Approved Minutes - 2009-01-26.•
•
•
•
I.
City of Lake Oswego d
Planning Commission Minutes appro'~'
January 26,2009 I'
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Julia Glisson called the Planning ~ommission meeting of Monday, January 26,
2009 to order at 6:00 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 and Scot Siegel. Commissioner Alison Webster was excused.
Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Sarah Selden,
Neighborhood Planner; Laura Weigel, Neighborhood Planner, Sidaro Sin, Senior Planner;
Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris Treinen, Administrative Support.
Mayor Jack Hoffinan thanked the Planning Commission for their hard work. He reported
the City Council was almost finished setting new goals. He looked forward to an
upcoming joint Planning Commission/Development Review Commission/City Council
meeting in which the participants would discuss Comprehensive Plan and land use issues.
CITIZEN COMMENT
None.
IV. MINUTES
v.
Commissioner Brockman moved to approve the Minutes of November 24, 2008.
Commissioner Siegel seconded the motion and it passed 3:0. Chair Glisson recused.
Commissioner Brockman moved to approve the Minutes. of December 8, 2008,
Commissioner Siegel seconded the motion and it passed 4:0.
WORK SESSION
Glenmorrie Neighborhood Plan
Laura Weigel, Neighborhood Planner, presepted the staff report. LiZ Hartman, Chair
of the Glenmorrie Neighborhood Association, reported the implementation committee
had been going through the neighborhood plan tn detail to identify what still needed to be
implemented a,nd they had fashioned a list of implementation strategies they were about
to present at a full ~ssociation meeting. They pla,nned to follow up with a neighborhood
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of January 26, 2009 Page 1 of 12
•
•
•
VI.
survey and then discuss the results at another open house before the Association voted on
the implementation plan and forwarded it to the Planning Commission. Ms. Hartman
explained neighborhood residents wanted the neighborhood to continue to enjoy large
lots, privacy and neighborhood character. She said they would talk about transferring six
properties along Highway 43 th~t were currently in the Hallinan Neighborhood
Association to the Glenmottie Neighborhood Association. She and Ms. Weigel
highlighted some of the strategies that would be vetted at the upcoming· meeting. They
included a design overlay; requiring a building permit for a structure larger than 500 sq.
ft.; encouraging view protection; working with the City to use the best methods to control
surface water; ensllri.ng that residents sto:red recre~tional and non-operational vehicles out
of public view; not allowing any exception to the cutrent height standard; preserving the
ranch-style character of houses on three streets; landscaping and buffering reqtrireme11ts;
new fencing standards; a limit on the percentage of hardscape on each parcel; and a roof
pitch standard to ensure the bulk of a structure was pushed away from the neighbors.
Durip.g the questioning period, Ms. Hartman clarified that the committee hoped to hold
the second full neighborhood meeting in May. Cortlinissioner Siegel suggested they
frame survey questions in a manner that would help people understand there were
tradeoff's to be considered whtm they were comparing strategies. The Commissioners
thanked the committee for their work.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
Comprehensive Plan Update-Periodic Review I Visioning (PP 08-0012) The City is
proposing to update the Comprehensive Plan through the state-required periodic review
process and the City-initiated visioning process. The Comprehensive Plan is the basis for
all land use planning and growth management actions in Lake Oswego. The City is
requesting consideration and approval of the. proposed evah1atioll and work program. The
hearing had been continued from January 12, 2009.
Chair Glisson opened the public hearing and explained the applicable criteria and
procedure. She asked the Commissioners to declare any conflict of interest. None were
declared. 1
Sidaro Sin, Senior Planner, and Sarah Selden, Neighborhood Planner, presented the
staff report. They reported that Metro was generally ~upportive of the draft
evaluation/work program. They asked the Planning Commission to recommend it to the
City Council. · They recalled the Comrnissi~ners had preferred Option 3 at the previous
meeting. The visioning/public engagement process would begin at the same time as
periodic review preparations and the Planning Commission would continue to address
"hot" community issues, such as infill, natural resources planning, neighborhood planning
and a Community Development Code rewrite.
