Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2008-10-27 (02)• • • I. City of Lake Oswego · .• A Planning Commission Minutes · Adp'OYP October 27,2008 1'1' I' I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Julia Glisson called the Pltmning Commission meeting of Monday, October 27, 2008 to ord~r at 6:05 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL III. Members present were Chait Julia Glisson, Vice Chair Philip Stewart and Commissioners Adrianne Brockman, Mary Olson and Scot Siegel. Alison Webster was excused. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris Treinen, Administrative Support. CITIZEN COMMENT Diana Boom, 557 Evergreen Road, explained Evergreen Neighborhood residents wanted the City to address the problem of zero lot line dwellings on 25-foot wide lots. She said they were "out of sync" with adjacent larger homes on wider lots in the R-1.5 zone. She said the Evergreen Neighborhood Association had recemly negotiated a "compromise" with the developer of a project on the block between A A venue and Evergreen, but they Still wanted the code changed to disallow zero lot line development in a residential neighborhood. During the questioning period Commissioner Brockman related that other jurisdictions required owners of substandard size lots to aggregate them .. For example, the owner of three 25; x 100' contiguous lots was allowed to build one home on the aggregated p(,U'cel, and not three homes. Carolyne Jones, 2818 Poplar Way, wanted to know if the minutes of each meeting could be made available the following week so she could prepare her arguments for the next meeting. Staff advised that the audio record was available on the City website within a few days of each meeting, and the cycle of drafting and staff review of minutes typically took longer than a week. IV. MINUTES Commissioner Brockman moved to approve the Minutes ·of August 11. )008. Commissioner Olson seconded the motion and it p3ssed 5:0. Commissioner Brockman moved to approve the Minutes of August 25. 2008. Vice Chair Stewart secoild.ed the motion and it passed 4:0. Commissioner Siegel abstained. City ofLake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 27, 2008 Page I of9 V. PUBLIC HEARING Community Development Code Amendments A request from the City of Lake Oswego for amendments to the Community . . Development Code (CDC) and an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The following two of the proposed ordinances had been continued from September 22, 2008. Ordinance 2523, LU 08-0053, CDC-New Infill Policies. Adds policies in support of overlay zo.nes for neighborhood plans and residential design review. ·· Ordinance 2524, LU 08-0053, CDC-lpfill Amendments. Amends portions of the Community Development Code, Chapter 50, for the purpose of enhancing the compatibility of infill development and clarification. · 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, ~d serial partitions. Chair Glisson opened the public hearing and explained the procedures and time limits for testimony. She asked the Commissioners to report any bias or conflict of interest. None were declared. When she invited public testimony, no one came forward to testify. Commissioner Brockman moved to continue LU 08-0053 to January 26, 2009 and accept any testimony people wanted to provide at the current hearing. Commissioner .Olson seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. WORK SESSION-INFILL AMENDMENTS Infill Task Force members joined the Coinmissioners at the table for the work session. Mr. Egner recalleq the InfiU Task Force had considered what types of standards c<;mld be adopted at the neighborhood level; house size; the relationship of new houses to existing property; what technical changes would make the code easier; and how flexibility could be b1,1ilt into it.. He showed examples of infill development that had been built since the first infill code was implemented. •• • ~· Egner reported the Infill Task Force had fol.lnd that compatibility was not just a function of house size. They h('),d examined houses built under the infill ordinance and found some unattractive houses that conformed to infill size lir:nits, Most were small enough t}l('),t if the allowable size were reduced by 1 0% they would still be allowed. That led the Infill Task Force to believe that design standards would help. 'they suggested new Comprehensive Plan policies that neighborhood plans could use to design overlay districts to make infill development more compatible; and that the City would· enact a design review process for new residential development. Staff reported the Infill Task Force was rtot unanimously in favor of recommending a design review process and the vote to recommend one was 7:5. Mr. Egner reported that the Evergreen Neighborhood Association already had a design overlay, and other neighborhoods were thinking about one. He said the Infill Task Force had decided not to fashion or recommend how the design review process would work until the City Council agreed to the concept, but they • City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of0ctober'27, 2008 Page 2 of9 • • • had discussed what thresholds might trigger the requirement for design review. Staff presented some ofthose ideas for thresholds . Commissioner Siegel said it was helpful to learn that house size was not necessarily the issue, but he wanted to know what problems the Infill Task Force was trying to address. He observed that different people had different ideas about what was compatible and attractive. Mr. Egner said that was why it would not be easy to solve the "threshold" issue if the City