Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2011-08-08City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2011 Page 1 of 6 bt CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2011 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Jon Gustafson called the Planning Commission meeting of August 8, 2011, to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 380 “A” Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. 2. ROLL CALL Members present were Chair Jon Gustafson and Commissioners Bill Gaar (arrived at 6:38 p.m.), Jim Johnson, Russell Jones and Todd Prager. Vice Chair Puja Bhutani and Commissioner Julia Glisson were excused. Council Liaison Jeff Gudman was also present. Staff present were Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Denise Frisbee, Director, Planning and Building Services Department; Andy Gulizia, Associate Planner; Sidaro Sin, Senior Planner; Laura Weigel, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Support. 3. COUNCIL UPDATE Denise Frisbee, Planning and Building Services Department Director reported that the Council was not meeting in August and meanwhile staff was in the process of providing answers to Council and citizen questions regarding the proposed “policy light” code amendments. She explained staff was refining the draft reorganized Community Development Code (CDC); the design handbooks for infill and the Lake Grove Village Center Plan, neighborhood grants, as well as working with Economic Development on a Parking strategy for downtown. She said staff was fashioning the scope of work for a part-time contract watershed education coordinator and that the Request for Proposal (RFP) for consulting services related to the Lake Grove Village Center financing strategy had been distributed. Ms. Frisbee said the Parks and Recreation department would likely move general parks system planning ahead and postpone Luscher Farm master planning. In answer to a question from the Commission, Ms. Frisbee explained that staff was studying parking in response to downtown businesses’ concern about adequate parking and had found there was plenty of parking available. She said as a result, the focus was going to be on parking management and improvement of the parking code requirements. 4. CITIZEN COMMENT None. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2011 Page 2 of 6 5. WORK SESSIONS 5.1 Community Development Code – Amendments to Definition of Minor Public Facilities (LU 11-0018) Associate Planner Andy Gulizia and Lake Oswego/Tigard Water Partnership planner Eric Day reviewed the staff memorandum. They explained that the pipeline project was to be routed through one zone where it was not an allowed use. They clarified that the zone allowed minor public facilities, but the definition, “Public facilities, minor,” included pipes and lines and specifically excluded “trunk lines.” They indicated that if the water pipeline was determined to be a “trunk line” it would not be allowed. Staff proposed to resolve the issue by removing the reference to “trunk lines” from the definition which would result in utility lines being minor public facilities permitted outright in each of the City’s zoning districts. Staff believed it made sense to make them permitted uses instead of conditional uses because a buried pipeline would only have temporary, not permanent impacts. They clarified that review would still be required if it passed through sensitive lands. During the ensuing discussion the Commissioners wondered if the code should distinguish between types of utilities, that a gas pipeline might raise more safety concerns than a waterline. They talked about distinguishing between lines that were above and below ground. Commissioner Johnson cautioned that it could be problematic to make pipelines permitted uses; that they should be conditional uses subject to some kind of specific criteria. His experience was that people were very emotional about pipelines going through their area. He disagreed that the lines would have temporary impacts and held that the utility easements had permanent impacts, such as influencing the future land use pattern in the area. However, he agreed that service lines to individual houses should be permitted outright. Staff clarified that the proposed code change would create new exemptions for utilities like NW Natural and Comcast. Commissioner Jones was concerned about that. Staff related they had looked for past cases that defined “laterals” versus “trunk lines” and only found one case in 1998 in which a large diameter sewer line was permitted to go through George Rogers Park as a minor public facility. Staff explained that it had been approved in a development review - not conditional use review - because the line went through sensitive lands. They clarified that the segments of the new water pipeline that were in the public right-of-way and not in sensitive lands would not trigger a review under current code. They indicated that the Waterfront Cabana (WR) zone did not allow a pipeline at all because it did not list major public facilities as a use so the pipeline could not continue under private property in that zone. Staff clarified that the proposed code change would allow the pipeline there without a review, however, the project still had to negotiate easements with affected property owners. Commissioner Johnson was concerned the City would be able to use eminent domain to steamroll over a property owner who would not negotiate, or that the project