north of illow Lane) to provide more dining options for area employees. 2. LGVC Parking Standards, and LGVC Code Cleanup (Streamlining) LU 16-0001, LU 16-0064 The Planning Commission completed its review of the LGVC Parking Management Plan (recommended by the project advisory committee) and LGVC Code Cleanup/Streamlining amendments on schedule earlier this year. The Council enacted Resolution 16-05 and Ordinance 2707, respectively, approving the parking plan and code with only minor changes (parking ratios). The Council also enacted Ordinance 2709 approving the LGVC code cleanup items. Both sets of code changes are now in effect. Key Outcomes: LGVC not net loss parking policy. Code streamlining. Facilitates Boones Ferry Road improvements (LGVC no net loss parking policy), and supports business vitality by streamlining the code (25% reduction in text) while protecting residential areas. Final design of Boones FerryRoad, mitigate parking/implement parking strategies.
Page 3 of 11 3. Commercial and Industrial Use Table (Streamlining) LU 15-0035 The Commercial Code Streamlining project is intended to create a more concise, predictable, and adaptable list of uses, assure the allowed uses in each zone are consistent with the purpose and intent of the zones and overlay districts as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan, and simplify administration of the Code. The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on this proposal July 25. Tentatively, it is scheduled to come to the City Council for a study session September 27 and a hearing in October. Remove zoning barriers to reuse of former Nature s/al-mart for retail. Allow outdoor uses for veterinary hospitals. Allow retail (limited size) in est Lake Grove Residential Mixed Use Zone where uses are currently limited to office, residential, and medical. Planning Commission public hearing July 25, 2016. 4. Neighborhood Planning Uplands (PP 15-0005) (Uplands), Evergreen (PP 15-0007) This goal consists of providing customized planning services for three neighborhoods in 2016 (Uplands, Evergreen, and Forest Highlands) as well as maintaining a high level of customer service for neighborhoods. The Planning Commission has held three work sessions on the Uplands Neighborhood Plan. Uplands is addressing issues related to flag lot development, including the number of lots which may front onto a private access lane, and setbacks, among other issues. The neighborhood is also wanting to make recommendations for right of way usage (parking, drainage, etc.). The Commission would like to use Uplands as a case study for evaluating flag lot standards (and private access lanes) generally in other parts of the City. Evergreen would like to update its overlay to address concerns regarding building height, which it feels are not adequately addressed by existing height limitations and required setback planes. Planning staff is also working with the Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association in its efforts to develop a neighborhood survey on land use and zoning issues. In Uplands, limiting the number of lots that may front onto a private access lane would reduce development potential on some properties. In Evergreen, establishing additional height limitations may add complexity to the code; and removing or reducing existing height exceptions may reduce building design flexibility.
Page 4 of 11 Planning Commission: Evergreen Overlay (PCS #1), August 22; Uplands Neighborhood Plan (PCS #4), October 24; Forest Highlands TBD. 5. Multi-Dwelling Development Pending The City Council directed the Planning Commission to resume the 2015 effort toward developing standards and review procedures for multi-dwelling housing in multifamily zones. This housing type could potentially include combinations of one- and two-family housing on a lot. In 2015, the Commission and Council (through Ordinance 2667) clarified the definition of duplex and where duplexes are allowed. The City also considered standards for multi-dwelling development. Ultimately, however, the Commission did not recommend approval of multi-dwelling development standards and instead recommended removal of Dwelling unit, any type from zones where multifamily housing was allowed. In adopting Ordinance 2667 the City Council concurred with the Planning Commission s definition of duplex but requested the Commission reexamine the code relative to multi-dwelling development as it was not Council s intent to limit the types of housing allowed in multifamily zones. Due to existing workload, staff has not resumed work on this project, and the earliest we foresee doing so is early 2017. The project would benefit from a design charrette or workshop where a specific site is identified and alternatives for housing options studied with property owner consent and neighborhood involvement. Standards would then be developed for the missing, mid-range (between duplex and multifamily) housing types based on public input. This project would also benefit from input from the City s 50+ Advisory Board, as the Board is evaluating ways to ensure Lake Oswego is an age-friendly city. B. New ork in 2016 1. Corrections to Zoning Map and Plan Map LU 16-0035 This is an action item from the 2015 Audit of the Comprehensive Plan and CDC and involves a review of the Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map to remove conflicts between the two. The Commission held its first work session on mapping July 11, and directed staff to prepare a Public Review Draft of the proposal.
