Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2008-02-25 (02).. . ' • • • City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2008 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Colin Cooper called the Planning Coinmission meeting of Monday, February 25, 2008 to order at 6:05 p.m. in the Council ChaiJlb~rs of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL .III . IV. Members present besides Chair Cooper were Vice Chair Julia Glisson and Commissioners Adrianne Brockman, Philip Stewart and Allson Webster. Commissioners Mary Beth Coffey, and Scot Siegel were excused. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Jean Hall, Administrative Support. CITIZEN COMMENT None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The. draft Minutes of January 14, 2008 were modified to explain that Vice Chair Cooper had joined the meeting after participating in interviews of potential new Commissioners. Vice Chair Glisson moved to approve the Minutes of January 14, 2008. Commissioner Webster seconded the motion and it passed 3:0. Commissioners Brockman and Stewart ~bstained. V. PUBLIC HEA:RJNG LU 07-0088 -Planned Development Overlay and Open Space Amendments. A request from the City of Lake Oswego for an amendment to Article 50.17 (Planned Development Overlay) and Article 50.46 (Park and 9pen Space). Proposed amendments set conditions (citywide) for the use of the planned development process oil small parcels (75,000 square feet or less) and provide the standards under which open space would be designated. (Continued from .December 10, 2007 and January ~8, 2008) Chair Cooper opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedure and criteria. He asked the Commissioners to declare any conflicts of interest. None were declared . City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 25, 2008 Page I of 10 Staff Report Dennis Egner, Long Range Plan1;1ing Manager; presented the staffreport. He reported that he had discussed the proposal with members of the lnfill Task Force, and he pointed out the staff report listed options for the Commissioners to consider. He rec~led the Task Force members' original concept Was that subdivision developments smaller than 75,000 sq. ft. should not have to set aside 20% open space (which would be 15,000 sq. ft. or less) if the site contained no n~twal resqurces. Their intent was to avoid sltu~tions where the open space was fractured and scattered over a site. They reasoned that if there was no mandatory open space to be accommodated, the lots would be at least mifliinum ~op.e si~e, ~d .planned development (PD) setback adjustments WO\lld be limited so there " was appropriate separation between houses. He said the proposal also addressed a concern that the. current code allowed side yards in small developments to be too small. He said !he proposa,l would require ~t least 16 feet separation between structures in all sizes of planned developments. He said lnfill Task Force members recommended that the City use the Metro Title 13 map until the City's resource maps were updated. He pointed out the staff report discussed questions raised by Commissioner Siegel about how the proposed amendments would affect the quality and compatibility of development and the q\l~ity of open space. He advised that if the purpose of open space wa,s to protect habitat, then even small "patches" of open space were more effective in protecting resources than · manicured and fenced yards. He saw a need to balance the effects on compatibility and habitat. He pointed out the staff report contained case studies. Ra,lph Tehran, Ch~ir of the lnfdl Task Force, reported that the Task :Force had discussed the proposed ordinance and examined some "poster child developments," but there had been no quorum at the meeting in Which they discussed it and flo fonnal vote had been conducted. He said that some ~xamples of development they had looked at were more the result of the design than the code. He reported there was a trend toward smaller developments, such as Ford Estates, on parcels as small as one or two acres. He said that in most cases the developer would have preferred to offer larger lots, but had to meet the Minimum Density requirement. When those developments were for<;ed into the PD process they had to set aside 20% open space-whether it was necessary or· not-so lots had to be smaller than they would be without the Open Space, and smaller than neighboring lots. He sa.id the Task Force did not know for certain whether 75,000 sq. ft. was the "magic iltmiber," but it seemed to be a reasonable assumption that a 15,000 sq. ft. open space (20% of a 75,000 sq. ft. parcel) was latge enough to serve as a nice pocket park for the community and ~ place for drainage facilities. Mr. Tehran said most members at the meeting thought the proposed ordinance could be an appropriate plaililiilg tool but should be tested. They believed that if a small (1 to 1.5 acre) development such as Ford