Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2009-12-14• • • ; City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 2009 I. CALL TO ORDER I Chair Philip Stewart called the Planning Commission meeting of December 14, 2009 to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL ) Members present were Chair, Stewart, Vice Chair Julia Glisson and Commissioners Adrianne Brockman, Jon Gustafson, Russell Jones and L.ynne Paretchan, Commissioner Jim Johnson was excused. · Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Denise Frisbee, Director, Planning and Building Services; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris' McCaleb, Administrative Support. City Councilor Bill Tierney was also present. Ill. CITIZEN COMMENT None. IV . COUNCil,. UPDATE Councilor Bill Tierney reported that the City Council had tentatively opted to allow 30% lot coverage for both public and private schools in a 5:2 vote. They were scheduled to consider the proposal again on January 5th. Council goal setting sessions were scheduled in January. V. GE:NE:RAL ORGANIZATION/SCHEDULE REVIEW None. VI. MINUTE:S The minutes for October 26, 2009 and November 9, 2009 were not available and would be considered at the next meeting. VII. PUBLIC HEARING LU 08-0053, Ordinance 2523-Comprehensive Plan -lilfill Amendments LU 08-0053, Ordinance 2524-Community Development Code--lnfill Amendments Ordinance 2523, LU 08-0053 amends the Comprehensive Plan to include a policy encouraging development of neighborhood plans and to include a policy directing the City to enact a residential design review program. Ordinance 2524, LU 08-0053 amends portions of the Community Development Code, Chapter 50, for the pu_rpose of enhancing the compatibility of. infill development and 9larification. Proposed updates pertain to the following topics: lot coverage, maximum floor area, structure design, setback planes, yard setbacks, sloped lots, residential infill design review, variances, non-conforming uses, duplexes and attached dwellings, flag lots and serial partitions: The hearing had been continued ftorn October 12, 2009. · City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission " Minutes of December 14, 2009 Page 1 of 14 Chair Stewart opened the ·public hearing and explained the applicable procedure and criteria. He asked the Commissioners to declare any conflicts of interest. None were • declared. · Staff Report Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager, presented the staff report. The report related the history of the effort to amend the infill provisions and listed key issues the Commissioners wanted the public to weigh in on. Attached to the staff report were draft Ordinances 2523 (Comprehensive Plan) and 2524, Attachment B (Community Development code) both dated 11-25-09. The drafts incorporated the final recommendations of the lnfill Task Force (Exhibit F-3) and the Planning Commission's proposed revisions. Public Testimony Ralph Tahran. 13741 Knaus Road. Chair of the lnfill Task Force, submitted written comments and illustrations (~xhlbit G-13). · He doubted thaf a-new design review process would accomplish much because the code already regulated most aspects of a design. He estjm~ted it would cost an additional $8,000 to $10,000 in design fees. He then discussed proposed regulations related to nonconforming uses. Because of code changes it was likely that most houses five years or older did not conform to today's code. He cautioned that the 50% assessed value threshold, the limits on What could be done, and the time limit to rebuild made it very costly to remodel some homes and forced teardowns. Mr. Tahran discussed the proposed 50-foot limit on long wall planes using diagrams that • he specified were drawn to scale and based on exact calculations. He suggested increasing the wall length limit to 55 or 60 feet would reduce the need to extend the stn.Jcture any f~rther into the back of the lot and it would ensure the same level of privacy as the proposed standard. He had no problem with the proposed lot coverage and floor area standards. He advocated continuing to allow eaves to project up to 2 feet into a side yard setback. He advised that eaves were an important feature on narrow lots; they did not invade anyone's privacy, they provided shade, and they prevented water intrusion problems. He had included a sketch in his submittal to illustrate a house and garage on a sloped lot where the standard that required the main accessway to the house to be ·at the level of the driveway would not work. Mr. Tahran advised that the First Addition Neighbors/Forest Hills Neighborhood Association (FAN) slop~d lot height measurement adjustment was a good idea, Brad -Beals had tested it, and maybe it should be applied citywide. He suggested forming a task force to resolve standards for steeply sloped lots because the proposed standards were still complicated and hard to comprehend. Mr. Tahran recalled the original intent of the Residential lnfill Design (RID) review process was to offer an informal, streamlined alternative to the varia_nce pro"cess that would examine designs and allow better and more compatible designs that the code would allow. He observed that the original concept had gotten "blown out of proportion" . into t_he RID review process, Which was neither easy nor streamlined and was very expensive. Two of his designs had passed RID review and the design fees had been around $15,000. He cautioned against requiring a structure to maintain its compatibility wit_h ten or twenty existing structures around it because many buildings were not worth • being compatible with. He questioned whether it was fair to not allow a two-story house because the structures around it were one story. He indicated that he believed the City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of December 14, 2009 Page 2 of 14 • • ) • proposed Planned Development amendments took away the flexibility that Planned Developments (PO) were originally intended to have. He stressed that a board of professionals who were trained to conduct such reviews