Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2011-07-11City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of July 11, 2011 Page 1 of 5 t CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 2011 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Jon Gustafson called the Planning Commission meeting of July 11, 2011, to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Santiam Room of the West End Building, 4101 Kruse Way, Lake Oswego, Oregon. 2. ROLL CALL Members present were Chair Jon Gustafson, Vice Chair Puja Bhutani and Commissioners Bill Gaar, Julia Glisson, Todd Prager and Russell Jones. Commissioner Jim Johnson was excused. Staff present were Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Hamid Pishvaie, Assistant Planning Director; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Support. 3. CITIZEN COMMENT None. 4. WORK SESSION General Discussion of Issues Related to Accessory Structures (LU 08-0054) Debra Andreades reviewed her supplemental staff report which talked about regulating accessory structures in terms of use versus form. She indicated that the first round of Infill amendments (2003) had fashioned code that allowed people to trade lower height for larger lot coverage and it gave homeowners flexibility to break up the mass on site, including accessory structures. Ms. Andreades asked the Commissioners to consider how accessory structures should be regulated; according to “use” or “form”. She explained that a use could be connected with an activity level such as a secondary dwelling unit that might be used at all hours of the day and night, an office use that might be more active during working hours and garage activity that was mostly when people were coming and going. Commissioners Jones and Glisson suggested that accessory structures with office and secondary dwelling unit use should be required to have the same setbacks as the primary structure because the activity generated noise and impacted neighbors’ privacy. Commissioner Jones suggested that if the structure was not used for habitable quarters it could be closer to the property line and that if someone wanted to convert a shed to habitable quarters, a review City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of July 11, 2011 Page 2 of 5 and variance could be required. Chair Gustafson observed that workshops could also have a higher activity level. Mr. Pishvaie clarified for Commissioner Bhutani how the current code addressed home occupation; that many of the standards were clear and objective (no outside employees; no more than 25% of the dwelling; no outdoor storage) and it also contained a regulation that the use could not impact the residential character of the neighborhood. He explained that use was limited to no more than 10 trips per day and planning staff told permit holders they would reassess the situation if neighbors complained. The Commissioners were concerned about someone adding a secondary dwelling unit onto an existing detached garage that was only 3 feet from the rear lot line. Staff clarified that although an accessory structure was allowed to be very close to the property line, additional limits applied to a secondary dwelling unit. Mr. Pishvaie clarified that the code differentiated between a secondary dwelling unit and a guest house; that a guest house was subject to a size and height limit and it could not have a kitchen. He added that accessory structures could also be offices, studios, storage facilities and garages. Staff clarified that accessory structures were permitted in all zones except the Waterfront Cabana (WR) Zone. Chair Gustafson said he leaned toward form-based code that would allow people to convert a shed or garage to living space, however, additional, tighter, standards might be necessary. He indicated there would be two households on one lot and one of them might be too close to the property line. When asked, Ms. Andreades confirmed they had processed quite a few variances to allow garage conversions to be closer to the property line than the code allowed. Commissioner Glisson observed that seemed to be the trend along Lakeview Boulevard. Mr. Boone suggested making a distinction between habitable and non-habitable accessory structures. This would address both residential and office use and that if a Class 1 variance were necessary to allow a secondary dwelling unit it would not be granted if it would have a material impact on a neighbor. The Commissioners discussed whether the issues related to secondary dwelling units should be addressed in the same set of standards as those for accessory structures or whether it should be called out in a separate set of standards for secondary dwelling units. It was suggested that additional limits be put on a new garage that could potentially be converted to habitable space later on. Commissioner Gaar observed they would have to get plumbing, electrical and occupancy permits and that would address that concern at the time of conversion. Staff observed that the discussion was focused on secondary dwelling units, and advised that it was a Council goal to make it easier to develop a secondary dwelling unit and that the Comprehensive Plan update process was also considering using secondary dwelling units to increase density. They stressed the code amendment they were currently proposing was neutral regarding City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of July 11, 2011 Page 3 of 5 encouraging or restricting secondary dwelling units. The code amendment they were proposing would:  Make the current code easier to enforce by removing the two-person-per-unit limit and applying a 800 sq. ft. limit; and,  Remove a provision that led to the strange circumstance that when a secondary dwelling unit, as a part of a primary non-conforming structure, was allowed to be created within the structure if the unit was in the conforming side of the house, but not if it was in the non-conforming side of the house. Staff explained that this circumstance was not in response to neighbors’ complaints, but arose upon application for a secondary dwelling unit; when applicants questioned the limitation, staff found it hard to explain the rationale. Staff advised that to consider anything more as part of the code amendment would be beyond the scope of the public hearing notice of the code amendment. Staff offered to locate a recommendation for a secondary dwelling unit ordinance that was drafted several years ago. Commissioner Glisson confirmed the Goal 10 Work Group had talked about secondary dwelling units as a means of satisfying the projected housing needs. Commissioner