Page 5 of 11 Conflicts between the Zoning Map and Plan Map create uncertainty for property owners and neighbors and may lead to land use conflicts as properties redevelop. The most obvious conflicts are where the Zoning Map designates residential use at a higher density than the Comprehensive Plan Map and where the Zoning Map allows uses that are in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, some Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations do not have clear definitions. There are also minor inconsistencies and errors on both maps which may be corrected administratively. For example, the maps would be more legible if the keys for both maps used consistent nomenclature and coloring. Better color shading and contrast is needed for certain zoning designations. hen a Comprehensive Plan designation is carried over to the Zoning Map, the designations on each map key should be consistent. Questions for City Council: a. here the Comprehensive Plan sets a lower density limit than zoning, should the zoning be changed to align with the Plan? (It is presumed that where planned densities exceed zoned densities there is not conflict, but that up-zoning may occur over time when the Comprehensive Plan criteria for a zone change are met.) Should the City take a different approach in reconciling these conflicts if the present zoning was applied correctly (zoned and planned density were consistent at the time of re-zoning or annexation)? hat if the zoning was applied in error? b. How should the City approach situations where the Comprehensive Plan designates land uses that conflict with the allowed uses of the applicable zone? For example, the Comprehensive Plan designates the Lakewood Center General Commercial, but the property is zoned High Density Residential (R-0). hile R-0 is not inconsistent with GC (housing is permitted in GC up to R-0 densities ) and both zones allow institutional uses such as the Lakewood Center, GC allows some uses that may conflict with adjacent residences.
Page 6 of 11 c. Is Council comfortable having staff correct the errors administratively? Because the City s zoning and plan maps are constructed with data from several sources (Metro, Clackamas County and the City), there are hundreds of situations where property boundaries, plan/zone boundaries, and other line work do not align. Most of these errors are so small they are not visible to the naked eye on the paper maps, but they can create problems when undertaking a GIS analysis. A Public Review Draft of the proposed map corrections is scheduled to publish in August. The package will focus on those changes requiring a quasi-judicial or legislative land use decision. Because the audit identifies a need for both types of map amendments, the proposal will be broken into several land use applications, which could take over a year to process. Staff is identifying changes that require individual property owner notification and outreach, and will ensure that owners are kept informed and have an opportunity to comment early on. 2. Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation LU 16-0025 This is an action item from the 2015 Audit of the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code (CDC). It is intended to implement the 2015 TSP by adopting clear and objective requirements for traffic impact studies, among other CDC amendments. The proposed amendments will give the City Engineer greater authority and clear guidance for requiring traffic impact studies and evaluations where a proposed development or change of use generates significant traffic or is likely to trigger transportation safety or operations concerns. Such studies would examine all modes of travel, including automobiles, trucks, transit, pedestrians, and bicycles, as applicable, and be scaled/scoped to the size and potential impact of the development. The Commission held its first work session on this proposal on June 13 and directed staff to prepare a Public Review Draft. The Commission also identified two additional transportation policy issues, which are summarized below. Policy Issue(s): TBD The Public Review Draft of the TSP code amendments is in progress. Comments are due August 8. The next Planning Commission work session is on August 8, and a public hearing is tentatively scheduled for September 26. Other Transportation Policy Issues/Questions for City Council: Staff is seeking Council direction regarding two Planning Commission recommendations that are outside the scope of work for TSP Plan implementation, as they have policy and workload/budgetary implications.