Ms. Selden disclissed visioning. She said the City would use past studies and reports to
develop a comml.lllity profile that described. where the City was now and iilfortn where it
was heading. Her teseatch showed that other cities had used a broader or ~ narrower
scope process depending on their goals and budget. She said the Commissioners did not
have to recommend a particular scope now; staff could come back after the City Council
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of January 26, 2009 Page 2 of12
•
•
•
approved the work program and ask for specific recommendations regarding the process
to be used for periodic review. Ouring the questioning period Commissioner Siegel
recalled the idea to use visioning had been originally suggested by the Planning
Commission to help them understand what should be in all neighborhood plans and to
help them address the density issue. Their. idea was a visioning effort that Would focus on
land use related issues. He agreed it was not up to the Planning Commission to determine
the scope of the effort, but he advised that some cottununities had been able to
accomplish visioning using very limited resources. Chair Glisson observed that the
option the Commissioners supported captured their intent to continue to address
community issues they thought needed to be dealt with immediately. She said the scope
of visioning was up to the City Council. If the City had the time and budget to broaden
the scope, that would setve the community ·as well. The Planning Commission wanted
"visioning lite'' as a ~inimum.
Staff asked for direction about on the evaluation and Work program. The Commissioners
offered no comments on the technical aspects of it. Chair Glisson invited public
comment.
Dan ViZzini, 13830 Verte Court, adVised that the initial visioning effort did not need to
be broad, and it could be focused on land use issues. He suggested that periodic review
and completing the neighborhood planning process could be concurrent processes. He
suggested the City wait to update the code until new or modified Comprehensive Plan
goals and policies were in place that would settle community issues that had been boiling
for many years. He suggested a cotnniittee, instead ofa consultant or staff, could initiate
the visioning process by examining all the existing reports and studies, an.d then vet their
report with the public. He advised that in many cases the problem was that a policy was
either not clearly stated, or its code implementation was not clear enough. He saw a,n
urgent need to focus on major issues such as those related to growth management,
neighborhood character, and ififill development and be ready to update the
Comprehensive Plan policies and goals by the end of 2009. Thereafter, the Planning
Commission could begin examining and reorganizing the Comniunity Development Code
(CDC) based on the Comprehensive Plan.
Jean Baumann, 17 Aquinas Street, Chair of the Sustainability AdVisory Board,
related that the Sustainability Advisory Board (SAB) was crafting a community
sustainability plan with a long-term vision. She encouraged the Commissioners to
recommend that the City Council use the "su:stainability lens" (which she said considered
economics, the enviroillnent, and social equity) in visioning; starting with the
examination of existing plans and reports. Sh.e reiterated the SAB, s interest in supporting
the City's visioning effort. · ·
Carolyn Krebs, 16925 Denney Court, representing the Lake Forest Neighborhood
Association, stressed that the community wanted good fiscal management. She indicated
the Association felt this wa.s the time for the City to focus resources on implementing
theirs and other neighborhood plans. She suggested the Planning Commission
City of Lake Oswego Plann_ing Com:rn'ission ·
Minutes of January 26, 2009 Page 3 ofl2
•
•
•
recoiill:tlend that if the City Council decided to conduct visioning, that they chose a less
costly process than some other cities had used .
Chair Glisson reported hearing from other citizens that they had similar fiscal concerns
and wanted to utilize the plans and reports the City already had. The other
Commissioners indicated they agreed that the visioning process should start with a
narrower focus and utilize existing material first, so the City could benefit from all that
previous effort and identify aspects that were yet to be implemented. They recalled they
had already discussed comparing those reports and plans to each other to find points of
agreement and conflict. Commissioner Siegel suggested looking at tha! material through
the lens of sustainability and neighborhood preservation goals. He stressed th~t the City
needed answers to the most pressing community issues so they could appropriately plan
for the population the City would have in the future. Vice Chair Stewart said other cities
might have been motivated to spend more of their resources on visioning because they
faced more rapid growth than Lake Oswego faced. Chair Glisson suggested the new
COil1Jllittee could consider Mr. Vizzini's suggestion to start doing the footwork for
neighborhood planning right away, while examining existing plans and reports. She said
that made sense considering the time, money and staff resources the City had now.