reviewed PD applications. He had no comment regarding variances, and he indicated he agreed with the Section 10 code for duplexes and attached single-family dwellings. He saw a need to be clearer about what the flag lot house orientation standard actually meant. Did it mean the front door had to be on the lane? Were there any options? He generally agreed with connectivity standards, if exceptions were made where site constraints made that impractical or impossible. During the questioning period, Commissioner Jones was concerned that allowing features to intrude into a narrow side yard created both privacy and safety issues. He related that fire officials had told him they wanted to have a minimum of 5 feet to pass , through a side yard when they responded to a fire. Commissioner Jones was concerned that allowing eaves to project into a narrow setback would allow fire to jump from house to house. Mr. Tahran differentiated encroaching overhead eaves with an encroaching wall such as a chimney. He did not think an overhang created much risk. He recalled that fire marshals usually wanted a wall to be a minimum of 3 feet from the property line to allow eaves to project 2 feet into a 5-foot side yard leaving 3 feet of yard. Mr. Tahran clarified that he understood the Planning Commission proposal would allow owners to rebuild on the existing footprint, whether it violated present standards or not, but they had to do that within a one year period of time. He explained there. were· a number of vaned reasons owners did not go forward with their remodeling projects, especially under current economic conditions, so one year might be too short. He .suggested offering owners an opportunity to reapply. Richard Reamer. 398.Furnace Street, Chair of the Old Town Neighborhood Association, was not clear how the additional 1 0 feet of height was applied to structures on steep lots or the logic behind it. Mr. Egner explained that allowing the downslope side to be 1 0 feet high.er resulted in more living space on one .floor for an aging population. Otherwise the structure had to stair step down the slope beca.use it could only be 35 feet high at any point and the main floor living space would be smaller. He clarified the additional 1 0 feet was allowed on the downslope side, not an upslope front elevation. Mr. Reamer suggested making the code language more understandable. Emogene Waggoner. 18394 Pioneer Court, had served on the lnfill Task Force and was also speaking for four other lnflll Task Force members: Jim Bolland, Heather Chrisman, Marylou Colver and Sherry. Finnigan. The five of them had been part of the seven who had voted to support the concept of a residential infill design review board. She said they did not support any of the . proposed design review options, including a staff- administered program. They urged the Planning Commission to recommend that the City open a community conversation about having an appointed residential design review board. They also asked the City to produce. a residential design guidelines handbook similar to the one used by Napa, California. The handbook was needed to clear up the confusion people felt at the Planning Department counter. During the questioning period, Ms. Waggoner clarified the Napa handbook contained guidelines, not rules. Commissioner Jones wanted to know if she thought a residential design review process could be an expedited, inexpensive process for owners. She responded that the ability to li~e in a community like lake Oswego was worth the cost to new residents and design review would be fair to existing residents because it would make infill more compatible with existing neighborhoods. Commissioner Jones asked if she advocated ali across-the-board design review for everything. Ms. Waggoner Ci~ of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of December 14, 2009 . Page 3 of 14 suggested there should be guidelines and thresholds, such as size and lot size. But the community and the Planning Commission should decide what the criteria should be. Brad Beals. 541 gth Street, a member of the lnfill Task Force, questioned Whether a residential design review process and handbook would work in Lake Oswego, where there was such a variety of neighborhoods and structLJres. He pointed out First Addition and Forest Hills were now one neighborhood, but they were very different. For example, First Addition had been built on a grid with 50-foot wide lots, but Forest Hills was more suburban and featured cui-de-sacs and 75-to 1 00-foot lots. He noted the current code had many regulations that dictated how a house could be remodeled but now some were suggesting adding a design review process that would require the remodeler to match his/her house to the 1 00-year-old and 30-year-old houses next door. He advised that 25% of the houses in First Addition were rentals and he predicted that many of them would eventually be torn down after the economy recovered. He suggested that before fashioning a design review process, the City needed to define compatibility and specify how it was to be measured, Mr. Beals indicated he thought the change to 7.5-foot side setbacks from a set of 5-foot and 1 0-foot setbacks would be more equitable, but he wanted to be allowed to extend a wall 1 straight back during remodeling. He had once had to offset a kitchen wall 2 feet to meet the code. Commissioner Brockman thought the proposed amendments would allow that extension of a wall; but Mr. Egner advised the language might not be clear enough to allow that in remodels, and suggested that section of the proposed code should be revisited. Commis$ioner Brockman related she had drafted language for that and offered to provide it to staff. ' Ernie Platt. 