Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2011-04-11City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of April 11, 2011 Page 1 of 5 t CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 2011 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Jon Gustafson called the Planning Commission meeting of April 11, 2011, to order at 7:55 p.m. in the Main Fire Station, 300 B Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. 2. ROLL CALL Members present were Chair Jon Gustafson, Vice Chair Lynne Paretchan and Commissioners Julia Glisson, Jim Johnson, Russell Jones and Todd Prager. Commissioner Puja Bhutani was excused. Council Liaison Jeff Gudman was also present. Staff present were Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Support. 3. CITIZEN COMMENT None. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.1 LU 08-0052 (Ordinance 2525) – Community Development Code –General Housekeeping and Minor Policy Amendments. Amendments (Chapter 50) for the purpose of clarifying, correcting, formatting, updating sections and discussing minor policy changes. Final review of previously discussed items, Package B (continuing from page 110-232 and 275-412). Continued from March 28, 2011. Chair Gustafson opened the hearing. The Commissioners continued their examination of Ordinance 2525, Attachment B; Package B. Section 50, Garage Appearance and Location Mr. Boone recalled that at the previous hearing the Commissioners had indicated it was acceptable to use a garage door to break up a garage wall plane facing a street. Development Review planners had advised this provision did not need to distinguish between a corner or side- or rear-loading garage. They recommended the following language: When a garage has walls facing a street, those walls shall have more than one plain or shall include fenestration equal to at least 10% of the garage wall. When asked, Mr. Boone clarified that on a corner lot that also abutted an alley the garage could be accessed from either the side street or the alley, but it had to be positioned in back of the house. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of April 11, 2011 Page 2 of 5 Conditional Uses: Cemetery (all residential zones) Mr. Boone observed a consensus to leave the definition, Cemetery, in the code, but remove any proposed provisions that would allow them in any residential zone. During their previous discussion the Commissioners had questioned why staff proposed to allow cemeteries in residential zones. Vice Chair Paretchan indicated she would allow them in parks. Mr. Boone had discussed the question with Dennis Egner, who had advised that staff no longer proposed the change because the City needed the land in residential zones for housing; it was unlikely that someone would find a parcel of land large enough for a cemetery; and it was unlikely that cemetery use would be approved under the applicable conditional use standards. Commissioner Johnson observed that if there were a future need for a cemetery it could be allowed by plan amendment. Section 50.07.035 Lot Coverage/Floor Area Ratios/Impervious Surface Mr. Boone explained staff wanted to be sure the code reader knew there was a limit on impervious surface in addition to lot coverage standards. He indicated that “Floor Area Ratios” had been moved to a different section of code. Section 50.07.037 (regarding what is exempt from FAR calculations) The Commissioners re-worded the beginning of new provision 5 for clarity as follows: “Provided only one garage is located on the site…” Section 50.07.040 Dwelling Design, Front Porch Required The proposed amendment would add another parameter to the standard that required a front porch to be at least 50% of building width. The porch would have to be at least 15 feet wide even if the front of the building was especially narrow. First Addition Neighbors-Forest Hills Neighborhood Association (FAN) had asked for this change after it experienced a house that met the code but still did not look appropriate. Its front wall was very short with a very small porch. The Commissioners questioned rewriting the code because of one instance in FAN. During the discussion staff clarified that the developer was not allowed to decide which corner lot elevation was to be the “front,” that it was the City Manager’s decision. Chair Gustafson observed a consensus not to recommend the proposed change because the matter was too complex to address in the current amendments process. Sections 50.07.040 and 50.08.045, Dwelling Design, Street Front Setback Plane. The Commissioners noticed that the text sometimes hyphenated street-front and sometimes did not. They also noted that a front porch was allowed to extend past the Front Yard Setback line and that the proposed change would ensure it fit under the Street Front Setback Plane. Mr. Boone explained this would prevent huge front porches that extended as high as the second floor of the house. The Commissioners examined the illustration on page 150. Vice Chair Paretchan was concerned that the result of the amendment would be that all front porches would look the same. Chair Gustafson advised the problem the change was supposed to address could not actually happen because the 16-foot limit on front porch height would keep the porch under the Plane. Mr. Boone advised there were other structural elements besides porches that might pierce the plane. Vice Chair Paretchan suggested the provision should reference those elements, so a reader would not have to hunt through the code to find the exceptions. She asked for and observed a consensus to do that, but then agreed with Chair Gustafson’s suggestion to let the code audit process deal with cross referencing. The Commissioners directed staff to add the issue of whether the Front Setback Plane City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of April 11, 2011 Page 3 of 5 should be applied to flag lots to their future work