Gaar reported the Comprehensive Plan Update Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) had not discussed the topic yet. He suggested fixing the current code as staff recommended now and addressing secondary dwelling units later, after it was clear what direction periodic review was going. Chair Gustafson observed a consensus to do that. The Commissioners considered a suggestion to take out from the definition of “accessory structures” things like play structures and gazebos, but the Commission did not take them out after staff pointed out the proposed provisions applied setback, height and separation standards to them as well. 5. PUBLIC HEARING LU 08-0054 (Ordinance 2526) – Community Development Code – Policy related Housekeeping Amendments. Amendments (Chapter 50) for the purpose of clarifying and updating various code provisions. These provisions had been identified as having policy implications. Discussion of the definitions section and amendments pertaining to accessory structures. Article 50.02 DEFINITIONS Boat House. The Commission noted that as proposed, boathouses could have cooking facilities but not eating facilities. The Commission indicated that the proposed definition also allowed an inside shower. The Commissioners recalled a guest house could not have a kitchen, but they anticipated boathouse kitchens would be more like informal barbeques under a roof. They agreed cooking could be inside and people should eat outside. Density Transfer Acre/Acreage. Staff clarified for Commissioner Jones that another code section detailed transfer opportunities and addressed properties City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of July 11, 2011 Page 4 of 5 that were mostly encumbered. Chair Gustafson observed the Commissioners accepted this definition. Detached. Staff explained that the definition included a three-foot separation between buildings because the intent was to create the perception of separation so the development did not look like one continuous structure. (Greater floor area is given to detached accessory structures.) The three-foot distance was drawn from the Fire Code. Chair Gustafson advised that a three-foot separation for “detaching” structures would make it a challenge to remodel an existing residence on a treed lot. The Commissioners asked staff to look into allowing breezeways that would still allow the structures to be defined as detached, so people could move between the garage and house under cover. Dwelling Unit, Secondary. Staff clarified that only the order of the words was proposed to be changed – not the meaning. Commissioner Glisson suggested a grammatical edit. Floor Area. Commissioner Jones questioned not including the unfinished space between the ceiling joists and roof rafters because that area might be converted to living space. Staff related that the term, Gross Building Floor Area (GFA) -- which was everything from outside of the outside walls inward -- was proposed as a part of the Industrial Park (IP) Zone overlay amendment the Council was considering adopting. Chair Gustafson observed a consensus to accept Floor Area as proposed. Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Staff explained the proposal to strike “net buildable area” was because FAR excluded areas of lots as unbuildable that in fact could be built on (such as a flood plain, natural resources or steep slope). They said FAR calculations were based on lot size, not net buildable area. They confirmed a developer could get more floor area under the new definition. Chair Gustafson observed the Commissioners accepted the proposed changes. Guest House. The majority of Commissioners did not want to raise the 400 sq. ft. limit to 800 sq. ft., as proposed in the code amendment. Their concern was that 800 sq. ft. was so large people might be tempted to install a kitchenette and have a full time tenant and the result would be the same as a secondary dwelling unit, but without the required secondary dwelling unit parking. The Commission also expressed concern that enforcement was complaint-driven and a neighbor would have to “rat” on the property owner. Staff indicated that their experience was that secondary dwelling units typically came in at 650 sq. ft. to 800 sq. ft. They confirmed that larger, taller, units were subject to larger setbacks. Commissioner Prager questioned whether the square foot limitation should be in the definition. Staff responded that the square footage limitation was a required element of “guest house” and the Commission did not remove the square footage limitation from the definition. Staff agreed the square footage limitation could also be left in Section 50.14. Height of Building. Chair Gustafson questioned why the size of window wells that were not required by the Building Code had to be so small (2’ x 6’) and why City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of July 11, 2011 Page 5 of 5 the percentage of window wells was so small (25%). He indicated that it discouraged people from creating additional living space below grade. Staff explained the case that had sparked this proposed amendment had 60% to 70% window wells. Staff suggested that 40% was in an acceptable range. Commissioner Glisson observed that allowing more window wells would not necessarily mean the owner would not also add an upper story and the resulting perception of height could have an adverse impact on neighborhood character. She agreed to expand the percentage so people could finish an existing basement so they would not have to go up. The Commissioners generally agreed to eliminate the smaller size window, remove the language about the Building Code, and increase the percentage to 40%. Commissioner Glisson moved to continue LU 08-0054 to July 25, 2011 and continue with lot coverage. Commissioner Jones seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. 6. OTHER BUSINESS – PLANNING COMMISSION Election of Chair and Vice Chair Commissioner Jones nominated Jon Gustafson to serve a second term as Chair. Commissioner Glisson seconded the nomination and Chair Gustafson was re-elected by unanimous vote. Commissioner Jones nominated Puja Bhutani to serve as Vice Chair. Commissioner Gaar seconded the nomination and Commissioner Bhutani was elected by unanimous vote. 7. OTHER BUSINESS – COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT None. 8. SCHEDULE REVIEW The next meeting was scheduled for July 25, 2011. 9. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Chair Gustafson adjourned the meeting at 9:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Iris McCaleb /s/ Iris McCaleb Administrative Support