Estates had no open space, it Would ha:ve featured larger lots, and the houses on them would likely h~ve been more compatible with the neighborhood. He said most Infill Task Force members thought it was a good idea for the City to give the proposed ordinance a "chance" and see if it actually resulted in more compatible development, especially where 6,000 sq. ft. PD lots could currently be next to 8,500 sq. ft. county lots. He said they also thought it was appropriate to use the Metro Title 13 map until the City had a more accurate, updated, natural resource map. City ofLake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 25,2008 Page 2 oflO .. • • • • • • Mr. Tehran reported that the Infill Task Force was "split" on the issue of limiting side yard setback adjustroents and there had been no quorum and no forinal vote at the meeting in which they discussed that. He recalled that most members i.n attendance seemed to favor it. He said the most commpn complaint was that the current PD ordinance allowed homes to be too close to each other. Some featuted .five-foot side setbacks that sometimes resulted in two-story homes that were only ten feet apart. He said some members supported the staff recommendation to require at least 16 feet separation between structures, but some members believed that would reduce the flexibility that was necessary to meet Minimwn Density and could result in more attached housing developments. They had pointed. out some "good" examples of PDs. He said the proposed regulations I!eeded to be "tested." He pointed out the Infill Task Force was also recommending a code change that would establish a new side yard setback plane that would also affect PD design. Mr. Tehran reminded the Comrn:issioners that the Development Review Commission (DRC) was charged with reviewing d~velopmeilts and should be made aware that people were unhappy with small setbacks, He clarified that he did not personally know wh~ther the setback changes were a good idea, because they had rtot yet been tested. During the questioning period, he said his recommendation was to remove the side yard setback requirement from the proposal and ask the Infill Task Force to continue to examine it. Commissioner Brockman reported she had visited the developments cited in the staff report and observed that newer developments sometimes positioned two story houses close enough together that residents couid stare out of their oWil Windows and into the next house. She said many rear yard setbacks appeared to be smaller than 25 feet. She advised there were "social costs" related to smaller setbacks, including the cost of policing noise. Mr. Tehran suggested the City Council consider allowing the developers to find a more realistic approach to meeting minimui:n density standards that might result in better design, instead of the process in which the "starting point" was the staffs calculation of minimum density at the pre-application conference. He cited one attached housing project behind the Hasson Real Estate office that he said was well designed and spaced, .evert With five-foot setbacks and backed up to green space. Commissioner Brockman observed the compatibility of a development was also dependent on how homes were oriented toward each other. Mr. Tehran agreed compatibility was a "design issue." The Commissioners then examined the proposed ordinance.. Mr. Egner clarified it allowed the PD process when the parcel was less than 75,000 sq. ft. artd one of the following criteria were present: a Resource Protection (RP) or Resource Conservation (RC) District Overlay, a tree grove on it of at least 15,000 sq. ft.; or, the site contained resources shown on the Metro Title 13 map. When asked, he cortfirmed that most open space connected with a development was maintained by a homeowners association, and most of those spaces were not large enough tracts to interest the Patks Department in maintaining them. He confirmed that if the side yard plane requirements the Infill Task Force recommended were adopted, they would apply to both individual homes and City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 25,2008 Page 3 oflO subdivisions. He confirmed there were already code requirements that limited the size of unbroken sidewalls. Commissioners Brockm~ and Stewart indicated they could agree to allow five-foot side setbacks around one-story house~, but higher structures should have larger setbacks. Mr. Egner clarified the proposed side yard plane requirement allowed 'an. increase in height closer to the property line than the front setback plane allowed. However, the proposed setbacks would result in more separation of buildings that the current code allowed. Staff clarified that a PD applicant did not typically have a specific house design to submit at the time of application. Commissioner Brockman said she hoped that removing the open space requirement W01lld reswt in bigger lots, but she worried that if the }imitation on