Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2004-06-14 of LANZ as ) City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2004 CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Frank Groznik called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. on Monday, June 14, 2004 in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 380 A Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners present were Vice Chair Groznik, Mary Beth Coffey, Kenneth L. Sandblast, Mark Stayer and Alison Webster. Commissioner Daniel Vizzini was excused. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Development Manager; Eryn Deeming, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy District Attorney; and Jean Hall, Senior Secretary. III. CITIZEN COMMENT—Regarding Issues Not On the Agenda None. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Webster moved to approve the Minutes of March 22, 2004. Commissioner Coffey seconded the motion and it passed with Vice Chair Groznik and Commissioners Coffey, Stayer and Webster voting yes. Commissioner Sandblast recused himself from the vote and Commissioner Vizzini was not present. Commissioner Sandblast moved to approve the Minutes of April 12, 2004. Commissioner Coffey seconded the motion and it passed with Vice Chair Groznik and Commissioners Coffey, Sandblast and Webster voting yes. Commissioner Stayer abstained from voting and Commissioner Vizzini was not present. Commissioner Webster moved to approve the Minutes of May 10, 2004. Commissioner Stayer seconded the motion and it passed with Commissioners Stayer and Webster voting yes. Vice Chair Groznik and Commissioners Coffey and Sandblast recused themselves from the vote and Commissioner Vizzini was not present. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 1 of 8 Minutes of June 14,2004 V. PUBLIC HEARING LU 04-0002— Sloped Lots (continued from March 22 and April 12, 2004) A request by the City of Lake Oswego to amend the Community Development Code to make the following changes: • Define a steeply sloped lot as a lot where the slope exceeds 25%. • Allow an increase in building height on steeply sloped lots up to a maximum of 45 feet. • Establish appearance standards for down slope facades on sloped lots including enclosed support structures, variations in rear wall planes, and landscaped screening. Staff coordinator is Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager. Vice Chair Groznik opened the legislative hearing and explained the applicable procedures and time limits to be observed. Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager, presented the staff report. He recalled the current standards defined a sloped lot as one where the grade changed at least 10 feet along a side of the structure and the standards also limited the structure to 35 feet high. He recalled the current allowable height on a lot depended on the zone. He pointed out the proposed standards contained a new definition, "steeply sloped lot," which was a lot where the slope exceeded 25%. Mr. Egner indicated that the proposed standards were intended to ensure that the code allowed reasonably sized homes on sloped lots. They included new variance criteria that set the threshold for eligibility for a variance to height (a "reasonable use" variance) at 900 square feet of main floor living area and a 400 square foot garage. He said the proposal allowed height on a steeply sloped lot to increase proportionately with the degree of slope up to a maximum allowable height of 45 feet. For each 3% increase in slope over 25% the allowable height could increase one foot. For example, a structure on a 40% slope could be 40 feet tall. Mr. Egner said the draft standards reflected the Commissioners' directive to create a corresponding relationship between increased height and the downslope setback, as well as the Development Review Commission's (DRC) recommendation that the additional height- to-additional setback requirement should only apply to that portion of the structure that was over 35 feet high (resulting in a "wedding cake" configuration). The proposed standards would increase the required setback by two feet for every foot of height over 35 feet. He presented illustrations to show how the allowable increase in height would affect the envelope on different degrees of slope. Mr. Egner recalled the Commissioners had wanted the staff to propose how to address appearance from the perspective of downslope neighbors. He explained that if upslope structures were required to be enclosed that it could result in massive-looking walls. The staff suggested that those walls should be enclosed, but broken up by maximum wall plane regulations and screened by landscaping. He asked the Commissioners to consider whether appearance standards should apply to all sloped lots or only those sloped lots with structures over 35 feet high. Mr. Egner observed that the proposed changes required the structure to be enclosed on any type of sloped lot. He said they only applied the wall plane limitation to structures over 35 feet high. He said the proposed landscape screening City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 2 of 8 Minutes of June 14,2004 requirements only applied to steeply sloped lots. He advised that the new requirements for enclosure and landscape screening required Measure 56 notice, but it was not required for the proposed wall plane limit for structures over 35 feet high because structures were currently not allowed to be over 35 feet high. Mr. Egner reported that another appearance-related issue to be addressed was how the front setback plane applied on an up-sloped lot. He said the staff proposed to modify the front setback plane standard in that circumstance and increase allowable height at the front setback to 24 feet, and then allow the envelope to go upslope for ten feet at a 6:12 pitch before it was allowed to rise to the maximum allowable height of 35 feet. Mr. Egner observed that instead of creating a new "reasonable use" variance, the Commissioners might decide to wait for the staff to propose a new Class 1.5 Variance process that would allow a variance as long as the proposal fit the neighborhood. He advised the Commissioners to decide if appearance standards should apply to all lots, all sloped lots, all steeply sloped lots, or only lots with structures over 35 feet high. The staff and the Commissioners acknowledged that the standards might be easier for the staff to administer and for the public to understand if they applied to all lots. During questioning by the Commissioners, Mr. Egner confirmed for Commissioner Webster that if the "reasonable use" provisions of the proposal were removed, the rest of the new standards would still be workable. Mr. Egner said that the owner of a steeply sloped lot would be limited to 35 feet and required to comply with the appearance standards, and if that did not give them what they wanted they could request a variance. Mr. Egner explained that the staff had examined a few case studies of existing houses on sloped lots before they suggested that less than 900 square feet of main floor living area, plus a 400 square foot garage, might be too small to be "reasonable use." He related that the staff had created the new definition "steeply sloped lot" after they examined other jurisdictions' codes, and they considered the 25% slope definition as a starting point for discussion. He clarified that the staff could not determine the number of sloped lots that might present issues, but maps showed the City had many lots and portions of lots on slopes over 25%. He acknowledged that many of those lots had already been developed. Mr. Boone clarified that owners of a house that was destroyed would have to reconstruct it to comply with the current Code unless they had received a variance. He recalled the Planning Commission had wanted to define "reasonable use" for developers so there would be some level of certainty about what they could build. However, he cautioned that a new Class 1.5 Variance process would not give them certainty, because it would depend in part on neighbors' acceptance. Mr. Egner pointed out the proposal let a developer know at what point he needed to seek a variance. He asked if the proposed "reasonable use" main floor area was big enough. Mr. Boone reasoned that a buyer of a steeply sloped lot would anticipate that a house would be more challenging to design for that type of lot. He confirmed that the proposed standards would make a Class 2 Variance harder to get. He explained that if"reasonable use" was already defined in the standards it would be hard for the applicant to meet the Class 2 requirement to prove that the "reasonable use" size main floor (a 900 square foot main floor and a 400 square foot garage) was an "unnecessary hardship." He reported that staff currently saw more variance requests related to a change in the house footprint than to height. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 3 of 8 Minutes of June 14,2004 Public Testimony Geoff Chew, 15340 Diamond Head Road, Lake Oswego, 97034, indicated his concern that the new standards would result in more retaining walls in his neighborhood of steeply sloped lots. Mr. Egner advised that retaining walls were subject to the same height, setback and wall plane standards as any other "structure" under the current Code. Mr. Boone clarified that the walls were to be measured from "unaltered" ground and the builder could not measure wall height from an altered grade. Mr. Chew indicated he did not want to see structures as tall as 45 feet in the City. He noted they could block their neighbors' views. Vice Chair Groznik closed the public hearing and opened deliberations. Deliberations When the Commissioners questioned why the standards should differentiate between "sloped lots" and "steeply sloped lots (over 25% slope)," Mr. Egner said he would now be inclined to recommend that the standards apply to all sloped lots. He advised that those changes would require Measure 56 notice. Commissioner Sandblast said that he was not concerned about whether or not Measure 56 notice was required. He said he was concerned about the affects of special requirements for "steeply sloped" lots. He observed that many City lots were very narrow and to increase setbacks by as much as 10 feet on a steeply sloped lot would tend to force the building envelopes upward. He said if the Commission decided to retain the "steeply sloped" lot requirements he wanted to change its definition to a slope of 30%-35% in order to give owners the ability to qualify to go higher than 35 feet. He said the "Enclosure, Maximum Rear Wall Plane and Landscape Screening" standards should apply only to structures over 35 feet high. He recalled that Mr. Chew's concerns about the allowable height of retaining walls ("structures") stemmed from what was allowed under the current Code. Commissioner Sandblast suggested the definition "steeply sloped lot" should be changed from a lot where the slope exceeded 25%to a lot where the slope exceeded 30%. He said he would rather remove the proposed Reasonable Use Variance than try to define "reasonable use." He agreed that buyers should know what they were getting into when they purchased a steep lot. He explained that he could agree to the proposed amendments to height if the provision that correlated increased height to increased setback did not apply to the side yard setback because that would adversely impact owners of narrow lots. He agreed that this provision should only apply to the portion of a structure that was over 35 feet. He said he agreed that the proposed Support Structures, Landscape Screening, and Maximum Rear Wall Plane standards should apply to structures over 35 feet high. Mr. Egner pointed out those provisions were repeated for different zones. He confirmed that the staff could change the definition "steeply sloped lot" to increase the degree of slope, but he pointed out that would also