Commissioner Siegel suggested the flow chart should show the visioning process
completed at the end of 2010, because the Commissioners would use the results of that
process to do the iinpl~mentation wor].{. St~ agreed to revise the graphics to show that.
Chair Glisson observed a consensus tha:t the Commissioners were in agreement With the
technical aspects of the draft Evaluation/Work Program .
Commissioner Brockman moved to recommend that the City Council adopt PP 08-0012,
Comprehensive Plan Update (Periodic Review/Visioning) process as outlined in the
January 21. 2009 staff memorandum .. She clarified that would be sequencing Option 3.
Commissioner Siegel seconded the motion and it passed 4:0.
Communitv 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.
Ordinance 2526, LU 08-0054, Community Development Code-AmeJ;ldPJents 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 administration, minimum density, lot
coverage, structure design, lot depth, industrial uses, accessory and temporary uses.
Greenway management overlay, plaimed development overlay, flag lots, exceptions,
Oswego Lake setbac~, special street setbacks, holl)e occupations, secondary dwelling
units, drainage sta:nda:rds, weak foundation soils, hillside protection, parking and
variances. The hearing had been continued from September 22, 2008 .
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of January 26, 2009 Page 4 of 12
•
•
•
Chair Glisson opened the public hearing and e~plained the applicable criteria and
procedure. She asked the Commissioners to declare a.ny conflict of interest regarding the
application. None were declared.
Dennis Egner, Long Range Plamdng Manager, advised the Planning Commission to
continue the hearing to allow staff to schedule . an open house sometime before the next
hearing. Chair Glisson invited public testimony, but no one came forward to testify.
Connilissioner Brockman moved to continue LU 08-0054 to March 23. 2009.
Commissioner Siegel seconded the motion and it passed 4:0.
***
Ordinance 2523, LU 08-0053, Comprehensive Plan -New lnfill Policies. Adds-
policies in support of overlay zones for neighborhood plans and residential design review.
Ordinance 2524, LU 08-0053, Community Development Code -Infill Amendments.
Amends portions of the CDC, Chapter 50, for the purpose of enhancing the compatibility
of infill development and clarification. Proposed updates pertain to the following topics:
lot coverage, maximwn. floor area, structure d~sign, setback planes, yard setbacks, sloped
lots, residential infill design review, variances, non-conforming uses, duplexes and
attached dwellings, flag lots; and serial partitions. This hearing had been continued from
September 22, and October 27, 2008 .
Chair Glisson opened the public hearing and explained the applicable criteria and
procedure. She asked the Commissioners to declare any conflict of interest regarding the
application. None were declared.
Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager, reported the Infill Task Force h~d
reached conseilSlis on almost every issue they considered except the issue of whether
there should be a design review process for single-family homes and what the triggers
should be. The Task Force decided to forward the general concept to the Planning
Commission and City Cou,ncil for their consideration. He recalled the Task Force had
talked about applyiug triggers such as a height threshold and a threshold that related to a
percentage of allowable floor atea. He said if the Planning Commission agreed there
should be single-family residential design review, staff would fashion and propose such a
process. He pointed out that the staff report described what other cities, such as Palo
Alto, C~ifornia, did. However; he advised that Oregon law would require the City to
also offer a clear and objective alternative process that would allow a single-family house
to be developed without design review. He said staff knew of no other community in
Oregon that required individual design review, except those that required such review
within historic districts. He suggested th~ Commissioners take testimony focused on
design review.
Dwiug the questioning period, Mr. Egner clarified that the Residential infill Design
(RID) process the City currently used was an alternative process to the clear and objective
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of January 26,2009
r
Page 5 of12
•
•
•
standards in the code. It was available to developers who wanted exceptions to code
standards. The first Infill Task Force had recommended it; the City had adopted it five
years ago; and staff found it created mixed results.
