Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2009-06-22• • • City of lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2009 L CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL II. Ill. Chair Julia Glisson called the Planning Commission meeting of June 22, 2009 to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hafl, 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. Members present were Chair Julia Glisson, Vice Chair Philip Stewart and Commissioners Adiianne Brockman, Jon Gustafson, Russell Jones and Lynne Paretchan. --.... , Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Debra Alldreades, Senior Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris McCaleb; Administrative Support. CITIZEN COMMENT Jerrv Offer. OTAK Inc .. 17355 Boones Ferty Road; and Michael Duyn. 290 SW Santana Place. Portland. Oregon. 97225, owner of R & M Marine Boat Repair, submitted a letter from 19 owners of property in the Industrial Park (IP) District around the Boqnes Ferry Road/Pilkington intersection, They asked the Planning Commission to initiate an application to create a subdistrict of the IP ?:One there that would allow more uses. PUBLIC HEARING AND WORK SESSION LU 08-0053, Ordinance 2523-Comprehensive Plan -lnfill Amendments LU 08-0053, Ordinance 2524 -Community Development Code -lnfill Amendments This public hearing had been continued to June 22, 2009 at the April 13, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. · Chair Glisson opened the hearing and moved to continue LU 08-0053. Ordinances 2523 and 2524 to October 12, 2009. Cotnlllissioner Paretchan seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. Work Session -lnfill Work Plan Staff had given the Cotnrnissioners copies of the background material that had been. used by the lnfill Task Force. The Commissioners generally agreed to consider the broader issues first, before they got Into the details of infill amendment~. Staff said a subcommittee had suggested an approach and objectives to use as filters. lhe suggested objectives were Privacy, Sustainability; Compatibility; and Flexibility. The Commissioners generally agreed to compare each of the lnfill Task Perce recommended amendments with the objectives. But first, they discussed whether the proposed objectives were relevant. · City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of June 22, 2009 Page 1 of6 • • • Privacy: This was more of an issue on smaller lots than oh larger lots and for taller houses than ran~;h style houses. Heigllt and sicfE:! plane controls might ensure windows did not allow views that intruded on neighbors . Landscaping and topography were . factors too. Commissioner Gustafson said the best way to assure privacy was site- specific design review. Sustainability: The proposed amendments did not address this at all, but the Commissioners would keep sustainability in mind when they considered things like how the typically larger paved area necessary for a side-loading garage affected drainage. Mr. Boone advised that existing building regulations called for addressing runoff on site as much as possible. The Commissioners suggested offering bonus-like incentives for using sustainable practices and limiting the amount of allowable permeable surface. Commissioner Gustafson suggested making it easier to remodel a house than to tear it doWn and considering "green" building standards like those used in Boulder, Colorado. Compatibility: This was hard to define. It might be achieved by buffering houses with vegetation, but perhaps using landscaping was just mitigating bad design. The Bay Creek development showed that the way sicie planes were shaped helped. A change of siding materials (instead of an offset) might help break up a sidewall plane. Commissioner Jone~ wanted to avoid basing the compatibility of an infill house on how it related to other infill. He said it should be compared to existing smaller neighborhood houses. He suggested requiring design review of houses over a certain lot coverage or floor area. Chair Glisson suggested the neighborhood overlay could control compatibility.· Commissioner Gustafson suggested keeping the Residentiallnfill Design (RID) process to assure compatibility . The Commissioners looked at the summary of proposed infill amendments staff had prepared for them. They went over each category of amendments and tried to prioritize them with the goal to address priority issue.s first. In the end, they decided to try to use their time as efficiently as possible anc:f; work their way through all the amendments. Flexibility: Neighborhood overlay zones might increase compatibility, but not flexibility, un-less neighborhoods made their overlays more flexible. lnfill Overview: Mr. Egner said the Commissioners had modified the tables linking height to allowable lot coverage and FAR in a manner that was a bit tighter than what the lnfill Task Force recommended. Their goal was to achieve a 10% overall reduction in the floor areas allowed. The Commissioners generally supported the concept of using side setback planes, bt,~t they planned to take more time to examine whether the results would increase privacy and compatibility. Side yards were important to have between houses for compatibility and privacy, so they wanted to learn what kind of exceptions the current code allowed. They questioned whether there should be enough room to grow bt,~ffering foliage and if skinny lots should be treated differently. Commissioner Gustafson said he would provide graphic examples of houses on sloped lots when the Commissioners considered how to tweak ·that group of amendments. Mr. Boone clarified that a "sloped lot" had a change in elevation from one side of the footprint to the other -not from