Page 7 of 11 a. Street Connectivity. In a work session on LU 16-0025 (June 13, 2016), the Commission suggested the City reevaluate its street connectivity standard. Commissioners questioned the practicality and public benefit of requiring street connections through the last few remaining large undeveloped parcels within the City s planning area. These parcels are mostly concentrated in the Forest Highlands, Hallinan Heights, Palisades, and Lake Forest neighborhoods. The Commission s interest was piqued by a recent residential development in Palisades where the CDC required a local street connection be made. LU 15-0040 was appealed to City Council (AP16-02) by neighbors and the applicant, who had submitted plans in compliance with the street connectivity standard but later objected to it. Council upheld the Development Review Commission s application of the standard and approval of the project. The Commission has also questioned whether the standard is applied consistently, as a local street connection that had been proposed as part of the Southwest Employment Area Plan (Jean ay) was eventually eliminated from that plan. However, the two decisions application of code to a development proposal, and designation of a future street on the Comprehensive Plan are two different types of actions, one quasi-judicial (code implementation) and the other legislative (policy making). In addition to providing property access and facilitating neighborhood circulation for cars, emergency responders, pedestrians, and bicycles, the connectivity standard supports the orderly provision of utilities that are required to serve development. The connectivity standard applies only where developments result in the construction of a street, are adjacent to another development that has already provided a street stub for future extension, or where the development site is at least 1.75 acres and the distance between street local intersections after development would otherwise be more than 530 feet. The code provides exceptions where topography, sensitive lands, or other specified obstacles make a connection impracticable; for example, where the cost of extending a street through sensitive lands (e.g., by requiring a bridge or special construction techniques) outweighs the public benefit (e.g., direct and convenient access for residents and emergency responders), a pedestrian-bicycle access way may be constructed in lieu of a street; or in extreme cases, such as The Reserve at estlake Planned Development (LU 13-0064), the connection may be waived. The street connectivity standard in LOC 50.06.003.4 implements the current TSP and complies with the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, which requires that local jurisdictions have connectivity standards (Metro Code 3.07.630). Question: Should the Planning Department initiate a review of the local street connectivity standard, given how few opportunities remain for making new local street connections?
Page 8 of 11 b. Ministerial Developments and Local Street Improvements. The Commission has also recently recommended the City develop minimum street frontage improvement requirements for ministerial developments. This would address situations where building permits are issued on existing legal lots that front onto substandard streets; the City presently has no authority to require mitigation for infrastructure impacts (e.g., widening for pathways, travel lane, or parking) when approving ministerial permits. The issue arose during the recent development of lots adjacent to Bickner Street (a 13-foot wide road where both right of way and pavement widths were substandard). hile Bickner Street is a unique situation, many of the city s older neighborhoods have streets with sufficient right of way that are not improved to their ultimate width and may or may not need to be widened. As requested by the Planning Commission, staff reviewed the City of Portland s public improvement standards and found that Portland has code requirements which allow it to require frontage improvements with building permits. hen new development is reviewed through the land use process, connectivity is considered and if certain criteria are met a new street or street extension may be required as a condition of approval, similar to Lake Oswego. However, Portland also has authority under a non-land use code section in Title 17.88 Public Improvements: Street Access, to require frontage improvements, paving, or payment of an in lieu fee, as a condition of building permits, as follows [emphasis added]. All building permits and planning actions are subject to the following: A. No single family, multiple dwelling, industrial or commercial building shall be constructed, or altered so as to increase its number of occupants, or make significant alterations to a building without resulting in increased occupancy, on property that does not have direct access by frontage or recorded easement with not less than 10 feet width of right-of-way to a street used for vehicular traffic. B. If a street adjacent to a property described in Subsection A. above does not have a standard full-width improvement, including sidewalks, the owner, as a condition of obtaining a building permit, conditional use, zone change, land partition or adjustment, shall provide for such an improvement or a portion thereof as designated by the Director of the Bureau of Transportation in accordance with provisions elsewhere in this Title. The payment of a Local Transportation Infrastructure Charge will satisfy the requirements of this Subsection. C. Based on findings that a standard improvement is not feasible, the Director of the Bureau of Transportation may allow a temporary improvement appropriate for the circumstances, on the condition that the City will not maintain said temporary improvement and the owner will provide the City with a notarized document, approved as to form by the City Attorney, to be filed with the County in which property is located, stating that the present and future owners will be