15555 Bangy Road, explained he did not support a single-family residential design review panel because it would impose on individuals' concepts of what looked good. He agreed that design guidelines were worth exploring. He said the lot coverage formula put rear daylight basement houses at a disadvantage even though from the front the house would look· the same as a house with no daylight basement. He suggested either reconsidering how submerged floor areas were counted or changing the ratio. He cautioned that the arbitrary long Wall depth limit of 50 feet would lead to unintended consequences and the sidewall plane criteria made the long wall limit unnecessary. He cautioned, the provision limiting the protrusion of chimneys, canopies, gutters and eaves into the side yard would lead to rather weird-looking houses. He recalled the Building Code adequately addressed the issue ·of fire safety by allowing anything that was at least 3 feet from the property line to be standard, one-hour construction, but requiring features that were closer than that -including eaves -to be two-hour construction. If eaves projected 2 feet into a 5-foot setback they would still be 3 feet from the property line, so he saw no issue with them protruding that far into the setback. He advised the additional height allowed on steep lots made sense. He said the one-year time period for rebuilding a nonconforming house was too short. He suggested two years might be appropriate, or allowing the owner to demonstrate they did intend to rebuild and show what they had in mind. He advised that the proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) calculations would mean that owners would use the allowable floor area on the lot to maximize the primary structure and very few accessory structures would be built. Maria Meneghin. Chair of the First Addition Neighbors/Forest Hills Neighborhood Association. 1179 Sunningd.ale Road, submitted and read aloLJd the Association's comments and suggestions (Exhibit G..;15). They supported creation of a design review process; the R-6 zone code amendments; applying the infill standards to duplexes and attached single family dwellings; the side yard setback planes on corner lots; and eliminating the 50o/o threshold for remodels (because it resulted in too many tear-downs). They supported the Pla,nning Commission effort to achieve a 5% overall reduction in City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of December 14, 2009 • • • • • • FAR, but they wanted the Commission to go farther than that and recommend the 10% reduction the Commissioners had once discussed~ They anticipated that would result in more housing diversity, and affordable and sustainable buildings. ~ . . The Association wanted the-City to disallow RID adjustments to FAR and height; to not allow exceptions or adjustments of side yard setbacks; and to inclu_de all garage area in FAR calculations (because the requirement to break up large side planes would not address the problem). They felt the code generally allowed too many exceptions and the result was inconsistent interpretation by the staff and the Development Review Commission (DRC). They suggested the Planning · Commission revisit their recommendations for steeply sloped lots because allowing a height increase on those lots did not address house-to-house relationships or consider slope stability. They suggested the current Planning Commissioners should review the detailed analysis of· steeply sloped lots that the Planning Commission accQmJ)Iished ten years ago. The Association asked the Planning Commission to follow the upcoming code audit with a discerning eye. ihe Association -observed neither the lnfill Task Force nor the Planning Commission had examined the issue of allowing zero lot line dWellings in all residential zones. They felt zero lot line dwellings belonged only in higher density, residential neighborhoods. During . the questioning period, Ms. Meneghin was asked how she defined "housing diversity." She indicated that meant diversity of housing types, sizes and cost. The Association wanted to keep some of the community's smaller lots available for smaller homes for starter families, seniors, arid. emergency workers wh,o worked in Lake Oswego but could not afford to live in the City. Barbara Zeller. 3335 Sabina Court, reminded the Commissioners that the most important factors were the size, scale, setbacks and compatibility of infill. She agreed with Mr. Beals that the Planning Commission needed to define "compatibility". She advised that a 5-foot setback would not preserve neighbors' privacy and larger setbacks were necessary to accomplish that. She said her neighborhood was seeing 4,000 square foot infill homes. They had analyzed Lake Grove houses and found a 10% reduction in size . Would not be adequate to reduce their bulk, so they knew that the proposed 5% reduction would have no perceptible result. She stressed that landscaping and buffering were important elements, but the Commissioners had only considered how they could be used to break Up sidewall planes. She recalled the Commissioners had agreed to review the code through the prism of sustainability. To do that they could not ignore facts such as huge homes required more power and reduced the number of trees that would otherwise help absorb runoff. Skip O'Nem. __ 16'Z3t _Greenbriar Road. representing the Lake Oswego Corporation, testifi'ed the Corporation opposed proposed changes that affected lakeftonf properties. They asked that lakefront properties be exempted from any additional regulations until the Palisades lakefront overlay was implemented. They had been asking for lakefront zoning for many years. Lakefront properties presented unique challenges to building. He indicated that a majority of RID reviews and most of the variances staff had to process were on lakefront properties. RID was a very expensive, time .. consuming process that often necessitated hiring architects and lawyer$. He said it made more sense to use an overlay. Mr. O'Neill agreed that it might help to have a book of guidelines. He observeQ that in Lake Oswego, diversity was compatibility. The City featured lots of architectural styles and house sizes and did not have big, "cookie-cutter'' neighborhoods. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of December 14, 2009 Page 5 of 14 Lisa Volpel. 