one side of the lot to the other. Commissioner Brockman wanted to avoid changes that would encourage people to build on the sloped part of the lot instead of a flat spot on their lot. The Commissioners did not discuss the RID review process category of amendments . fhey recalled they had tentatively agreed to take the category, · Planned Developments/Open Space Dedications, off the list. Variance code amendments were City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission · Minutes of June 22, 2009 Page 2 of 6 • • • proposed that would make it easier to remodel a nonconforming structure. The Commissioners planned to discuss in more depth how to deal with surveyors' errors that rnade a house a nonconforming structure .. There was a terminology-related loophole in the 2003 lnfill code that meant some standards did not apply to duplexes or single-family attached homes. The amendments would apply the standards to them. The Flag Lot/Serial Partition amendments might increase the sense of community by. creating more connectivity, but there might be some drawbacks to consider when they discussed this category of proposed changes. Work Session -Section 6-Residentiallnfill Design (RID) Review Vice Chair Stewart declared a potential conflict of interest in the RID process and recused himself. Ms. Andreades said that since RID was adopted in· 2003, statistics showed the RID process had not been used very much relat_ive to the total number of permits iss~ed in the City. She said data showed the requested exceptions to lot coverage and FAR r ranged between 5% and 17% and averaged 10%. She had compiled a RID Discussion sheet based on questions the Commissioners had posed at their previous meeting. She noted that one question was if the structure was already incompatible with the neighborhood, should a proposed addition that was compatible with the structure be approved? The Commissioners wanted to know who decided and how it was decided whether a structure was "compatible." · Staff said they used compatibility criteria: the size of the structure and its relationship to the street and the neighbors. They said it was a d.iscretionary decision. The Commissioryers wanted to know what staff rneant when they said RID could "legaliZe" the entire structure. Mr. Boone explained that a nonconforming house was "legal," but its nonconformities could not be expanded without a revieW and approval. The RIO approval "legalized" them. Ms. Andreades explained that the reviewers usually needed to analyze t_he entire house to determine if the house fit the neighborhood. There was usually more than one fac;ade affected. She said if the who.le house fit, then why not legalize the nonconformities with RID approval of changes that made it a better design? Commissioner Paretchan questioned why it was necessary to "legalize" a house that had been built years ago in compliance with the code that was in place at that t_ime. Mr. Boone explained subsequent code changes had rendered it "nonconforming" and RID approval could make it conforming. Commissioner Brockman suggested the Commissioners should focus on the proposed criteria and determine if they would effectively ensure a compatible design. The Commissioners discussed the size of the notice area for RID applications. Staff said the lnfill Task Force proposed to expand it from 100 to 200 feet which fit the code definition that a "neighborhood" consisted of properties within 200 feet. That was how far the reviewers were to look to determine if the structure was compatible with the character of the neighborhood and the str~et. Staff added that the lnfill Task Force had decided 200 feet was an appropriate range of neighbors the applicant was required to talk to. Staff asked if notice and the definition of •ineighborhood" should be expanded to properties within 300 feet; houses across the street; the entire block; or the entire street? One perspective was that the farther away they were the less likely it might be that neighbor would be affected by incompatibility. Another perspective was that the larger the area to compare to, the harder it would be to define what the structure was to be compatible with. Another perspective was that the impacted "neighborhood" included City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of June 22, 2009 Page 3 of6 • • • people who drove by the site. Commission members said it might not be enough to jllst look at the two immediate neighbors if the subject site and the two neighbors were closer to Lakeview Boulevard than other hous~s in the area. It was noted that Lakeview might be an "oddity" and not like many other City streets, but a lot of RID applications tiad been for houses on lakefront lots. Staff said some of the pro.perty lines were under water; the lots were oddly shaped; the topography was a factor; and some enjoyed use of a backyard that was actu~lly on property owned by the L~ke Oswego Corporation. Mr. Boone clarified that the variance process could relieve constraints like topography and lot size and shape, but RID looked at whether the house fit the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Paretchan was especially concerned about allowing reduced front y~rd setbacks. She wanted expanded notice requirements for that, so more people would know about the.application. Sh~ recalled a ca$e where the owners got RID approval to bump out their house in front. That reduced the front yard area, so their kids played in the street. Other Commissioners observed that reduced front yard setbacks could shorten the vehicle back out area and did not accommodate parking of boats and trailers. The Commissioners asked if the RID applicant had to post a sign so those who drove by would see it. Staff