plan. They observed that the Plane was intended to protect the streetscape and access lanes were a lot like streets. Section 50.07.040 Dwelling Design, Side Yard Appearance and Screening, Treatment 3 - Screening Commissioner Prager was not comfortable allowing landscaping to be a substitute for other features that would break up a wall plain, it was too temporary. Mr. Boone advised that this was current code, not a proposed amendment. Chair Gustafson observed the Commissioners were not inclined to add this to their future work plan. Setbacks for Zero Lot Line Houses Commissioner Jones indicated he preferred to require zero lot line combined dwellings to have to meet the 10 foot side yard setback on each side (Option 2). He did not favor allowing the developer to use the 5 ft. side/15 ft. combined setback (Option 1). Mr. Boone recalled the Commission had previously decided to recommend Option 1 which would allow a developer to distribute the combined side yard setback however they wanted to. Commissioner Jones held that it was acceptable to allow a smaller setback for smaller houses, but big houses should have a larger setback so they were more appropriate scale. Commissioner Glisson recalled the Commissioners had previously chosen Option 1 because it gave the developer the flexibility to move the structure to preserve a tree. She noted it also allowed them to follow the existing pattern along the streetscape. She anticipated the developer would consider how close the neighbors were when he decided how to position the building. Commissioner Jones was still concerned about appropriate scale. He did not want to see a series of houses with the same setback and then come to a large house with a smaller setback. Chair Gustafson recalled the Commissioners had already addressed this. Commissioner Glisson said she believed people were going to place their homes to gain maximum privacy. Chair Gustafson observed a consensus to continue to recommend the more flexible option. Setbacks – Adjustments and Additions [as related to the Oswego Lake Setback] Mr. Boone explained the proposed change would allow boathouses and certain types of accessory structures in the Oswego Lake Setback. Vice Chair Paretchan questioned use of the term, “Adjustments” in the section title. She thought of an “adjustment” as something that adjusted required distance. Mr. Boone noted this section referred to a collection of “adjustments,” “exceptions” and “modifications” of base zone standards. He, Vice Chair Paretchan and Commissioner Glisson then agreed to re-craft the sentence related to Oswego Lake structures to indicate that the Oswego Lake Setback allows certain uses in the rear and side yard setbacks because it allows structures to occur there. Setbacks – Measurement of Side Yard Setback Mr. Boone advised this proposed change would address the “accordion house” problem, a house that undulated from side to side. He explained that each undulation met the 15 foot combined side yard setback requirement and the result made the house look very wide from the street. Section 50.08.045, Structure Design, Maximum Side Yard Plane Mr. Boone explained this section had been renumbered and the only other change was to strike the sentence, “(a) The side elevation of a structure must be divided into smaller areas or planes to minimize the appearance of bulk to properties abutting the side elevations of a primary structure.” It was proposed to be struck because it was a purpose statement that someone might misconstrue. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of April 11, 2011 Page 4 of 5 Section 50.09.025, Setback Requirements, Buffers (DD Zone) [as applied to Oswego Lake] Mr. Boone explained that because the Design District (DD) zone did not include the Lake some extraneous language regarding the Oswego Lake setback was not necessary and would be removed. Accessory Structures – Future Work Plan Item The Commissioners removed proposed changes related to Accessory Structures from the current process. They planned to address anything related to Accessory Structures in a separate process as part of their future work plan. Article 50.10 West Lake Grove Design District Zone Mr. Boone explained that staff was no longer recommending removing the slash from “OC/R-2.5” because it looked odd. They would leave the decision to the code audit process and revise the staff commentary to reflect that. Mr. Boone clarified WLG OC/R- 2.5 was the only zone in the City with a slash that was a zone in itself and not a split zone. Chair Gustafson moved to continue LU 08-0052 (Ordinance 2525) to April 25, 2011 and review pages 275-412. Commissioner Jones seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. ======================================================================== 4.2 LU 08-0054 (Ordinance 2526) – Community Development Code – Policy Related Housekeeping Amendments. Amendments (Chapter 50) for the purpose of clarifying and updating various code provisions. These provisions have been identified as having policy implications. Discussion of items to prioritize for future review in preparation for reopening continued public hearing. Chair Gustafson moved to continue LU 08-0054 (Ordinance 2526) to May 9, 2011. Commissioner Jones seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. 5. OTHER BUSINESS – PLANNING COMMISSION None. 6. OTHER BUSINESS – COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT None. 7. SCHEDULE REVIEW The next meeting was scheduled for April 25th. The Commissioners would continue examining LU 08-0052 (pages 175-412). They agreed to hold a special meeting on May 4th or 5th if they needed additional time to finish LU 08-0052. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of April 11, 2011 Page 5 of 5 8. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Chair Gustafson adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Iris McCaleb /s/ Iris McCaleb Administrative Support