raise the threshold at which properties would become eligible for increased height. Commissioner Sandblast then suggested that the Amendments to Height Requirements section could be modified so references to "steeply sloped lots" were deleted and the provision that correlated increased height to increased setback could read, "The maximum building height may be increased one foot City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 4 of 8 Minutes of June 14,2004 for every 3% of slope over 25%." He added that if the Commissioners wanted to specify a threshold of a specific degree of slope over unaltered ground, he could agree to that if the threshold were raised a to a higher starting point before people were allowed to build higher. Commissioner Sandblast proposed another approach to simplify the regulations by removing references to "steeply sloped lots" and just saying that anyone with a lot that exceeds 25% (or 30%) qualifies for the height exceptions. When Vice Chair Groznik asked why the staff had created a separate definition for "steeply sloped lot," Mr. Egner explained the staff created that definition because the proposed appearance standards had been written so one of them applied to steeply sloped lots, one of them applied to all sloped lots, and one of them applied to sloped lots with structures over 35 feet. He confirmed for the Commissioners that the amendments could be changed to eliminate references to "steeply sloped lots," and the threshold for the appearance standards could be set at 35 feet height, or according to some other factor. Commissioner Sandblast observed that standards related to enclosure, landscaping and rear wall plane addressed things that people were concerned about on a more steeply sloped lot. He suggested that if a structure exceeded 35 feet (or whatever height the Commissioners chose) because of the slope, then all of the appearance standards should kick in. He said the exceptions to maximum height could also set 35% (or a threshold of some other degree of slope) to let people know when they could go higher. That would mean that the "steeply sloped lot" definition would not be necessary. Vice Chair Groznik agreed and observed that would make the Code easier to understand. Mr. Egner explained that the infill standards limiting wall planes applied to side walls, but not to the rear wall plane. He added there was no current requirement to enclose the support structure. He observed that the undersides of houses on slopes were typically exposed and not well vegetated, and that vegetative screening made a building look a little shorter. However, an enclosed underside presented a larger wall area to those down slope. Commissioner Sandblast moved to recommend LU 04-0002 to the City Council with the following modifications: A. Remove the definition"steeply sloped lot." B. Remove the entire section proposing Variance Criteria—Reasonable Use. C. Modify Amendments to Height Requirements to delete references to "steeply sloped lots" and to specify "Exceptions to Maximum Building Height on Lots over 25% Slope." Strike all language after "The setback increase shall be in the down slope direction and may affect the rear yard," (so there is no side yard setback issue). D. Appearance Standards. The Front Setback Plane and Maximum Rear Wall Plane standards are to remain as proposed. Add qualifying language that the Support Structures and Landscape Screening standards are to apply to buildings over 35 feet high. Commissioner Webster seconded the motion and discussion followed. Mr. Egner demonstrated that it could be the side yard that sloped and it was not always the rear yard that was affected. Commissioner Coffey suggested amending the motion to retain the City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 5 of 8 Minutes of June 14,2004 sentence, "No increase to the front yard setback is required." Commissioner Sandblast recalled that a narrow lot in an R-7.5 zone might often qualify as a "sloped lot" if it featured a cross slope with a ten-foot difference in elevation, and the slope might be toward the side. He said that although he would prefer to retain but modify the last sentence to read, "No increase to the front and side yard setback is required," he would amend his motion to retain the sentence, "No increase to the front yard setback is required." Mr. Boone reported the City did not currently receive a lot of requests for exceptions to building height, but there might be more requests in the future as people decided to build on more challenging slopes. The motion passed with Vice Chair Groznik and Commissioners Coffey, Sandblast, Stayer and Webster voting yes. Commissioner Vizzini was not present. Chair Groznik announced the final vote would take place on June 28, 2004. VI. GENERAL PLANNING—WORK SESSION P 04-0004 Neighborhood Plan Process/Plan Selection Criteria Eryn Deeming, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She pointed out the suggested criteria that could be used to select the next neighborhood plan. She pointed out it also included a draft"Application for Neighborhood Plan" and a"Draft Work Plan" for the neighborhood-planning program. The Commissioners cautioned the staff to ensure that neighborhood associations were aware that implementation was not automatic and there had to be an implementation phase to insert their policies and regulations into the Code after a neighborhood plan was approved. The Commissioners explained the lessons learned from their previous experience with neighborhood plans. They observed, after considering the previous six plans, that neighborhoods shared some issues and concerns. They suggested the staff create a tool kit or handbook that would ensure neighborhoods knew what the City expected to see in a neighborhood plan. They said neighborhoods should be aware that many of their issues were already addressed in the Code. They said policy choices should be very clear. They stressed that neighborhoods should know that