Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2003-01-13 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 2003 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Daniel Vizzini called the Planning Com mission meeting of January 13, 2003 to order at approximately 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 380 A Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Commission members present were Chair Vizzini and Commissioners Frank Groznik, James Johnson*, Ken Sandblast, Mark Stayer, David Waring and Alison Webster. The Commissioners welcomed new Commissioner Mark Stayer. *Arrived at approximately 6:45 p.m. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Jane Heisler, Project Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris Treinen, Senior Secretary. III. CITIZEN COMMENT – Regarding issues not on the agenda. None. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioners Groznik moved for approval of the Minutes of October 28, 2002. Commissioner Sandblast seconded the motion and it passed with Chair Vizzini and Commissioners Groznik, Sandblast and Waring voting yes. Commissioners Stayer and Webster abstained from the vote. Commissioner Johnson was not present. V. GENERAL PLANNING Work Session on Flood Mitigation Strategies (P 02-0017) Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager, and Floodplain Work Group representatives, Michael Holmes and Mark Eves appeared before the Commissioners to discuss flood mitigation strategies. Mr. Egner distributed a staff report that discussed the advantages and disadvantages of flood mitigation concepts that had been suggested to the Commission in previous testimony. He advised that the Fire Department was participating in a City of Lake Oswego/Clackamas County effort to devise a Pre- Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM) to address the risks of flood, landslides, sever storm damage, volcanic eruption and earthquakes, and that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) would eventually require any community seeking City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 1 of 7 Minutes of January 13, 2003 disaster relief to have such a plan in place. He anticipated that the plan could be drafted and adopted by November 2003. He said that the City could apply for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funding to help pay for flood mitigation projects. The Commissioners discussed whether to recommend that the City Council take time to focus on the more comprehensive pre-disaster planning process or take more immediate and direct action to address flood risks. The Work Group representatives recommended that the City appoint a volunteer panel to hear from experts and then recommend the best solution to the City. Mr. Eves reported that the Lake Corporation had invested several hundred thousand dollars since the 1996 flood to build a new headgate; improve water flow through the canal, the dam, the flume to the power house and underwater grates; rebuild a dam wall and repair the parking lot and fuel system that had been damaged during the flood. He related that the Lake Corporation had never been reimbursed for $300,000 of repairs to fix erosion damage after City-requested construction of an emergency channel across the parking lot. He said that the Lake Corporation had never been granted permission to raise the headgate and their lawyers and engineers had advised them that they did not have the legal authority to implement some mitigation plans unless a governmental body sponsored those plans. Mr. Egner explained the staff saw the grant funding as a means to pay for needed technical expertise to identify priority mitigation projects. Several Commissioners stressed the need for the City and the Lake Corporation to work together to move quickly to utilize the new FEMA study of the Tualatin River basin as a basis for an engineered solution to the flood risk. *Commissioner Johnson joined the meeting during the work session. He observed that flood mitigation was a technical issue, and the solution would involve multiple jurisdictions and be subject to federal and state requirements. The Commissioners discussed how well a volunteer panel would be able to deal with technical issues or whether the best way to address the risk in a timely manner would be to seek professional advice. They generally agreed that the City and the Lake Corporation should work together to find the best legal, political, engineering and jurisdictional solution. Commissioner Groznik moved to recommend that the City Council work with the Lake Corporation, Foothills area property owners and other affected property owners to identify means to save the City from a flood. Commissioner Webster seconded the motion and it passed with Chair Vizzini and Commissioners Groznik, Johnson, Sandblast, Stayer, Waring and Webster voting yes. There were no votes against. Chair Vizzini announced a five-minute break in the proceedings and then reconvened the meeting. ============================================================== City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 2 of 7 Minutes of January 13, 2003 Work Session on Proposed Ordinance 2333/File LU 02-0018: Residential Infill Development An amendment to portions of the Community Development Code, Chapter 50 to: A. Add new regulations in the R-15, R-10, R-7.5, R-6 and R-5 zones affecting single- family detached development regarding floor area, front setback plane, maximum side yard wall plane and garage setbacks, size and location. B. Revise regulations in the R-15, R-10, R-7.5, R-6 and R-5 zones affecting single- family detached development regarding setbacks, size and location C. Amend methodology for measuring height in all city zones from the mid-point of the roof to the peak of the roof. D. Add a new, optional design review process for review of single-family structures in R-15, R-10, R-7.5, R-6 and R-5 that do not meet the clear and objective standards outlined in A and B above. E. Add clear and objective standards for exceptions to meeting development standards for single-family detached dwellings. Staff Coordinator is Jane Heisler, Project Planner. Chair Vizzini recalled that the purpose of the work session was to prepare the draft ordinance for the next public hearing when the Commission would invite public testimony. Jane Heisler, Project Planner, presented the staff report. The report addressed questions that had been posed at the previous hearing. She