adopted the concept. Commissioner Brockman said two of the problems related to privacy and scale. She said the community should be involved in the discussion of appropriate infilL Infill Task Force member Emogene Waggoner said the majority of Task Force members and many neighborhood representatives supported the recommendation to establish a design review commission to review residential infill and remodeling projects. She said residents found there were still problems related to compatibility, size and placement that affected neighborhoods. She said they recommended the City publish and offer design guidelines and examples of compatible designs to people preparing. to build or remodel. She'submitted the design handbook for Napa, California. Staff advised that a new code section would be necessary if a new review process and a new review commission were established, and a new process would require setting thresholds to trigger design revieW. They reported that the Development Review Commission (DRC) already had a heavy caseload. They· cautioned that thresholds in existing review sections and the new section should not be allowed to overlap.. They advised the new work could be done by a hearings officer. ~ Infill Ta~k Force member suggested a commission made up entirely of design professionals. Commissioner Brockman recalled that Multnomah County utilized a well-trained staff person to review development applications and it worked well there. She said most applications were decided in a week and the decision was appealable. Jim Bolland explained the problem with the current Residential Infill Development (RID) review process was that staff made the decision. He favored establishing an independent commission. He said in Palo Alto, California the "trigger" to design review was to propose a structure higher th,an one story. He acknowledged that some people were concerned the new process would make development more difficult and expensive. But he stressed the current. standards were not working and the Infill Task Force wanted a "win/win'' process. He reported that a particu1ar builder in First Addition/Forest Hills Neighborhood Association (FAN) always built the same style, incompatible, house. One Task Force member related that if he had been at tlw Infill Task Force meeting when the vote on the new review process was conducted he would have voted against it because he questioned what problem was to be solved. He said single-family house design "infractions" happened on both large and sinall structures. He said he did not favor a process that put the review requirement on only some applicants because he felt if one person's home had to be examined, all homes should be examined. Another lnfill Task Force member held that some small, poorly designed existing homes should not be used to measure the compatibility of the new home nearby. He also observed that some City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 27, 2008 Page 3 of9 neighborhoods were so big and had so many subdivisions built in different eras that they would need a multitude of overlay .zones. He cautioned that the City had only 120 days to make a development decision. He said the time it took for the residential design review • process might be too long to get a building permit to improve an existing home, Staff confirmed the new standards would apply to duplexes. They clarified that the DRC did not currently hear applications for a duplex or an accessory dwelling. Ap. In_fill Task Force-member anticipated the new design review process would result in more architectqrally interesting homes as well as compatible homes. She thought getting those results Would be worth the additional time it took for review. She clarified that the small, poorly designed existing house next door was not the kind of "compatibility" the Infill Task Force had talked about. Commissioner Brockman commented that a lot of infill was attractive, but she had recently seen a design that offered the occupants no privacy, She suggested changes in infill standards might prevent a developer from making mistakes like that. Commissioner Siegel asked staff to bring the Planning Commission photographs of examples of what people thought was "attractive" or "unattractive." Commissioner Brockman related she had suggested Lake Oswego Neighborhood Action Coalition (LON A C) members bring pictures to the hearin:g. Staff reported that although there had been no consensus to recommend a new design review process, the Infill Task Force had reached consensus-about most of the other recommendations. They explained the proposed standards addressed the issue of hoilse size through lot coverage and floor area limitation revisions. They sa_id the revised code would improve code provisions that shrunk allowable lot coverage as height increased by • "smoothing out" a sudden, large decrease in allowable coverage between 22 and 23 feet in height. They explained that would improve how the-code affected houses on sloped lots, They said the proposed revisions similarly smoothed oU:t the scaled relationship of lot size to house size in a two-part formuh1. The calcul1;1tion of Floor Area Ratio (FAR) allowed the first 5,000 sq. ft. of the lot to have 3,000 sq. ft. of floor area, and then multiplied the remaining lot area by .2 FAR to find the remaining sq. ft. of allowable floor area. For example, the allowable floor area on a 10,000 sq. ft. lot would be 3,000 sq. ft., plus 1,000 sq. ft. (.2 FAR x 5,000 sq. ft. of lot) or 4,000 sq. ft. However, since current standards excluded garage area from floor area, which allowed owners to build very large garages and