Page 9 of 11 counted in favor of any proposed standard improvement of said street. Fee for said filing and any other expense of the City incidental to accomplishing the temporary improvement shall be paid by the owner. (Source: Portland City Code, Section 17.88.020 For Building and Planning Actions) Question: Does the City Council wish to develop a street improvement policy and standards for ministerial developments? 3. Contingent Ordinance for Marijuana Businesses (Time, Place, Manner) LU 16-0009 As directed by City Council at its February 16 meeting, this spring the Planning Commission reviewed alternatives for regulating marijuana businesses and has recommended a Marijuana Time, Place, and Manner Ordinance for City Council approval. The Council is scheduled to conduct a hearing on the ordinance September 6, 2016. If enacted, it would apply only if a majority of the electorate vote to overturn the present ban on marijuana businesses in the city. Subject to outcome of ballot measure. City Council public hearing September 6. 4. Residential Demolitions Permit Notice No Land Use Case File As directed by City Council, staff has prepared a draft amendment to LOC 45 (Building Code) requiring a Good-Neighbor notice for approved residential demolitions. This is a courtesy notice only, not a waiting period or appeals process, for demolitions. During Fiscal Year 2015-16, the City issued 50 demolition permits. (The City received 112 applications for new single family dwellings.) This is a non-land use code amendment and therefore does not come before the Planning Commission. It is expected to come to City Council this fall with the 2016 Non-CDC Amendments. Cost of administering new notice requirement. Does not apply to remodels, which often involve major deconstruction. City Council study session November, with a public hearing in December. 5. Serial Partitions, Flag Lots, and Private Access Lanes May/May Not Result in Code Change The Commission is using the Uplands Neighborhood Plan as a case study for evaluating current standards for flag lot developments and private access lanes. The perception is that unlimited development of flag lots on private access lanes is incompatible with the character of some neighborhoods. (See also, Neighborhood Planning discussion on page 3.)
Page 10 of 11 Question: Any regulation limiting the number of flag lots, or lots that front onto a private access lane, would reduce development potential on some properties and discourage serial partitioning where the creation of a public street (through the subdivision procedure) is not otherwise feasible. Review the results of the Uplands Neighborhood Plan Survey (estimated completion August 2016), and consider options for addressing flag lot development. If the concerns are not unique to Uplands, consider citywide code changes as part of a package of Annual CDC Amendments. (See #7 below.) Does Council have any input that might help frame the issue and define the problem. Is it that oversized houses are being built on flag lots? Are the houses too close together? Are the private access lanes too narrow, or do they lack sufficient parking? 6. Fences/Retaining alls and Height ith Grading This item is combined with #7, below. Is the Council open to considering code changes that would reduce the number of flag lots that can be created, hence limiting the use (and value) of some residential properties, to address neighborhood character? hat other means of controlling development, if any, should be considered first? 7. Annual CDC Maintenance Amendments LU 16-0030 These amendments include items identified by staff through use and application of the Code, and others identified by citizens or staff during the 2015 Audit of the Comprehensive Plan and CDC. The Planning Commission held a work session on potential code amendment concepts June 23, directing staff to prepare a Public Review Draft for those changes that are ready to move forward. The amendments are divided into three tracks, as follows: a. Code Maintenance Move forward now. Refine the list based on the Commission s input on June 27, and schedule a hearing in October (LU 16-0030). b. Policy Bring forward this fall and coordinate with other policy code changes (e.g., local street improvements, connectivity, serial partitions, and access lanes). Council direction is needed on some of these items. c. Flag Lots This package will include some minor/routine maintenance amendments. It may also include some more significant policy changes. Staff anticipates bringing it forward for a Planning Commission work session this fall or winter. This work will be coordinated with the Uplands Neighborhood Plan, as described above.