setback adjustments were not also adopted, the bigger .lots would have bigger houses on them. Vice Chair Glisson asked if the proposal required the developer to enhance the quality of open space (by planting native species), whether or not natural resources actually existed on the site, pte-development. Staff advised that a typical condition of approval was to enhance delineated natural resources. However; they noted the definition of"open space" said it was "passive recreational space," so it could be landscaped. They advised that a future Coll1Plunity Development Code (CDC) update proposal would encourage people to remove invasive species in open space tracts. Mr. Egner explained that the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) became smaller as lots got larger. • For ~xample, an increase in lot size from 8,000 sq. ft. to 10,000 sq. ft. meant the house • could grow from 3,200 sq. ft; to 3,800 sq. ft. Commissioner Stewart cited the Beacon Homes development on Childs Road as an example of how a small development on a 73,000 sq. ft. parcel that featured two story houses that were close together could be designed to make the houses feel. more separated than that. He advised that factors that helped were the pitched roof design and the way the site was designed with a grove and path. He advised that roofs that were too large blockeg llaturallight. Mr. Tehran reported the lrtfill Task Force had considered not allowing any setback reductions in a PD development on a parcel larger than 75,000 sq. ft. He said they . learned that allowable FAR in a PD was :first calculated on the total developable area, and then the total FAR was distributed across lots in a manner that sometimes allowed a larger house on a smaller lot than the zone would allow. CortUn.issioner Brockman suggested not allowing any side or rear yard adjustments when open space was not required. Chair Cooper suggested allowing a rear yard adjustment If the yard abutted open space. Mr. Egner advised that when a site had to accommodate open space, the developer needed to have some flexibility to make adjustments. Commissioner Brockman indicated she could agree to allow. reductions of yards that abutted open space, but in no case did she want to see a reduction against existing development. Mr. Egner clarified for Vice Chair Glisson that the original intent of the proposal was to require no open space and allow no PD adjustments on parcels under 75,000 sq. ft. if there were no resources to protect. In that case a development would have to meet the • zone's minimum lot size and could not use the PD process and adjust setbacks (although City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 25,2008 Page 4 oflO • • • VI. they might instead seek to use the Variance process). However, the staff report listed an option that reflected the positions of some who P.ad testified tha,t they wanted to eliminate the open space requirement, but did not want to lose the flexibility to adju,st setbacks the PD process allowed. He said if the parcel did have natural resources, the proposal allowed a PD, but limited the extent of allowable adjustments. Setbacks could be adjusted by as much as 20%. For example, a 30-foot setback could be reduced by as much as six feet. . He advised that some zones factored required setbacks on height. Chair Cooper, Commissioner Brockman and Vice Chair Glisson indicated they all favored sending the proposed side yard setba,ck provisions back to the Infill Task Force to examine. Conuilissioner Brockman moved to approve LU 07 .. 0088, but the side yard setback issue was to be subject to re-examination in the ongoing Infill Task Force work program. Vice Chait Glisson seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. Commissioner Brockman suggested other Commissioners drive through the community to observe current development trends and compare newer and older developments. She said she had persoilally observed a definite change in style and compatibility problems, particularly those related to noise generation. PLANNING COMMISSION-WORK SESSION Community Development Code Amendments (PP 08-0002) Update on proposed text amendments to the Lake Oswego Code (LOC) Chapter 50 (Community Development Code) for clarifying, correcting and updating sections . • Dennis Egner, Long R~nge Planning Manager, presented the staff report. He explained that the proposed CDC update addressed issues and "housekeeping" measures staff identified over time and then regularly incorporated into updates. He said this was the first third of the total package of am-endments staff pl;;umed to propose. He 1;1oted the staffreport listed items they proposed to change, Commissioner Stewart had submitted an email that highlighted items he thought the Planning Commission should discuss and Commissioner Brockman also wanted to discuss particular items. Mr. Egner suggested the Commissioners examine the lists arid distinguish between hems that related