advised they did not, because a RID development was a minor development. Notice had to be mailed, but no sign w~s required when there was no hearing to announce. The variance process did not require a sign either if no hearing was scheduled. When asked, Mr. Boone clarified that to have legal "standing" in the process, a contesting party had to show they were "aggrieved" in some manner. It might not be enough to say that they drove by eyery day and were offended by the look of it. The Commissioners planned to discuss this further, later. They recalled even a tree removal permit process called for a sign. They also planned to discuss Commissioner Paretchan's suggestion to expand the notice area to 300 feet. Commissioner Brockman agreed that expanded notice for an adjustment to front yard setbacks would be appropriate, but she pointed out the lnfill Task Force wanted to eliminate the ability to use RID to modify side yard setbacks, FAR and lot coverage. Commissioner Paretchan asked if they had left front yard setbacks off that list in error? Jim Bolland clarified that the lnfill Task Force want~d to eliminate the ability to adjust side yard setbacks, but they had not talked about front yard setbacks. The Commissioners discussed whether to allow more flexibility to modify setbacks for a remodeling project than new construction. Staff said this may allow ~n owner to construct a new house and then come back for RID approval of something else they wanted as a remodeling project? Mr. Egner did not think it made a difference because in each case the house had to meet t.he compatibility criteria, and' if the house was already built the reviewers would have a better sense of compatibility than from looking at plans and a vacant lot. Commissioner Gustafson observed only a few new homes had been approved under RID out of a total of 416 building permits for new homes. The rest of the RID cases were remodels, and 92% of them were changes to existing, nonconforming, houses. He concluded the problem was not a large one and the Commissioners just ne.eded to ensure the RID process used the right criteria to ensure compatibility of both new and remodeling projects. Commissioner Brockman suggested new construction should "play by the rules" and comply with required setbacks and that allowing adjustments for remodels might keep owners from tearing existing hoLJses down. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of June 22, 2009 Page 4 of6 • • • IV. Staff clarified for the Commissioners that a site was subject to base standards and the ve1riance and RlD processes were simply two different ways of modifying those base standards. They also related that even if a change could not be seen from the street it might be visible to one or two neighbors, the determination was site specific. Commissioner Gustafson suggested lot coverage, FAR and height should be modifiable via RID. It was fairer to allow owners of existing houses to increase the size of their ground floor kitchen. The Commissioners planned to continue to discuss this issue later. OTHER BUSINESS-PI,.ANNING COMMISSION • Rolling Agenda The Commissioners did not want to lose their infill memory and momentum. They examined and changed the draft Rolling Agenda so it allowed them to focus on finishing the infill work by September 28, 2009. They planned a "reality check" at the end of their August 1Oth meeting. • Council Update Councilor Bi.ll Tierney reported that the City Council had focused on facilities and finances in June. They had set up a program to maintain City buildings and decided to try to keep the West End Building and replace the interest-only loan with permanent financing. The City Council had adopted a one-year budget and balanced it by using $175,000 in reserves to pay for operations. The Council was scheduled to consider the Urban Forestry Plan and the Sensitive Lands process. They planned a "field visit" to Palisades, Which featured properties that would be affected by the proposed amendments to the Sensitive Lands Atlas, to hear from the owners. During the questioning period, Commissioner Brockman recalled that the Mayor planned to ask boards and commissions to better explain why their proposals to the City Council were needed. She observed it would be better to know early on what the City Council expected than to work a long time oil a proposal that the Council would decide not to consider. Councilor Tierney agreed that a gap in expectations was not beneficial. Mr. Egner related that the Council was about to consider forming a "Second Look Committee" to exe~mine the Sensitive Land.s process. He suggested staff could present "Sensitive Lands 101" to both that Committee and the Planning Commission at the same ti.me. The Commissioners asked him to keep them updated on Planning Commission issues the City Council was also working on. • E;lection of Officers Chair Glisson nominated Philip Stewart to serve as Chair of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Brockman seconded the motion . and Philip . Stewart was. elected by unanimous 'vote. Commissioner Brockman nominated Julie Glisson to serve as Vice. Chair . of the Planning Commission. Vice Chair Stewart seconded ftie motion and Julia Glisson was electect by unanimous vote. V.. OTHER BUSINESS • COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVMENT None . City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of June 22, 2009 Page 5 of6 • • • VL ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before .the Planning Comtnissi.on, Chair Glisson adjourned the meeting at 10:08 p.m. · City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of June 22, 2009 Respectfully submitted, ~cUJ/ Iris McCaleb Administrative Support Page 6 of6