5655 Kenny Street, said the proposed setbacks for infill might prevent some of the-40,000 square foot lots in the Rosewood neighborhood from being developed as flag lots. She had planned to preserve 30 feet on each side of her house so someone • could build behind it She wanted to be allowed to have deep eaves so the house would not look "new," and because "wimpy" eaves made a house look "cheap" and allowed moisture to penetra~e the siding. She asked if a flag lot really needed 30 feet or if it could be reduced. She asked the Commissioners to look at how the 40,000 square foot lots in the Rosewood neighborhood have been c:teveloped and try to adjust the code so infill could match that as long as there was not a safety issue. Jim Bolland. 804 5th Street, who had served Jon the lnfill Task Force, commented on the propo-sed amendments. He suggested the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council make a design handbook a City goal and budget for it. It had been recommended in 2003, but no work had been done. It should show the best examples of nice designs and housing types in each neighborhood. He anticipated it would help the "spec" builders, who got their plans from plan books, choose better plans. He agreed that the RID process that had been developed was not what the lnfill Task Force had envisioned. He cautioned against the option of having staff conduct design review. He supported use of neighborhood overlays that woulc:.i address specific issues in specific neighborhoods. He agreed the "50% rule" promoted teardow·ns of affordable housing and should be eliminated. He supported stopping reduction of side yard setbacks because that affected side-to-sic:.ie neighbor relationships. Mr. Bolland sUpported the Planning Commission recommendation to apply standards that would result in a 5% rec::luction in house size. He said the slightly sipped lot provision was an ingenious way to solve a problem in FAN and that Mr. Beals had thoroughly tested it there. He said the Planning Commission should look into whether it • should be applied throughout the community. Mr. Bolland said the Task Force had done some testing of the sloped lot provisions, but he was uncomfortable apout how it might affect side-to-side relationships, he suggested it needed more 'testing. He suggested considering how 45-foot high structures would look going uphill along Glenmorrie Avenue. He recalled a previous Planning Commission had taken a close look at steeply sloped lots eight years ago. He suggested the current Planning Commissioners review that work. He recalled the lnfill Task Force had recommended not allowing a planned development process unless there were natural resources on the site that needed to be protected. What was considered "natural resources" was so loose that natural resources seemed to be found on just about every lot. He suggested the Planning Commission look at the results of the planned development code and assesses how it was working. Mr. Bolland said the lnfill Task Force had discussed street connectivity, but he did not recall therp setting a two-acre threshold. He suggested the proposed requirement needed more analysis and should be vetted neighborhood-by-neighborhood because the Task Force had heard from neighborhoods that wanted it and neighborhoods that did not want it. . During the questioning period, Mr. Bolland suggested that a citywide c:tesign handbook could have a chapter for each neighborhood. The Planning Commission took a break and reconvened thirteen minutes later. · Sherry Finnigan. 128 Coridolea Drive had served on poth lnfill Task Forces. She submitted and read aloud written testimony (Exhibit G-14). She asked the Planning Commission to recommend the City establish a residential design review board similar to the DRC and discontinue using RID. She urged them to reject the three options City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of December 14, 2009 Page 6 of 14 • • • • suggested by staff. She described three RID applications she. had read that day on the City website that proposed exceptions and reductions to yard setbacks, IC?t coverage and FAR. She concluded that in each case that would result in a bigger house. Marylou_ Colver. 68 Leonard Street, who had served on the lnfill Task Force, urged the Planning Commission to recommend the lask Force recommendation to eliminate the financic:~l threshold for reconstruction of nonconforming structures. She said the unintended consequence of the current code was an increase in teardowns that impacted neighborhoods and was the least sustainable choice the City could make. She suppprted residential design review, but not by staff, to ensure compatibility. She advised that many other communities had. done it successfully so Lake Oswego did not have to reinvent the wheel. She hoped the Commissioners would forward to the City Council the clear-cut changes the Task Force had agreed to 'while they continued to , address the more problematic issues. Ted Argo. 7840 SW 131st Avenue. Beaverton. Oregon 97008, an architect, discussed his experience with design review boards. He recalled the biggest problem was that it took a long time. It could take as long as five and a half months to get through the approval process. That was unworkable when the new owner was moving into the community and had to modify the house to move into it He advised that the additional reductions in area, lot coverage and floor area the Commissioners had made were unnecessary. He held that "ugly" was not due to square footage. But he did agree with the way the proposed matrix smoothed out the curve and fixed the artificial step to 25% lot coverage that had been an unintended consequence. He agreed there were a lot 'of changes. in the proposal that were fixes or simplific:ations that, should have been adopted a few years ago. He agreed that the way things were measured on a sloped lot made sense because lots in Lake Oswego often sloped in multiple directions and front lines were curved. Mr. Argo encouraged the Planning Commission to study examples vyhere they thought RID increased area unnecessarily. Many of the variances Were due to unusual site conditions such as side slope; His observation was that new houses in planned developments looked "crammed together" because the developer had been required to make room for a large open space even where there was no significant natural benefit. Then they had to adjust the setbacks so houses were fairly close together. He encouraged the City to create a design handbook, but he cautioned the project would be very time consuming. · · Carolyn Krebs. 