to more substantive issues that merited more public vetting and a policy decision and items that were merely "housekeeping" revisions. Mr. Egner explained that in Lake Oswego, a play structure, such as a playhouse, tree fort, or rock-climbing gym, was sometimes a fairly large structure that was in a setback and created privacy issues. For that rea,son, they proposed to categorize it as an accessory structure and make it subject to those setbackS. They observed that a play structure might be temporary or permanent, and with or without a foundation. They asked if the size should be limited and if such structures should be exempted from or coUI1ted in the lot coverage calculation, so that if lot coverage was already maximized, the owner could not build a play structure. They said the staffs "rule of thumb" was that it counted in lot coverage if it was capable of supporting humans, so they would not typically count a large doghouse. Vice Chair Glisson said that if an. owner had already built to maximum City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 25,2008 Page 5 of 10 allowable lot coverage he/she should not be allowed to cover more of the lot. Commissioner Brockman advised thtt.t both large ang ·small play structures ge11ertt.ted • impacts, like noise, and if such a structure . covered more of the lot the site would absorb less ruiloff. The Commissioners categorized this as a "policy'' issue. Commissioner Stewart asked if there was a maximum allowable size for a bay window. Staff explained that they.wete only proposing to change the defuiition iii the amendment- because people had different ideas about what a bay window was -but other sections of the code specified how fa,r such windows could extend into a setback. However, the fact that the proposed change would not allow them to sit oil a foundation would also minimize how much of a bay window encroached into a setback. Commissioner Brock!n® explained that when two bay windows faced' each other, that created privacy and noise issues. The Cotnrttissioners wanted to consider a limit on the number of bay windows allowed per elevation and how high they should be allowed to be. Staffpointed out they proposed to add "(below ground level)" to clarify what the "subgrade" was in the definition, Basement. · The Commissioners agreed the scope of the definition, Boathouse, was a policy issue because it involved decisions related to the allowable extent of additional uses after staff explained that it was not unusual for owners to want them to have showers and kitchenettes, which might actually mean they were acce·ssory dwellings. They said the issue was complicated by the fact that some boathouses were actually positioned on Lake Oswego Corporation property, and they speculated :that might be why the code historically did not count them in lot coverage. Staff suggested this issue could be discussed during consideration of a lakefront zone . • Staff ID!ked if the code should be changed to count a courtyard in lot coverage if it was a hard sutface, or covered, instead of Just a landscaped area. The Commissioners observed the trend toward more ''outdoor rooms." could create privacy issues, and adding a courtyard might add more lot coverage on an already "maxed out" site. The Commissioners agreed that the proposed change to density transfer would mean that dedicated open space could not be counteg in the arnoWtt of site la11d that was used to calculate the density that coUld be transferred. Chair Cooper and Commissioner Brockma11 leaned toward not making this change until they understood what the legal ramifications would be. · Staff expl~1.1ed they proposed a change that would establish that "detached" meant a "meaningful," visual, separation between structures, so two adjacent stnJctures could not be so close that they appeared to be one structure, aS some detached garages and the primary house appeared to be in the First Addition neighborhood. Chair Cooper observed that was a "housekeeping'' matter. • Staff explained they proposed a change to clarify what a Secondary Dwelling Unit (SDU) was, so it could be determined in the building permit stage, based on the proposed plan, that a unit was an SDU. The determining factors were that the plan offered no physical • coililection to the primary unit and the secondary unit could be used as a separate City of Lake Oswego Planning ComrtJ.ission Minutes of February 25,2008 Page 6 of 10 • • • • housekeeping unit for a second family:. They noted that was easier to enforce than trying to detennine if there were two separ~te families using a s~cture, and one was renting, They clarified that a "family" was up to five unrelated persons, plus their legal relations, , living together as a single housekeeping unit [they added that six or more persons living irt one unit was a "Group Home"]. Cofiiiilissionet Brockman observed that an owner might decide to rent one floor of their home to another separate housekeeping