observed that the Infill Development Ad Hoc Task Force Charge Statement asked them to examine infill in specific neighborhoods, but then recommend strategies that could be applied citywide. She recalled that the Task Force had recognized that certain issues were neighborhood specific and should be addressed by individual neighborhoods. Mr. Boone pointed out that different neighborhoods and different design districts had adopted their own standards. The staff reported that since the previous hearing they had met and discussed Brad Beals’ concern that some changes to setbacks that the Task Force had discussed had been left out of the draft ordinance. The Commissioners agreed to set a date subsequent to adoption of the ordinance to review of the results of the new standards. Remodeling Projects The Commissioners then discussed the applicability of the proposed standards to remodeling projects. Ms. Heisler advised that currently two sets of standards were applied to remodeling projects and new construction. She reported that the staff recommended that the new standards be applied to all development. Mr. Boone explained that minor variances were currently permitted as Class 1 Variances and he also observed the draft ordinance proposed to offer a discretionary review process to a developer. The staff clarified that although the Code did not contain a definition of “remodeling,” it did define “new construction” as that which was more than a specified percentage of increase in height or footprint. Mr. Egner explained that if an owner proposed to add a new kitchen to a nonconforming structure (where part of the building City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 3 of 7 Minutes of January 13, 2003 was within a setback), but the kitchen area would meet the setback requirements, the City would not require the older portion of the structure to meet the setbacks. Planned Development Ms. Heisler advised that the draft ordinance applied the new standards to new or modified Planned Developments (PDs), but existing PDs would still be subject to the standards in place at the time they were approved. She pointed out that the proposed ordinance allowed the Development Review Commission (DRC) to grant exceptions to the front setback plane, garage placement, maximum side yard plane and Floor Area Ratio (FAR), if the exception would enhance compatibility with the surrounding area and break the buildings into smaller parts. Mr. Boone clarified that LODS 50.20.020 locked in setback, height and lot coverage standards for one year from approval of a subdivision, but not for partitions. He said that a partition was subject to the standards in effect at the time of the application for a building permit. He clarified that a flag lot was subject to the height limit that was determined at the time of lot creation. He pointed out that the staff had suggested options for determining flag lot height on page 7 of the staff report. Mr. Egner advised that a subdivision was subject to the maximum height allowed by its zone. Nonconforming Use/Partition Housekeeping Ordinance (2338) The staff advised that they were preparing a “housekeeping” ordinance that would allow a specified percentage exemption to the standards during a partition action that would otherwise result in a noncomplying (illegal) structure. Mr. Boone advised that “nonconforming” was not the correct term to describe a future structure that would be constructed on the partitioned lot because it referred to a legally complying structure that was rendered illegal by a subsequent adopted amendment. Ms. Heisler recalled testimony that the proposed lot coverage and FAR limits to be applied to infill development would adversely impact development of new assisted living facilities. She said the staff recommended new language that lot coverage and FAR for Conditional Uses were to be established during the Conditional Use review process. While some Commissioners indicated they desired definitive standards for assisted living facilities that would provide some certainty to the applicant, others observed that the staff- suggested language would offer an applicant more flexibility to work with the DRC. Accessory Structures Ms. Heisler pointed out the draft suggested options for determining the allowable square footage and height of an accessory structure according to its relationship with the primary structure and according to the relationship between the size of the lot to the zone’s minimum lot size requirement or some specified lot size. She recalled previous testimony by the owner of a multi-acre parcel who desired to construct a barn down slope from his one-story house. Commissioner Johnson recalled a situation where a large accessory building offended the neighbors. The Commissioners discussed whether the ordinance should attempt to allow a large variety of exceptions, or rely on variance procedures. They generally agreed not to change draft language related to accessory structures before the public hearing. Mr. Boone confirmed that the Class 1 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 4 of 7 Minutes of January 13, 2003 Variance might be used to adjust the relative height of an accessory structure. Ms. Heisler noted the draft ordnance allowed exceptions in certain situations where the proposed exception was compatible with the neighborhood and those exceptions would allow up to six additional feet of height for up to 20% of the roof structure. The staff recommended a different allowance for lot coverage and accessory structures on lots over and under 10,000 sq ft. They clarified that the FAR calculation only considered habitable square footage. They provided an example of an R-6 lot in First Addition Neighbors (FAN) that featured a 600 sq. ft. accessory structure. They explained that 200 sq. ft. of the accessory structure would be exempt from the lot coverage calculation. On larger lots the exemption would be 400 sq. ft. Chair Vizzini suggested that the staff solicit comments related to accessory structures from FAN. Application to Duplexes and Single-Family Attached Dwellings The staff confirmed that the Planning Commission could either expand the scope of the ordinance to duplexes and single-family attached dwellings after appropriate public notice, or that the Commission could discuss such an expansion in a separate proposal after the infill standards were adopted. Applicability to Water Front Properties The staff recommended that