PJJblic 1'estimony
Maria Meneghin, 1179 Sunningdale Road, First Addition/Forest Hills; and_ Carol
Ockert, 9i.o Cumberland Ro-ad, Co~ Vice~ Chairs of the First AddltioniForest Hills
Neighborhood Association, submitted a written statement from Lisa Shaw Ryan and
read· it a.ioud. The Association supported ·neighborhood overlay zoning; creation of a
single-family design review process; specified c.ode am<tndments, including some that
would result in fewer flag lots being created; making it harder to tear down an existing
structure; and removing specified adjustments from Residential Infill Review (RID).
They wanted additional changes to include garage area in Floor Area Ratio (FAR); and,
changes that would better address house-to-house rel~tionships. They supported
rewriting the CDC. They advised there were too many exceptions in it and it was
interpreted inconsistently. They wanted the City to address the fact that it was not
appropriate to allow zero lot line development in a single-family zone; and to consider
changes that would reduce the overall size/square footage of new infill homes on smaller
lots. During the questioning period, Commissioner Siegel recalled that the First
Addition/Forest Highlands (FAN) Neighborhood \Plan discussed using "trade offs" for
varying lot Width. The neighborhood association representatives said the Association w~
now ready for a related code change.
Ed Spencer, 4036 NE Sandy Blvd., Portland, Oregon, 97212, a building designet:,
cautioned that. a srngle-family home design review process would make the process
longer and more costly for owners who wanted to improve their homes. He ~aid the new
thresholds wottld mean it would apply to many more projects and some owners would
decide not to improve their homes. · He estimated that the RID process had added six
months and thousands of dollars to the cost of a project. He agreed fllat the proposed
changes to the Comprehensive Plan made sense and clarified the process.
Ernie_ Platt, Homebuilders Association of Metropolitan Portland, 15555 SW Bangy
Road, said the proposed code arilendments woUld do a good job of making the code
clearer and more workable. He cautioned that making single-family home design a
discretionary process instead of using a clear and objective process was not reasonable
because it substituted someone else's idea of good design for the applicant's.
Tim Breedlove, 1281_ Tyndall Court, COIIlffieiJ.ded the City for trying to improve the
code, but he said he strongly opposed a single-farilily residence design review process
because it Was too subjective and no consensus had been reached about what standards
and thresholds to reconunend. He agreed with Mr. Spenser's and Mr. Platt's testimony.
Jeff Metke, 3976 Canal Road, wanted to be able to read the code and know what he
could do to change his residence without the aid of an attorney or some other
professional. . He said_ the proposed code amendments would do that, but not the design
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of Janmey 26, 2009 Page 6 of 12
•
•
•
review process, which would add more cost and 120 to 160 days to the design process.
He said his experience was the RID process cost at least $10,000 .
Barbara Zeller, 3335 Sabina Court, Chair of the Lake Grove Neighborhood
Association, said her Association had originally suggested using residential house
review. She said such a review would not be about architectural style, as her
neighborhood had eclectic style. The review would consider scale, size, setback and
compatibility. She said in her neighborhood, compatibility was primarily defined by the
natural environment. She said they had discussed what should trigger tbe review and that
some other independent . body should conduct the review, because the Development
Review Commission (DRC) was too busy. She said she ~oped Chapter 50 would be
rewritten so it was more clear and objective.
Dan Vizzini, 13830 Verte Court, Chair of the_ Lake Oswego Neighborhood Action
Coalition CLONACl, reported that LONAC had taken a position on iilfill. He read aloud
the goals and policies doctlment that organization had voted to approve ip. Ja.Quary. He
said LONAC supported the new infill standards and a residential development review
process, He said they wanted .infill to be compatible with neighborhood character; to
respect setbacks, and to protect trees and natural resources in a manner that protected
neighborhood character and neighbors privacy. He said they Wanted to see a review body
created. He agreed the "devil was in the details" of applying triggers and criteria, but he
encouraged the Commissioners to seek to make the process as clear and Unambiguous
possible so there was some predictability in it. He said he personally did not feel the
review process should be required of all applicants -just those that exceeded the infill
development standl;ll'ds. He said if the code was clear enough a property owner should be ·
able to know what envelope and setbacks were requi~ed and what the site restrictions
were.