unit, even i.f the floors were connected by a stairway. Staff acknowledged that would be an enforcement issue, but they said if staff saw a physical separation that made a unit an SDU in the building permit stage they would require one more onsite parking space to serve the SDU. They called that the "construction test." However, tbey agreed to also look at SDU-related regulations that provided for enforcement based on function. Staff noted the fact that if part of a house that faced the lake h~d a kitchenette it did not necessarily mean it was being used for an SDU. They clarified that SDUs wete not necessarily counted in density target calculations, because they were not allowed outright, and it was hard to estimate how many SDUs would be created. The Commissioners agreed this change might have some impacts and would require a policy discussion. Staff confirmed the definition, Fire Code, would be changed to refer to other code sections that specified which other fire codes the local code had to comply with. Staff explained that they sometimes encountered proposed lots configured as an "elephant foot'' to meet the minimum frontage requirement for a regular lot, so the flag lot height limit and setback standards wo1J,ld not apply. They said the proposed change in the definition would no longer allow elephant foot lots because the lot Would also have to meet lot width requirements. Commissioner Brockman agreed with the concept. Staff explained they proposed to change the defmition, Floot Area, so square footage was measured from the exterior of a structure's walls, not within the interior walls. They. said that would be consistent with the way lot coverage was measured, so only one calculation would be necessary. Commissioner Stewart advised that fot an architect, Gross Floor Area (GFA) was not the same as ("useable") Floor Area, which was me~ured between interior walls. Commissioner Brockrn.an recalled some jurisdictions had codes that counted floor area of spaces with 16-foot high ceilings twice, in order to account for bulk and mass. The Commissioners noted in commercial leasing the useable area was referred to as "net leasable area.'' They also noted that some unfinished spaces might be made into livable space later on. Vice Chair Glisson said she Wanted to include as much of the structure as possible in Floor Area, because the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) addressed the basic bulk of the structure. Staff clarified that the current code did not include the garage in the FAR calculation. Chair Cooper s~w a consensus to consider Floor Area and Floor Area Ratio changes to be policy issues. Staff e'-'pl~ned proposed changes to the Functions and Values (Resource) section made the Sensitive Lands Ordinance more consistent with scientific terii1S and Metro's list of characteristics to be considered in resource analysis. Chair Cooper called this a "housekeeping" issue. Chait Cooper said he was comfortable with the proposed change to Group Care Home, because it was also an ORS requirement. City of Lake Oswego Planning Coirunission Minutes ofFebruary 45,2008 Page 7 of 10 Staff explained they now proposed to increase the previously drafted size limit for a guest house to 800 sq. ft., because that would be consistent with the zone limits on accessory structures. They said a recent court case regarding whether an owner could build a guest • house over an existing garage (the g~age'was larger 'Ulan 400 sq. ft.) motivated them to propose the change. They said a guest house could have no cooking or kitchen facilities and was an accessory structure that still had to meet the zone's limits, but· they suggested applying the 800 sq. ft. limit so the structure could not be allowed to be larger as a resUlt of the Variance or Residential Infill Design process. All the CollliPissioriers present generally agreed to the 800 sq. ft. limit. Staff proposed to change .the definition of "Height of Building for Waterfront Cabanas" to indicate that their height Was measured from the elevation of the "mean water level surface;' of Oswego Lake because the actual water level varied and the WR Zone limited them to 24 feet from the surface of the water. They said this section also clarified that height of houses in the Flood Management Area (FMA) was to be measured from the base flood elevation.