still meet allowable FAR, the Infill Task Force recominended changing how the garage affected FAR. The formula to calculate allowable floor area would then be the total of 3,000 sq. ft., plus .2 FAR x the remaining lot area, plus the garage area. Commissioner Siegel asked if the FAR limit was necessary when there were so many other standards to relate house size to its lot. Mr. Bolland stressed that it was necessary because there were so many ways to get Class 1 variances and other exceptions to height and setbacks, which made a house considerably larger. Commissioner Siegel opined that the code was a structural disaster and the proposed revisions would make it even more complicated. Mr. Egner clarified the new formulas would not make new infill any smaller, because they were fixes for a few "glitches" in the current code, including one that gave a builder borius lot coverage for a detached garage. He reported that in actuality •• people were building both an attached and a detached garage on lots in FAN. Hence, one City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes ofOctober 27, 2008 Page 4 of9 • • • recommended ''fix'' was to only allow bonus lot coverage if only one garage was built, and it was detached . Mr. Egner recalled that the Irtfill Task Force had talked a lot about how to reduce house sizes, but ended up recommending design review. Some Infill Task Force members indicated they felt that if the City Council did not accept the design review concept they needed to do more work on FAR limitations. Mr. Bolland agreed, and recalled that some ~ members thought that design review would help get rid of the RID process. Mr. Egner reported the Infill Task Force had noticed that comer lot setbacks were shallower than front setbacks. So they recommended a new comer lot plane standard that wa,s similar to the current front yard plane. He said the intent of both standards Was to push the bulk of the structure back from the street. The plane could be pierced within specified ranges by certain elements, such as dormers. Commissioner Siegel asked staff to bring examples to the hearing for the Commissioners to examine. Mr. Egner reported that the Infill Task Forc.e also recommended a side yard setback plane. It was intended to reduce bulk at the property lines the development shared with neighbors. He said the Infill Task Force recommended allowing landscaping as a way to break up large sidewalls, and allowing a wrap-around porch or balcony to break up the walls on comer lots. Mr. Bolland recalled the Infill Task Force felt it was too easy to use the Class 1 variance process and they wanted to put more limits on it. They recommended not allowing a less than five-foot side yard variance in the Class 1 process. The applicant would have to use the Class 2 process where a variance was harder to get. Staff and the Commissioners discussed how the infill changes would apply to sloped lots. Mr. Egne'r explained the uphill end of a house in FAN would still be limited to 22 feet irt height, but the down slope end could have art additional four feet to adjust for the typical four-foot drop on a slightly sloped FAN lot. The Commissioners recalled a case where the builder had sunk a house further into an excavation hole in order to keep the entire structure under 22 feet because if it were any higher the allowable lot coverage would shrink. Mt. Egner said there was a trend for increased lot coverage due to a desire for a master bedroom on the ground floor. Mr. Egner said the recommended change only applied in FAN, but eventually other neighborhoods with small, slightly sloped lots might . want to adopt it. Mr. Egner explained the changes to regulations that applied to steeply sloped lots. He said they were intended to allow room for a master bedroom on the main floor, which was what art aging population favored. There was a height-to-slope scale that allowed mpre height on steeper slopes, and for every foot of height over 35 feet, one more foot of setback was required. Mr. Egner explained how the front setback plane would be measured when the lot sloped downhill from the street. The Cortunissioners examined a house in Mountain Park and considered how the new standards would apply to lots that sloped uphill and downhill from the street. Staff advised the front setback plane standards helped control the relationship to the street, and other dimensional standards controlled the bulk. They advised that the zoning standards in Mountain Park had been City_ of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 27, 2008 Page 5 of9 established and set in that development's Planned Development (PD) approval, and the new infill regulations would not change them. Infill Task Force members anticipated the new standards would apply to other steeply sloped areas in the City where 1950s and • 1960s vintage houses would be replaced in the future. The Infill Task Force recommended eliminating Residential Infill Development (RID) review for lot coverage, floor area. and height so a.n applicant had to use the variance process to change them~ They said it was too easy to change them using RID. They said the RID process could continue to be used to consider changes in other requirements, and the Class 1 variance process could continue to be used to review minor remodeling changes and correcting survey errors, but they definitely did not want the Class 1 process used to approve especially narrow side yards. Some anticipated that if the City adopted the residential design review process, RID might ~e eliminated e!ltirely. The Infill Task Force proposed to allow rebuilding of a nonconforming