Sherry Finnigan, 138 Coildolea Drive, an Infill task Force member, encouraged the
Planning Commission to recommend a Comprehensive Plan mechanism for local overlay
zones and a review process and review b9dy for residential infill development. She
submitted a copy of a newspaper article entitled, "Goodbye to those ugly infill houses?"
to show the cop.cept was being considered by Portland officials. She agreed with
previous testimony that if the City ·had really clear and objective standards for new
houses, then residential infill review would not be an i_ssue.
Heather Chrisman, 172 Middlecrest Road, an Infill Task Force mell1ber, explained that
she supported a new residential design review process because a house that was the result
of a RlD review had not fit her neighborhood. Mr. Boone clarified RID decisions were
discretionary. If someone did not Want to bUild to meet the clear and objective zoning
code standards, they could ask for a Rib review. Ms. Chrisman clarified that she thought
anyone who wanted a variance from code standards should be subject to design review.
She said the trigger should not just be the size of a lot because a very large house on a
small lot created more problems than a vety large house on a large lot. She wanted a
licensed architect to be a member ofthe new review body .
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of January 26, 2009 Page 7 of 12
•
•
•
Sandra Duffy, 5671 SW Hewett Blvd., Portland, Oregon 97221, said she was a former
Lake Qswego resident driven out by poorly executed infill. She said she lost her privacy
and suffered from drainage problems after two new infill houses were built in Bay Creek
Estates on top of 4.5 feet of new fill. She suggested the size threshold for residential
desigrt review should be 3,000 sq. ft. because that was the average size of homes in that
subdivision. She said she supported allowing neighborhood overlays. She liked the
Glenmorrie Neighborhood's suggestions to not allow· exceptions to existing height
standards; to include setback planes in the standards; and to establish a 50% maximum
hardscape. She stressed that the neighborhood association and affected neighbors should
be allowed to participate in the design review process.
Gary Mimnaugh, GRM Construction, 17735 Mardee Avenue, a remodeling
contractor, related that under current standards ail owner spent about $10,000 for permits,
fees and engineering and design before construction started. He said the more restrictions
put on development, the higher housing costs would rise and less affordable housing
would be available. He asked the City to consider the cost and not increase restrictions.
He said the City should try to figure out bow Il111Cb revenue it lost because homeowners
got around tight restrictions by making improvements without building permits, or
beca'use the process turned off people. He said the local newspaper was abo11t to publish
an article about homeoWQ.~rs wbo tried for eight years before they were allowed to
remodel. During the questioning period, Commissioner Brockman explained that she
thought the majority of infill was fine, but some was not, and neighbors feared they
would be impacted by an infill development that imposed oil their privacy. She suggested
the building industry propose standards to address the problem .
Carolyn Krebs, 16925 Denney Court, Lake Forest Neighborhood Association, said
the Association supported allowing neighborhood overlay zones and exploring the idea of
residential design review. She recalled the lnfill Task Force had discussed language that
specified that review was to consider both existing development ®d planned future
development in the area. She cautioned thllt the lnfill Task Force had not discussed any
review criteria, thresholds or triggers and that each member had his/her own opii:rion
about it. She said the Association could not recommend residential design review until
they knew what the triggers wo11ld be. She ·stressed the need for a design handbook to
guide contractors and remodelers. She said the Association supported changes that would
move the bulk of a structure toward its center to improve its relationship to neighbors.
She said they did not support the proposed change that would requite auto lanes through ·
connecting flag lots on narrow sites in the neighborhood, but they did support
connectivity for pedestrian and bike facilities. She asked the Planning Commission to
leave the hearing open to comments from neighborhood associations.