the new standards be applied to lakefront properties until lakefront-zoning issues were addressed. They reported that the City and the Lake Corporation had begun a joint project to examine lakefront zoning and Ron Kellett, University of Oregon Neighborhood Lab, was to provide an assessment of existing conditions there and then help the partnership explore concepts and strategies to address lakefront issues. They acknowledged that a citywide approach to garage location might not work as well on many lakefront lots. Alternative Review Process The staff indicated that they could not predict how often the alternative development review process would be utilized or its impact on staffing resources. Flag Lot Height Ms. Heisler advised that the allowable height on a flag lot was currently determined as an average of the heights of existing development on abutting properties and 16 feet for each abutting vacant lot. She noted that the flag lot ordinance had been very controversial since it was adopted. She recalled the regulations were intended to protect a neighborhood from excessive height. She presented illustrations showing other methods that could be used to determine allowable flag lot height. The Commissioners agreed to average the calculated height as described in Option 4 with the maximum zone height. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 5 of 7 Minutes of January 13, 2003 Effect of New Height Definition on Sloped Lots Ms. Heisler related that the proposed methodology of measuring height was to the roof peak and the maximum allowable height on sloped lots was 35 feet. She pointed out that the proposed height exceptions could allow a portion of the volume of a house on a sloped lot to be raised an additional six feet. Mr. Boone explained that the Code already defined “sloped lot” as a lot where the highest natural or unaltered ground surface at the exterior wall of a building or proposed building is more than 10 feet above the lowest natural or unaltered ground surface at the time of building permit application. The Commissioners considered the situation of a house on a slope. The staff confirmed that if the house were on a flat portion of the lot it would not technically be on a sloped lot. They also explained that maximum height was measured from any point along the grade around the house along a vertical distance above the reference point to the coping of a flat roof, the deck line of a mansard roof or the averaged height of a gable, pitched or hip roof. The staff agreed to present examples of height measurement at the public hearing. Garages The Commissioners then discussed whether the 5-foot garage setback or a requirement to recess garage openings were necessary or whether some types of design details would serve to minimize the appearance of mass of a garage. They also heard a suggestion that wider garages be allowed on wider lots and that the recess be 2 feet (or large enough for a garbage can) instead of 5 feet. They recalled testimony by a property owner who wanted to enlarge his garage that the proposed requirement to set the garage back 5 feet would significantly increase his cost of remodeling. Commissioner Groznik observed that if the garage had to be moved backward, that would mean the owner would have to relocate expensive heating and plumbing equipment typically located at the rear of a garage. The Commissioners considered whether specifications for door and window design, intended to break up the flush façade of a garage and house, would be excessive regulation. They considered making the ordinance more flexible by allowing the owner to either bring the house portion of the façade closer to the street, setting the garage back, or using design details to break up a flush house/garage façade. They agreed to keep two options in the draft: 3) to eliminate the garage setback; and 5) to allow a larger percentage of the façade for garages on wider lots. They agreed that they wanted to move the process ahead in a timely manner and they observed that Task Force members could comment on the draft at the next hearing. The Commissioners recalled testimony by a resident of the Blue Heron Neighborhood that the exception related to garages set back at least 60 feet should not apply there because narrow pavement on a wide right-of-way provided additional separation. Exceptions to Site Development Standards The Commissioners examined a table that provided exceptions to the standards for additional voluntary setbacks based on lot size. They examined an illustration showing how the massive side yard plane of an existing house could be broken up by changes in plane. They agreed that there should be a cap on exceptions allowed on large lots. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 6 of 7 Minutes of January 13, 2003 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 7 of 7 Minutes of January 13, 2003 They also agreed not to change the language in the draft that provided for a 10% allowance. They agreed with the staff recommendation to cap the increase in height allowed for every additional 5 feet of setback to 5 feet. The Commissioners observed that neighborhoods might consider subdivisions to be infill development. They planned to discuss whether the proposed infill standards should be applied to subdivisions at the next hearing. VI. PUBLIC HEARING Chair Vizzini opened the public hearing on Proposed Ordinance 2333/LU 02-0018, Residential Infill Development. Commissioner Waring moved to continue LU 02-0018 to February 10, 2003. Commissioner Groznik seconded the motion and it passed with Chair Vizzini and Commissioners Groznik, Johnson, Sandblast, Stayer, Waring and Webster voting yes. There were no votes against. VII. OTHER BUSINESS Election of Vice Chair Commissioner Waring nominated Frank Groznik to serve as Vice Chair of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Webster seconded the nomination and it was approved with Chair Vizzini and Commissioners Groznik, Johnson, Sandblast, Stayer, Waring and Webster voting yes. There were no votes against. Planning Commission Draft Goals Chair Vizzini reported that the City Council had reviewed Planning Commission draft Goals and the large size of their work program and suggested that some work items be directed to other boards. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business, Chair Vizzini adjourned the meeting at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Iris Treinen Senior Secretary