the City had expectations, too. For example, they should be aware that "down-zoning" was not really an option and they should not waste time and energy on something that was not politically possible. The staff related that they were already drafting a guide for the neighborhood associations, and they confirmed they would ensure it reflected, "lessons learned"by the Planning Commissioners. Mr. Egner explained that the City Council had directed staff to develop one neighborhood plan each year. He noted that staff was proposing that at least one project be accomplished each year in each neighborhood that was in the plan implementation stage. It could be a physical project, or something else, such as a Code amendment. He related that Ms. Deeming planned to meet with each neighborhood association board to determine their priority projects. He reported that four associations had either expressed their desire to start planning, or they had already started on their own. He reported that the City Council was scheduled to discuss the Commission's recommendations about the selection process the following day. The Commissioners examined the proposed selection criteria listed in the staff report. The four criteria evaluated a neighborhood's City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 6 of 8 Minutes of June 14,2004 readiness, concerns, progress to date, and how their plan would help achieve City goals. Ms. Deeming pointed out the essay questions on the application form corresponded with the criteria. The Commissioners discussed having the criterion weighted and agreed not to do that, preferring a more flexible approach. They suggested that the "City Priorities" section was a logical place to explain how the City's goals correlated with regional goals. They asked the staff to return to the Commission to report the top three finalists for the next neighborhood plan and how they met the criteria. They anticipated that the Planning Commission would then recommend the order of neighborhood plans to the Council. Public Comment George Van Ginhoven, 455 Iron Mountain Boulevard, Lake Oswego, 97034, related that he served as chair of the Country Club/North Shore Neighborhood Association. He reported that his was a very active association. He indicated he believed a set of boilerplate neighborhood bylaws the staff had recently sent to the Association were what was to be addressed at this meeting. The staff clarified that they had sent a set of model bylaws to neighborhood associations for their consideration because some association bylaws were out of date; however, the document was not intended to serve as a framework for neighborhood planning. Mr. Van Ginhoven advised the Commission that his Association was ready to meet and hear how to proceed with their plan. The staff confirmed that the Country Club/North Shore Neighborhood Association was already a recognized City neighborhood association and they had met with the Association board and reviewed their draft plan. The staff reported the Association had used the Lake Grove, Lake Forest and Waluga plans as models even though those were large documents that frequently repeated Comprehensive Plan policies. They reported they had subsequently counseled Mr. Van Ginhoven's Association and other associations to focus on unique neighborhood issues and not repeat existing Comprehensive Plan policies. Jeannie McGuire, 144 Wilbur St., Lake Oswego, 97034, chair of the Old Town Neighborhood Association, reported that hers was a very active neighborhood association that had enjoyed a long and successful casual relationship with the City. She said they were confident that they could discuss and resolve neighborhood issues with the City. She worried that the formal process set forth under the new bylaws might adversely impact that relationship. She reported her Association was currently attempting to resolve a development-related issue that needed immediate attention. She was also concerned that the model bylaws document they had just received from the staff would generate more work for the Association's officers and board members than was justified for volunteers. The Commissioners suggested that Ms. McGuire discuss her concerns about the bylaws document with the staff. They related her concern about the development issue to the neighborhood planning process and suggested such an issue might be addressed as a neighborhood project. The staff observed that Ms. McGuire had raised a new aspect of neighborhood planning: making major changes to an existing neighborhood plan in order to deal with pressure for development that the neighborhood did not like, but that was allowed by the current neighborhood plan. They asked if the selection criteria should City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 7 of 8 Minutes of June 14,2004 treat such a revision process like a new plan. It was suggested a major change to an existing plan would be as much work as a new plan. Ms. Deeming arranged to meet with Ms. McGuire after the meeting to discuss the model bylaws and talk about the neighborhood plan. VII. OTHER BUSINESS Foothills Kickoff Meeting Mr. Egner announced there was to be an initial informational meeting on June 24, 2004 to explain a project to refine the Foothills District Plan and to identify volunteers to serve on the steering committee. He reported the City had received a $105,000 transportation and growth management grant that would be used to hire a consultant for the $150,000 project. He assured the Commissioners that both transportation and land use would be evaluated. He anticipated that an alternatives analysis would be conducted to examine transit choices (including a streetcar and a water taxi)between the City and Portland. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Vice Chair Groznik adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jean Hall Senior Secretary City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 8 of 8 Minutes of June 14,2004