Jim Bolland, 804 Fifth Street, an infill tllsk force member, supported residential
development design review; atlowing neighborhoods to have their own design overlay
zone; allowing minot reductions in lot width in order to 11void flag lots; limiting the RID
process so there could be no adjustment of lot coverage, FAR or height; eliminating the
50% value threshold tule fot remodels; making setbacks inviolate; and creating a design
handbook. He observed that if residential design review Wete adopted, RID would·
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of January 26, 2009 Page 8 of 12
•
•
•
become unnecessary. He indicated that Infill Task Force members were concerned about
what specific triggers and criteria would be proposed for design review. He advised that
such a review would not be art arbitrary, s·ubjective, process because the structure would
still have to meet the underlying zoning code. He advised that much of the problem was
that the code was unclear.and had so many exceptions. He agreed with Ms. Krebs that
compatibility had to be with planned future development as well as existing development.
He anticipated that eliminating the ''50% rule'' would make it easier to remodel and
would reduce the number of teardowns.
Ralph Tahran, 13741 Knaus Road, an Infill Task Force member, reported Irtfill Task
Force #2 had quickly fulfilled their charge to "tweak" Infill #1 requirements and were
then asked to consider planned development, height and residential design review. He
reported they had trouble agreeing on exactly what was "bad" design, and they had felt
that most infill homes they 'looked at were okay, but three or four infiU houses were
problem~tic. He said he was not sure that wa.s sufficient reason to trigger an entirely new
process, but that was up to the community to decide. He said there were many older
houses in older neighborhoods with less-than-desirable design ~d character that he
would not want to have to relate a new ho11s.e to. He reported that of those irtfill houses
that had been b\lilt under Infill #1 recommended regulations, most were about 90% of
maximum FAR, and he concluded that showed the regulations had worked. For example,
Infill #1 rules had reduced the height of infill houses. He recalled Ms. Duffy's testimony
about till. He clarified that both iterations of the Infill task Force addressed that issue
because they required height to be measured from the existing grade. He said if the
community wanted to consider the concept of residential design review, it should be in a
separ~te process. He said the design handbook did not have to be elaborate, and it should
contain simple diagrams to explain the concepts in the code.
Keith Abel, 5757 Ridgetop Court, a designer/rernodeler, cautioned the City not to
regulate architectural style. He sai(f the City was an eClectic mix of styles. He ~greed that
2% -3% of infill was inappropriate, but he advised it was unrealistic to believe the City
could achieve 100% compatibility. He said he tried to help his clients follow the code
and avoid the RID process, but sometimes that was not possible if they wanted to remodel
an older structure. He said he was aware of some fairly good houses that had been tom
down instead of remodeled because of the "50% rule.'' Mr. Abel said as a responsible
architect, he sometimes had to tell his clients they were asking for too much bo\lse for a
smaJl lot. He advised that making the rules more stringent was the problem, not the
\ answer.
Chris Robinson, 14000 Goodall Road, Chair of the Forest Highlands Neighborhood
Association, encouraged the City to make consideration of neighbors' privacy a criterion
in design review .or some other process. His experience was that even in a neighborhood
of large lots, art infill house had· been positioned on its lot in a manner that impacted
neighbors' privacy. He saw the real issue as density, not design review. He said bringing
in unincorporated areas of his neighborhood ~s R-7.5 was inappropriate for the
neighborhood. He said the City should first determine where density wa.s to go .
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of January 26, 2009 Page 9 of 12
•
•
•
Commission Discussion
Staffcortfirtned they planned to revise Comprehensive Plan Goal 2, Section 2, Policy 6 to-
specify that structures wete to be compatible with the character and scale of existing or
planned future development in the surrounding neighborhood.
The Commissioners discussed the idea of residential design review. Commissioner
Brockman related that her experience in another jurisdiction was that a process of staff
reyiew that was appealable to a design review body worked well. She .suggested Lake
Oswego use a narrowly tailored process .. She saw the teal issue as how to protect
neighbors' privacy when a long, narrow, high house was positioned on a long, narrow lot.
She suggested making~ design that was more than 1.5 stories subject to design review.