16925 Denney Court, supported a citywide residential design review process, but not by staff.. She suggested the Planning Commission specify the design review board should be composed of people in the community with design expertise and those who understood what would be appropriate in a neighborhood. She supported allowing neighborhood overlay districts. Her Lake Forest Neighborhood Association was working toward an overlay district. She said the proposed 5% reduction in floor area was a move in the right direction. It was not enough, but likely the most that could be achieved. She recalled that the lnfill Task Force could never get at that issue. When Ms. Krebs asked for cla_rificc:~tion, Mr., Egner clarified that a proposed amendment would require the structures in planned developments to be separated by a total of 16 feet. Ms. Krebs wanted it to also require a setback of at least 8 feet from the property line because her neighborhood was concerned about 5,-foot setbacks from property lines. Ms. Krebs, like Ms. Meneghin, was concerned about allowing zero lot line awellings in lower density residential zones. She agreed the Planning Commission should recommend that the City start work on the design handbook. She asked the Planning Commission to allow more flexibility on flag lots and not require orientation to the access lane. She wanted residents of the parent lot to be able to preserve their back yard City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of December 14, 2009 Page 7 of. 14 / privacy. She suggested allowing each· neighborhood to review and offer input regarding access l~ne standards in their neighborhood because one-size-fits-all would not wdrk. She explained that connectivity was not an issue in her neighborhood and she did not • want to see a requirement for access lanes route them over natural resources and private property. · During the questioning period, Ms. Krebs explained she did not anticipate flag lots in her neighborhood that put the pc:trent lot in the rear of the property. Commissioner Paretchan related she had seen that happen in her neighborhood. Ms. Krebs said she was concerned what would happen if a series of long, skinny lots (72' x 350' for example) in her neighborhood were developed as flag lots. She wanted flag lot connectivity to be looked at neighborhood by neighborhood. Bob Barman. 1445 Oak Terrace. Palisades Neighborhood Association Area 1 representative, asked the City to exempt lakefrc:mt lots until a Palisades Neighborhood Plan lakefront overlay could be fashioned and tested. He explained that lakefront lots presented 'unique challenges. The proposed changes could make some lots un- buildable. He recc:tlled the City and the Lake Oswego Corporation had hired a consultant to advise them about a lakefront overlay and the conclusion had been tt)at an overlay was needed. He observed the City Council had already agreed to exempt lakefront lots from the Evergreen overlay and to test a Palisades Neighborhood· Association (PNA) lakefront overlay. PNA had been waiting for t_he City to start working on their lakefront overlay, which could eventually serve as a template for other lakefront overlays. Mr. Barman advised that one overlay would not fit all takefront lots, whi.ch varied from very large lots to small, 50-foot x· 1 00-foot lots. He showed slides to help explain how the proposed changes would make it a challenge to build on a SO~foot wide West Say or Blue Heron lot, or a steeply sloped lot on Summit or Phantom Bluff. On the small narrow • lots the house would have to be narrow too, and the owner would need to build closer to the lake to get needed square footage. The proposed amendments would make it a challenge to even get a driveway on the steeply sloped lots. He explained that lakefront homeowners were mainly concerned about maintaining their view shed. They did not want a neighbor's house to block it. That was why nearly all the homes on West Bay were so close torthe street. He said side and rear yard setbacks were less important to them. Those were reasons why the proposed changes would be unworkable on lakefront lots and why an overlay was needed. The controversy over RID also demonstrated the need for a lakefront overlay. Mr. Barman observed that Lakeview Boulevard was mostly developed and most of those homes had already been redone and they would be grandfathered in if the proposed changes were adopted. New regulations would affect the ability of the owners of other lakefront lots to have a house that fit the lakefront. He wanted the Commissioners to be aware of Lake Oswego Corporation's design review process. A committee met with the impacted neighbors to discuss a proposed design and they tried to come up with a plan that satisfied everyone. The Corporation could not "veto" a design, but they tried to make the community look appropriate and he thought over the past ten years they had done a pretty good job. Ninety-nine percent of the participants went away happy. It was not a long process. Carolyne Jones. 