Structure within the same envelope if it were destroyed by natural causes or'demolished. They explained they believed the existing standard that set a threshold of 50% replacement value had inhibited remodeling activity and resulted in unnecessary demolition of structures. The Infill Task Force proposed to apply infill standards to duplexes. Because they found duplex g~ages typically took up more than the current limit of 50% of the length of a house front elevation, they recommended allowing duplex garages to take up a_s much as 60% of the front facade, and even more of it if certain design features were added. Mr. Egner agreed to research how this sta.ndard would apply to a garage on a comer lot. The Infill Task Force recommended flag lot standards to orient houses so they related better to each other and to the access lane. They also recommended stronger street connectivity standards. · Commissioner Brockman thanked the lnfill Task Force for their work. She observed that most infill houses were of good design, and only a few were not. She was especially concerned about houses that featured especially long walls and created privacy issues. When Con:unissioner Siegel asked if setbacks might be averaged' to improve house-to- hoUse relationships, Mr. Egner anticipated it would be hard to match multiple side yards. An Infill Task Force member explained the proposed regulations offered more flexibility to move a house QJJ. its lot to save trees without a variance process. Mr. Egner clarified for Commissioner Siegel that the Task Force.had not discu,ssed solar access. Chair Glisson thanked the group for their hard work and for providing examples of development that had occurred-since the original infill standards were adopted. Mr. Egner explained a handout he had distrib11ted that differentiated between a house that was accidentally and intentionally destroyed was language suggested by an lnfill Task Force subcommittee that met recently and the City Attorney had not yet reviewed it. A Ta.sk Force member recalled the Task Force had added a provision to address structures on the Landmark Designation List. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 27, 2008 P~ge 6 of9 • • • • • Mr. Boone observed that the group wanted to preserve the ability to rebuild a nonconforming house, but they had .also expressed disfavor of some houses = such as one with especially long walls -that they might not want rebuilt. Commissioner Brockman explained that people who bought property next to such a house knew what they were buying, but people living in existing homes could be swprised by what got built next door to them. Mr. Bolland said the cl.irtent code was confusing because it was not clear if the 50% replacement value threshold meant a.ssessed or market value. He said the Task Force wanted an owner to be able to remodel even if a part of the house wete' nonconforming. He recalled that FAN had .tried to find a way to prevent creation of flag lots by allowing parcels to be divided into regular lots, but the problem was each lot could not meet minimum street width. The reconunended changes would allow mote flexibility to make that frontage a little narrower. Commissioner Brockman commented that was why people designed really long houses on narrow lots. Mr. Egner related that the Infill Task Force subcortirtlittee had observed that in the City of Palo Alto driveways along the side setback to the back of the lot served to separate houses, and that might work well on deep; skinny lots. Chair Glisson reopened the public hearing and invited public comments. Diana Boom~ 5~7 Evergreen Road, clarified the development she had referred to during the Public Comment period had been allowed by RID review and she did not think that developer should have been allowed to use the RID process to get around zoning regulations . Carolyn Krebs, 16925 Denney Court, stressed that the Lake Forest Neighborhood did not support the proposed changes regarding flag lots and zeto lot line partitions and they had told the Infill Task Force they did not want to be forced to connect streets through the natural areas in their neighborhood. They did not want the cut through traffic and noise that would result from .mote connections, and they believed the area was accessible enough now. She clarified they could support allowing accesses that allowed owners to develop their lots, but not through streets through flag lots and tree groves that connected streets like Parker and Kirnble. When she was asked how they felt about requiring aU houses along a flag lot to b~ oriented toward a shared, central lane, Ms. Krebs indicated they might agree to that as long as the access was not extended all the way through the back of the property. She referred to the proposed provision to be applied to PDs of 1.75 acres and worried that would impose connectivity that would have to go through areas of natural resources. She asked if the neighborhood plan could be used to "opt out" of the requirement; which she said solved a connectivity problem that Lake Forest did not have. Commissioner Siegel observed Lake Forest had especially long blocks and asked if they wanted to see connecting pedestrian ways td rnake the walk between streets shorter. Ms. Krebs' indicated there was good pedestrian connectivity already and she worried more connecting pathways would impact the natural resources. Commissioner Siegel asked why new development should not be allowed to build new driveways that connected Kimble and Parker streets. He recalled the current code required a new subdivision to plan an access every 600-800 feet. Ms. Krebs asked why