Page 11 of 11 ORKLOAD CONSIDERATIONS The Planning Commission goals were coordinated with available staff resources and the Commission s capacity for new work in 2016. A key workload indicator is the number of meetings (work sessions and hearings) required to process planning projects, as the Commission has a finite number of potential meeting dates. As requested by the Planning Commission chair, meeting agendas have been limited to not more than two major business items per meeting. The Planning Commission Meeting Forecast in Attachment A shows progress to date and business items in 2016. It is important to note that Long Range Planning staff consists of only two planners and one administrative support position. In addition, Development Review staff may lead policy and code work that comes before the Commission but their primary role is to administer the code and review applications. Staff is responsible for a variety of other work that does not come before the Planning Commission. These services include Annexations, Code Enforcement, Historic Preservation, Neighborhood Enhancement Grants, Neighborhood Trainings, and administration and maintenance of non-land use codes such as the Tree Code, Sign Code, and Building Code, among others. Demand for these services continues to increase as development picks up and more neighborhoods become active (or re-activate) and request training. ALTERNATIVES AND FISCAL IMPACT The preceding narrative highlights key issues and alternatives for City Council s consideration and direction. ith the exception of the Other Transportation Policy Issues on page 6, this work is budgeted and can be completed with existing personnel. RECOMMENDATION Provide direction to the Planning Commission and staff on the policy issues and questions in this report. ATTACHMENT A. Planning Commission Meeting Forecast for 2016 (July 12, 2016)
TENTATIVE SUBJECT TO CHANGE Planning Commission Meeting Forecast 2016 Projects Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 14 11 25 8 22 14 28 11 25 9 23 13 27 11 25 8 22 12 26 10 24 14 28 12 S Emp Area Plan F CC H H (Sarah/LU 15-0077) H CCSS PH Delib Delib 4/19 5/3 Commercial Code Streamlining (Jessica/LU 15-0035) Uplands Neighborhood Plan (Sarah/PP 15-0005) Forest Highlands NA Survey (Sarah/PP 15-0006) Evergreen Overlay Revise (Sarah/PP 15-0007) LGVC Code Cleanup (Leslie/LU15-0064) H F Lake Grove Parking Plan and Code (Johanna/LU 16-0001) LGVC Design Handbook (Johanna/LU# TBD) TSP Code Amendments* (Debra/LU 16-0025) Annual CDC Amendments* (Leslie/LU 16-0030) Comp Plan/Zoning Map Corrections* (Paul/LU 16-0035) Food Cart Pods Amendment (Sarah/LU 16-0027) Standards for Local Street Connectivity, Frontage Improve., and Access Lanes (TBD/LU # TBD) MJ Time, Place, Manner (Scot/LU 16-0009) H CCSS 2/16 H Delib >public review> H F CCSS 9/27 July 12, 2016 Page 1 of 1 CCPH 10/11 w h F CCSS 4/19 CC PH 5/3 >>public review>> public review U >public review> 7/19 CC-PC check-in w w w h w h f CCSS > CCPH w >public review> w h f CCSS > CCPH >contact owners/ public review> H F CCPH 9/6 w w h f Other CCI/PC Items** U M M TOTAL ITEMS (Does not 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 include Findings) Key: = ork Session; H = Public Hearing; F = Findings; M = Meeting/Recommendation; U = Project Update; (lower-case w and h are tentative) Green bars indicate work is in progress. Light green is in-progress but not yet scheduled with Planning Commission. Gray bars are pending City Council direction. *Includes items from Comp Plan-CDC Audit (tasks ranked highest by City Council in joint PC-CC work session on 1/11/16). City Council check-ins 7/19. **Other PC/CCI business items are: Mt Park NA Recognition (5/9), and CCI Annual Meeting (5/23). Past items are: Joint Meeting with City Council on PC Goals (1/11/16), Legal Issues Training (1/25/16), and Transportation Topics TriMet Update (4/11), Traffic Safety ork Session (4/25)