2818 Poplar Way, questioned why it was necessary to put a time limit on rebuilding after a structure was damaged. She asked why there was always c:tnother plan proposed in Lake Oswego to restrict the use of more and more property. She • referred to the sensitive lands·debate and recalled owners were concerned about lack of science to support "takings" and use of arbitrary identifications to restrict use of those City of Lake OsWego Planning Cornmi$sion Minutes of December 14, 2009 Page~ of 14 • • properties. She recalled that a .consultant hired by the City to identify sensitive lands had told the Second Look iask F=orce that City staff had told her what properties to identify. That raised questions about the validity of the identifications. Ms. Jones recalled the consultant also told the Task Force that ·she was told to put on blinders regarding the presence of ivy, so that raised questions about the accuracy of Habitat Assessment Scores. Ms. Jones said her point was that the task F=orce had been charged with creating more flexibility for sensitive lands property owners. She requested that nonconforming use provisions be set aside until the Task Force recommendations were available. She also suggested that a uniform policy be created for all properties with water resources, rat_her than creating a special use zone just for lakefront owners. She explained that owners of sensitive lands property in stream corridors would like to be able to use their properties just as the lakefront owners would like to use theirs. Deliberations Chair Stewart closed public testimony and opened deliberation~. The Commissioners went through the proposed amendments section by section to identify changes there was consensus on. They would forward those to the City Council and then decide how to work on the unresolved issues. SECTION 1 -COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS -NEIGHBORHOOD PlANNING/DESIGN REVIEW Commissioner Brockman recalled the testimony seemed to support Policy 18, which would· allow neighborhood overlays. She observed that proposed Policy 6 would just authorize a residential design review process, not create one and there had been a lot of testimony in favor of that. Commissioner Jones was_concerned about the cost, and time burden on owners and what would trigger a review. Mr. Boone confirmed that the Planning Commission recommendation would just put a design review process on the City Council's list of things to do if they agreed to it. There was nothing in the proposal that set triggers or parameters for such a process. Commissioner Gustafson did not see a compelling reason to have a design review process. It would put a bigger burden on owners and add thousands of dollars to the cost of development at the same time the City was talking about encouraging .affordable housing. He reasoned that if the Commissioners could define the problems a review was supposed to solve they could address them in the code. They had already made code changes to setbacks, setback planes, and FAR to address some of the problems. Those changes would not be necessary if a review process could solve the problem, but the Commissioners had heard many people testify they were not satisfied with RID results and RID was also a design review process. He thought a handbook that offered examples for each neighborhood was a great idea. Commissioner Brockman had seen non-residential design review work extremely well. She did not support requiring it for everything, but wanted to .use it in certain situations. She believed a community discussion regarding . this issue was necessary. Commissioner Gustafson recalled the lnfill Task Force had eight years to have those kinds of discussions and had never reached consensus. The Commissioners discuss.ed an incremental approach that Commissioner Paretchan suggested. The first step would be to recommend that the City develop design guidelines. Once in place, those guidelines could be used to support a development review process, if and when one was adopted. A design handbook had been proposed in 2003, but staff had been busy with other projects at that time and after that the City began reexamining infill standards that the handbook was supposed to illustrate, so staff had postponed the project. The Commissioners anticipated that the design handbook would contain a specific set of design guidelines for each neighborhood that reflected City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of December 14, 2009 Page 9 of 14 the character of that neighborhood. There was no consensus to recommend a new Comprehensive Plan policy, so the Commissioners agreed to forward a separate recommendation to the City Council to make it a goal to create the handbook. • During the discussion Denise Frisbee, Director, Planning and Building Services, had confirmed a Planning Commission recommendation could encourage the City Council to rr,lake design guidelines a goal and to budget for it. The Commissioners shoUld send their recommendation to the City Council in time for Council goal setting _sessions. Vice Chair Glisson had indicated she felt that the proposed Comprehensive Plan policy was too vague to send to the City Council and she had suggested the Planning Commission go farther and recommend how the City could involve neighborhoods in developing their own guidelines. Commissioner Brockman had advised that design handbooks were very helpful but the solution to the problem was a regulatory solution. Commissioner Paretchan anticipated that the problems would become more apparent during work on the guidelines and the solutions could then either be built into the code or serve as a design review process. · ' Commissioner Paretchan moved to support Comprehensive Plan Goal 2. Section 1. Policy 18. Commissioner Gustafson seconded the motion and it passed 5:1. - Commissioner Brockman voted against. Commissioner Gustafson moved for the Planning Commission to suooort the City developing a design guidebook and to for-Ward a recommendation to the City Council to make that a -City goal. Commissioner Paretchan seconded the motion and it passed 5:1. Commissioner Brockman voted against She explained she supported developing a design handbook, but she did not think there was enough money in the budget to accomplish the project and she saw it as a community wide issue that should be the • subject of community-wide discussion. SECTION 2-LOT COVERAGE AND MAX FLOOR AREA Commissioner Jones moved to recommend Section 2 -Lot Coverage and Maximum Floor Area to the City Council as revised by the Planning Commission. Vice Chair Glisson seconded the motion and discussion followed. When asked, Mr. Egner explain~d the changes to the maximum floor area calculations took away the existing incentive in FAN to use multiple garages as a way to maxim.ize lot coverage anc:l floor area. He recalled the Commissioners had discussed totally dropping the bonus for second garages or setting up a provision that if more than one garage was proposed no bonus would be allowed. The result of the drafted code would be that the bonus was only available if there was only one garage.