-instead of from the ground-because the FMA base flood elevation was about to be raised by 2.5 feet in the lake area and the lowest livable floor had to be one foot above that elevation, but allowable zone height would not be raised. Ch~ir Cooper noted those changes created a policy issue. Staff explained they proposed to re-insert language under the definition, Lot, Sloped, that had been omitted when part of the definition was moved to another section in the past. They clarified height in a PD was measured from the finished grade after the site was graded. Commissioner Brockman reported that fill and grade changes had created • problems in her neighborhood, so she did not favor allowing height to b~ measured from an artificil:llly altered ground surface. Mr. Boone advised that for non-PD development, height was measured from the original ground surface that existed prior to construction. Mr. Egner a5ked if the definition should distinguish between commercial and residential development. He said staff did not address that in the current proposal, but developer Nick Bunick took the position that his future COilli11ercial building's height should be measured from the finished; backfilled, grade, instead of the original grade. That would allow Mr. Bunick to have four stories. Chair Cooper recalled that using artificial grades to determine height (so the buildings could be higher) had resulted in odd, unintended consequences. Commissioner Brockman advised that where a commercial development abutted residential uses allowing height>to be measured from the filled surface would have a greater impact than where commercial use abutted commercial use. Commissioner Stewart advised that it was con:unon to measure the height of a commercial building from the averaged slope. Chait Cooper observed a consensus that this was a policy-related issue. Staff explained an invasive plants list would be placed in an appendix to the code and the definition would refer to that list. They clarified that the owners of a live/work building would not be counted as employees, and the proposed limit was two employees because the units were relatively small. They explained that both the con:unercial and residential· space had to be under the same ownership because the development Would be approved with parking based on low impact use. Chair Cooper wondered if live/work units were • City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 25; 2008 Page 8 of 10 • • • • VII. financially viable. The Commissioners and staff observed such units seemed to be popular in some other Metro area jurisdictions, particularly in pedestrian corridors. The Commissioners agreed that proposed Lot Coverage changes were also a policy issue. Mr. Egner discussed an issue related to lot depth. He showed a proposed partition plan that bisected a parcel using a diagonal boundary li_ne. He said the purpose of that particular configuration was to meet the lot depth requirement. He said under the current code tb.e depth had to be measured along that diagonal line. He recalled other lots that had no lot depth to be measured'.because they were triangular, and had no rear lot line. He advised that the other lot dimensional requirements were sufficient and the lot depth requirement could be eliminated. Commissioner Brockman cautioned the Commissioners not to change that requirement for the benefit of only one or two properties, because that could have unintended consequences. Chmr Cooper sajd lot depth did have significant impact, because manipulated partition lines created "orphan areas" on lots, and Sometimes the developer gave a lot a "use easement" over those areas when they would otherwise have been part of the lot if the parcel had been divided in a less angled manner. He and Commissioner Brockman said the issue wa.rtanted more discussion. Staff agreed to continue their examination of the consequences of the change. The Commissioners and staff suggested specifying where lot depth would be applicable, or requiring lot depth to be measured between boundary midpoints. Chair Cooper observed that Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Brockman had each highlighted issues to discuss. He suggested each of the other Commissioners do the same so the lists could be combined for more efficient future discussions. He closed the work session. OTHER BUSINESS-PLANNING COMMISSION -• • 7 Chair Cooper announced that he was about to resign from serVice on the Planning Commission so he could direct his time and effort toward his new job as Principal Planner for the City of Hillsboro. Staff distributed a meeting schedule. VIII. OTHER BUSINESS-COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT Commissioner Brockman announced that she was to write a regular column in the LONAC newsletter. She suggested that more people might decide to attend Planning Commission meetings if the agenda allowed time for citizens to talk about other items of interest to neighborhoods. Mr. Egner annou,nced the first of two open houses to present the preliminary resource inventory fot areas inside and outside the City would be held the following Wednesday. He said an open house for proposed Flood Ma.nagement Area amendments was scheduled for the following week . City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 25,2008 Page 9 of 10 / IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the . Planning Commission, Chair Cooper · • ac,ijourned the meeting at 9:20p.m. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 25,2008 · Iris Treinen Adininistrative Support Page 10 of 10 / • •