Vice Chair Stewart suggested the problem might stem from how the house was
positioned oil its site, and that niight be solved by finding some other orientation. He
hoped that clear and objective code standards and neighborhood plans might eliminate a
need for residential design review. Commissioner Brockman observed allowing a local
overlay would not solve the problem for a long time because there were only a few
adopted neighborhood plans so far. Vice Chair Stewart said his experience was that the
scope of the design review needed to be better controlled so it focused oil the issue that·.
had brought the applicant to the hearing and was not expanded during the hearing. •
Cortnnissiortet Siegel said he ile.eded mote information about what Infill Task Force
members saw in the examples of objectionable design that they wanted to prevent from
recurring. He recalled hearing they had a ha.rd time nailing that down. He wondered if
clear and objective code standards could be used to address the issue of privacy. He
recalled the Evergreen Neighborhood's overlay had worked well. He saw a need for a
guidebook that illustrated what the code meant. He asked for more information on what
processes other communities used. He said his experience wa.S that the examples from
California cities in the hearing packet were not relevant to Lake Oswego because of
Otegoil state law; the fact that their lot sizes were typically much smaller; and because
they had other regulations, such as a limit on the nUillber of toilets in a Carmel, California
house, that influenced the development. He recalled a "downside" wa.S that in Carmel it
was easy to tell which houses had been through design review during a specific time
period because they looked the same.
Mr. Egner offered to come back to the Planning Commission to report what aspects of
infill the Infill Task Force had examined and found objectionable, and to advise the
Commissioners whether those aspects could be addressed through clear and objective
code standards. He also planned to research and present options for the design review
process and estimate the cost of implementing such a prograJil. He recalled the Infill
Task Force had once discussed how to address the privacy issue and. their consultant had
offered suggestions. Mr. Egner said he would bring that m~teri~l to the next meeting. He
noted that the proposed infill changes included a standard intended to address a. long,
two-story house on a long, narrow lot. He recalled Task Force members had seen
exa.Illples of infill that had been "okay" in terms of size and scale, but featured some
design features or stylistic elements they did not favor that could not be addressed with
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of January 26,.2009 Page 10 of 12
•
clear and objective standards. He said the task force had not come up with a good
solution about how to address that.
Chair Glisson recalled the Commissioners had heard testimony that indicated the Infill
Task Force had not been in agreement about residential design review; and that they felt
that only a small percentage of infill. that had been built under infill standards was
objectionable. Mr. Egner referred to Comprehensive Plan Goal 2, Section 1, proposed
Policy 18 that allowed a neighborhood to create a new zoning district or overlay zone.
He advised that allowing that was less controversial now that the City Council had
· allowed the Evergreen Neighborhood Associat~on overlay. This change would simply
formalize that policy. He advised that examining housing capacity and addressing how
density was to be distributed in the City during periodic review could lead the Way to
allowing neighborhood associations like Forest Highlands more flexibility to plan for the
kit:td of density they wanted. ·
Commissioner Siegel moved to recommend the City Council adopt Comprehensive Plan
Goal 2, Section 1, Policy 18 as proposed in Exhibit F-1. CoirliniSSiorter Brockman
seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. Staff explained they would w~it to forward this
recommendation with the entire CDC amendment package of Planning Cotnmission
recommendations.
Comniissionet Brockman moved to continue LU 08-0053 to February 9, 2009. Vice
Chair Stewart seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. ·
•. VII. OTHER BUSINESS-PLANNING COMMISSION
•
Mr. Egner announced that staff was to present their report on the public open house
regarding Sensitive Lands changes at the next meeting. They were to present their
recommendations regarding LOC 50.16.040 dimensional standards adjustments at the
Planning Comlilission's February 23rd meeting. Commissioner Siegel annoUI1ced that he
would recuse himself from Pl~ing CQmmission consideration of Sensitive Lands
regulation changes due to a conflict of interest.
( .
Mr. Egner announced that interviews would be held soon to fill the vacant Planning
Commission positions. The Deputy City Attorney planned to advise them about conflict
of interest, and staff planned to arrange a retreat at which the members could discuss how
to work together.
Chair Glisson related that the SAB wanted time to make a presentation ,at -~ March
Planning Commission meeting.
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS -COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
None .
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of January 26, 2009
\
Page 11 of 12
•
•
•
IX. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Glisson
adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of January 26, 2009 ·
Respectfully submitted,
S2':7~
Iris Treinen
Administrative Support
Page 12 of 12