· The draft contained a yellow- highlighted paragraph as follows, that would not be part of the adopted code: ''Note: Task Force members recommended that floor area incentives be dropped given that some developers have been providing c:tetached and attached garages as a way of maximizing lot coverage and floor area. The following language is an alternative that would eliminate the incentive for lots with multiple garages." Mr. Egner said he thought the lnfi_ll Task Force had actually voted on this, but he needed to research that. Commissioner Gustafson wanted the record to show that he was more inclined to follow the recommendation of the lnfill Task Force regarding floor area. The vote was conducted and the motion passed 6:0. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of December 14, 2009 Page 10 of 14 • • • SECTOIN 3 -STRUCTURE DESIGN AND SETBACK PLANES Commissioner Brockman moved to approve Section 3-Structure Design and Setback Planes. Commissioner Jone·s seconded the motion and discussion followed. Chair Stewart could not recall hearing any testimony contrary to the Planning Commission proposal. Commissioner Paretchan wanted to clarify how existing landscaping could be used to meet the landscaped screening requirement. She and Mr. Egner modified the last sentence in the table in Appendix 50.07-G (see Attachment B, page 21) to clarify that, "Existing landscaping may be used to meet the screening requirement provided the landscaping meets the minimum size requirements set forth above or if multiple plants exist, the caliper, dimensions and sizes of plants cumulatively meet the cumulative minimum sizes required." The Commissioners then discussed the proposed 50-foot limit on a long wall plane. They recalled Mr. Tahran had recommended increasing it to 55 or 60 feet and had even provided an illustration showing 70 feet. Commissioner Gustafson observed that the proposed 50-foot length limit and the requirement to have 20-foot side setbacks severely constrained the size of a house on a long, skinny lot. Commissioner Jones said he could accept Mr. Tahran's drawings as a test. Commissioner Gustafson and Vice Chair Glisson recalled Mr. Tahran had testified that if the allowable length were adjusted to 55 or 60 feet the developer would have enough room for a house and would not have to go back any farther .. Mr. Tahran explained that he had factored allowable FAR, allow~ble lot coverage for two stories, the increased side setback requirement, and appropriate scale into his diagrams. Commissioner Brockman stressed the wall length limit and increased side setback requirement were intended to address people's fear that a 1 00-foot long, two-story, structure would be built next to their house that would allow their new neighbors to look into their entire yard and take away their privacy. This was an attempt to address that situation in lieu of a design review process., However, she did not think the community was getting much for the time the Planning Commission had spent on this issue. She indicated she would agree to a 60-foot limit rather than lose the limit entirely. Commissioner Paretchan did not believe the proposed standard had been tested enough. She could not support an approach that had not been tested, so she wanted it tested on the four examples of problematic infill that people did not like. She1 wanted to know what outcome the community would have seen on. those lots under the proposed standards. She anticipated it would not work well in a lot of neighborhoods, including her own,. where there were a lot of 70-foot wide, 300-foot long lots and the topography affected how houses could be positioned on a lot. She anticipated some results could be long, skinny houses with 28-foot high side Walls (because they were set back so far the side plane setback standard would not apply). She said it might put too much burden on owners and not solve the problem. She wanted to strike this provision until it was tested. Commissioner Brockman said she was amenable to increasing the wall length limit to 60 feet Commissioner Gustafson indicated he could agree to either strike the provision entirely, or increase the limit to 60 feet. Commissioner Paretchari saw a 60-foot limit as City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of December 14, 2009 Page 11 of 14 too arbitrary. She wanted to strike the provision and rework it. Vice Chair Glisson agreed it needed more work. · Commissioner Brockman amended her motion so it was to approve Section 3 - Structure Design and Setback Planes, with the modification of the Appendix 50.,.07 ..,G sentence related to "Existing landscaping" that Mr. Egner and Commissioner Paretchan had agreed on and to change the wall length limit to 60 feet. Commissioner Jones seconded the amended motion and it passed 5:1. Commissioner Paretchan voted against. She explained that she agreed with the landscaped screening revision, but the wall plane length restriction needed more testing. SECTION 4-YARD SETBACKS Commissioner Brockman explained that she could allow eaves and gutters to project into a narrow, 5-foot side yard, but she could n9t support allowing features like chimneys and bay windows to encroach because the neighbors would be impacted by noise. Vice Chair Glisson observed that eaves helped preserve privacy; short eaves were not very auractive; and to not allow eaves to project might not be effective in pushing the houses back, and just result in short eaves. Commissioner Brockman moved to recommend Section 4 with a modification that the eaves be allowed to project into the setback area by 2 feet. or in accordance with the fire code. Discussion