neighborhood residents should not have a Voice in that. She said they already had plenty of connectivity . City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 27, 2008 Page 7 of9 \ Ms. Krebs stressed she had attended many lnfill Ta.Sk Force meetings to convey what her neighborhood wanted and the recommended code was exactly what they did not want. Wh~n Conunissioner Siegel asked why the flag lot connectivity provisions were • proposed, staff recalled they were intended to address the relationship of a flag lot with the other lot and create a desirable pattern that engendered a sense of community. They rec~led in Task Force discussions the group had not envisioned the lane system as a throughway, but a private driveway that extended to meet a street. Ms. Krebs questioned how drivers could be prevented from using such a driveway as a shortcut. She said it would destroy her neighborhood. Commissioner Olson agreed it would be tempting to use it when the blocks were so long. Commissioner Siegel recalled ,fire code provisions that required~ driveway that was more than 150 feet long to feature a turnaround. Mr. Egner said if the developer could demonstrate the driveway was supposed to eventually go through the fite department might not reqUire a .turnaround. ( Ms. Krebs said the neighborhood planned to meet to fashion their coinments on the infill recommendations. She said they were focused on implementing their neighborhood plan and exploring what a design overlay would help them do in their neighborhood. Mr. Egner reasoned that Lake Forest had not been fully developed yet because. parts of it did not yet have access to sewer service and because of the slowing economy. He said because of that they might have time to develop an overlay. Carolyne Jones, 2818 Poplar Way, said she was speaking for herself and on behalf of the Glenmorrie Neighborhood Association. She indicated she was concerned that the City's natural resource designation limited what she and 30 other property owners in her • neighborhood could do with their large lots. She said she had enough land to partition it into two lots, but the City was going to make her property un-buildable. She said she was not sure how she would be allowed to rebuild her house or redevelop her property. She wanted the City to clarify that. The Comrtlissioners asked staff to meet with Ms. Jones to better understand her questions and help clarify what she could do on her property. She said she would bring the report the natural resources coordinator had given her, after a site visit, that talked about regulations that protected the stream corridor and how nonconforming structures woulq be addressed. She said it was very confusing. Staff advised that the lnfill Task Force recommended allowing an owner to rebuild in the same footprint if a nonconforming house were destroyed, but the current code required him/her to rebuild a house that conformed to current regulations. Ms. Jones said she currently had a SII1aller house than her neighbors enjoyed and she would want to be allowed to build a house as large as theirs. She stressed that stream corridor property owners should have the same rights as lakefront property owners. Commissioner Brockman moved to continue LU 08-0053 to January26, 2009 and accept written testimony. Commissioner Olson seconded the motion and it passed 5:0.' City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October ~7, 2008 Page 8 of9 • f_ -. • • VI. VII. VIII. OTHER BUSINESS -PLANNING COMMI&SION None. OTHER BUSINESS -COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT Palisades Neighborhood Plan The Commissioners and staff recalled the City Council's discussion of the Palisades Neighborhood Plan. They recalled the Council wanted to ensure that congregate care facilities could be located in the neighborhood and they could be a financially viable size. They· did not favor the plan's .6 FAR restriction, which they obsel'Ved was less than what Avamere had been allowed. However, they asked staff to fashion a policy that allowed the neighborhood to have design standards to ensure the facilities reflected neighborhood character. Some Commissioners thought the Council generally favored applying requirements for such facilities as citywide standards. They wondered where there would be parcels latge enough for the facilities. Staff related that there was a trend for churches to take advantage of laws tb,at allowed them to locate outside of urban growth boundaries and sell their City property. These might ·offer appropriate sized parcels for congregate care facilities. Commissioner Brockman recalled the neighborhood had been allowed to go through their planning process with no City Council direction about neighborhood planning and the issue of "aging in place."· She recalled the Council had expressed concern about the cost of neighborhood planning. She saw a need to help the next Council understand the function and role of neighborhood planning so they would not have to debate \Vhat that was . Commissioner Olson said the Council should be mote. aware of how the Planning Commission was working with neighborhoods and that they had been encouraging them to codify mwe policies. She recalled the Council had worried about the legal consequences of adopting the Palisades plan to limit the facilities to .6 FAR and making facilities like A vamere nonconforming uses. ADJOURNMENt . There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Glisson adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, SLY~ Iris Treinen Administrative Support City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 27,2008 I Page 9 of9