followed. · · ·· · · · · · · ·· · • Mr. Egner asked the Commissioners to look at the list of exceptions and pick out the specific features they did not want to allow to project into the setback. After he described what some of the features looked like and what they were for, the Commissioners narrowed the list of features that could project into a 5.,.foot side yard. • Commissioner Paretchan and Commissioner Gustafson agreed t.hat "leaders" (a feature of downspouts of older houses) were nice. Commissioner Brockman amended her motion to specify that eaves. gutters. belt courses and sills would be allowed to project into a 5-foot side yard. Staff planned to craft additional language to specify that canopies, sunshades, chimneys, and flues were not allowed to en9roach when the side yard was only 5 feet, but those features would be allowed to project into larger siqe yard setbacks. Staff recalled the Planning Commission had previously placed limits on bay windows. · Commissioner Paretchan asked staff to comment on Mr. Tahran's testimony about specifications for access walkways. Mr. Egner explained t.hat was current code and hot a proposed amendment. Mr. Tahran pointed out it permitted walkways or pathways to be in the required yard, "s.o long as the elevation of the walkway or pathway was at or below the elevation of. the driveway or parking area for the dwelling ot building. Mr. Boone explained a walkway would be considered a "structure" and subject to standards that applied to structures if it were 30 inches or more off the grade. This provision allowed an ~levated walkway, necessary due to topography, without a variance. Since this provision was existing .code and not the subject of review at this hearing, Chair Stewart suggested the Planning Commission could discuss it some oth19r time. Staff recommended and the Commissioners agreed to change the title of the table on page 28 of Attachment B to, "Primary and Accessory Structures Built Before January 1, 2010, or additions to those structures." That would address an issue Mr. Beals had City of Lake. Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of December 14, 2009 Page 12 of 14 • • • • raised that the existing FAN exemption applied to a structure built before January 1, 2009, but not an addition to it, so a developer had to get a variance to extend a waiL Commissioner Brockman moved to approve Section 4 as modified during deliberations. Commissioner Gustafson. seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. SECTION 6 -RID REVIEW Commissioner Brockman observed the Planning Commission had not gone much further than the lnfill Task Force had. Vice Chair Glisson could. only recall· one negative comment in testimony. · Mr. Egner corrected two errors under B. Applicabi,lity. He specified that "B(b)(iv) Side yard setbacks;' should not be stricken and that the second version of B(3) on page 49 replaced the version of B(3) above it on page 47. He agreed to a formatting change Commissioner Paretchan suggested that would itemize exceptions listed under B(a ) and B(b). Commissioner Brockman moved to approve Section 6. -RID Review. with those changes. Commissioner Gustafson seconded the motion and discussion followed. Vice Chair Glisson questioned using the proposed compatibility comparison method that looked at structures on different streets. She recalled in some neighborhoods the character changed from street to street due to factors such as topography. She cautioned that the. change might have unintended consequences. She just wanted to mention that was a possibility, but she would not vote against Section 6 because of that. Commissioner Brockman clarified that "compatibility'' did not mean "look alike;' -it just meant the houses fit together harmoniously. There could be a one-story house and a two-story house. She recalled a decision in which Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) had analyzed what "compatibility" looked like. Vice Chair Glisson ag·reed and said she hoped that the people who used the code would understand that. Mr. Boone confirmed the current staff interpretation was that houses did not need to look alike. They considered "rings of compatibility" and gave more weight to houses that were closer to the subject side than houses that were 200 feet away or around a comer, or were out of sight from the site. Vice Chair Glisson anticipated that in the future people might want sustainable houses with features like rooftop gardens. She indicated that althoUgh it might not be acceptable in some established neighborhoods, future Planning Commissions could address that. Commissioner Gustafson anticipated the changes made to ther RID process would render it almost worthless. RID had been used for relatively few projects that were extrenie examples of issues related to lot coverage, height and FAR. Those were the types of adjustments the Commissioners had removed. They had taken out all of the "carrots" RID previously offered. He believed that most of the eight to ten new houses built under RID were better than what would have otherwise been allowed and that was what the RID process was supposed to accomplish. He indicated that in the f1.,1ture there would be little incentive for good design through that process and that few would likely use it. The vote w~s conducted and the motion passed 5:1. Commissioner Gustafson voted against City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of December 14, 2009 Page 13 of 14 The Commissioners planned to continue their deliberations on January 11, 2010. In the interim, staff Would draft and send them the recommendation to the City Council to make • creation of a design handbook a City goal. · VIII. OTHER BUSINESS""' PLANNING COMMISSION None. IX. OTHER BUSINESS-COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVMENT None. X. AOJ'OURNMENT There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stewart adjourned the meeting at 10:31 p.m. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of December 14, 2009 Respectfully submitted, .n_/>/lc~ {~~~rat' · Administrative Support Page 14 of 14 • •