could adversely impact surrounding property owners even if the subject property owner agreed. He held there should be a process that applied some kind of criteria to protect them. Mr. Day related his experience was that cities generally allowed pipelines in the right-of-way as permitted uses but applied sensitive lands type criteria and minimization/mitigation requirements in sensitive areas. He noted the line through Lake Oswego would go through quite a few sensitive lands areas which would require review. Staff suggested an alternative way to address the problem was to add “major public facilities” as a conditional use in the WR zone, although it might be difficult to determine what it was about an underground pipeline that was to be reviewed and mitigated. They City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2011 Page 3 of 6 confirmed that if the code was not changed the pipeline would have to be rerouted. Staff explained that the current route passed through the WR zone at about 60 to 70 feet underground and did not come to the surface within that zone, however, staff acknowledged that landowners’ rights extended into the ground. Mr. Day agreed that the presence of an infrastructure easement could affect future land use patterns in a rural area, but he pointed out the City was generally built out. Commissioner Johnson advised that not every pipeline should be a permitted use and that an easement restriction could impact what could be done on adjacent properties as well as the private property it was on. He said maintenance was a factor to be considered and that maintenance of sewer or water lines was different than gas lines. He suggested the code distinguish between pipelines that were inside or outside of the right-of-way. Staff said they would continue to look at how to approach the issue and then return to the Commission in September for the hearing. Chair Gustafson reasoned that the Commission could make a change to the WR zone and the other zones that don’t allow major public facilities to ensure the same outcome without changing the definition. Commissioner Johnson advised the City should be subject to the same process as all other entities and the conditional use process would require criteria and allow public input. He would exempt a line that ran within a public right-of-way and service lines from the main line to houses, but major lines should be subject to some kind of compatibility review, especially in residential areas. Commissioner Gaar suggested automatically permitting pipelines for specified uses that did not raise safety or other issues. 5.2 Comprehensive Plan Update (PP 10-0007) – Review Comprehensive Plan Update Process, Fall 2011-Spring 2013 Schedule and Action Areas and Products Senior Planner Sidaro Sin and Associate Planner Laura Weigel reviewed the staff report. They reported the Council supported the draft vision statement and the hybrid growth scenario that the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) recommended. They said the next phase of the process would examine Comprehensive Plan goals and policies and that the first community summit was scheduled in October. Staff explained that this phase was to be completed in March 2013 and that the Action Areas Summit Schedule had been reordered and would start with Community Culture. They clarified that Healthy Ecosystems would be examined last in order to allow the new natural resources planner to contribute to the process. Staff reported that the existing Comprehensive Plan would be reformatted to make it more user-friendly and there was to be an implementation plan that would be reviewed annually. Staff indicated they would provide the CAC with the Planning Commission comments when the CAC met on August 24. During the questioning period, Mr. Sin clarified that the Council would review Commission recommendations related to each action area and approve each via resolution. He explained that since each action area had to be consistent with the others, the Council was to adopt the complete package in spring 2013. He said the goals and action items would be detailed enough to allow the City to assess its progress on an annual basis and they would be presented in matrix format. He confirmed the Comprehensive Plan and Capital Improvement Plan would be coordinated in some way. Staff explained they had added some CAC and Planning Commission meetings to the schedule in case those meetings were needed. Ms. Weigel announced a “We Love Lake Oswego” poetry contest and a September 18 community bike ride. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2011 Page 4 of 6 6. PUBLIC HEARING 6.1 LU 08-0054 (Ordinance 2526) – Community Development Code – Policy related Housekeeping Amendments. Amendments to the Community Development Code (Chapter 50) for the purpose of clarifying and updating various code provisions. These provisions have been identified as having policy implications. Continued from July 11, 2011. Continued discussion of the Definitions section and amendments pertaining to accessory structures. Ms. Andreades recalled the Commissioners had decided to deal with secondary dwelling units in a separate process. Definition: Lot Coverage The Commissioners examined the eight listed exclusions from the lot coverage calculation. In response to a Commissioner’s question why “boat houses” were listed as exempt from lot coverage, staff explained that “boat houses” were already exempt under the current code and the rest of the list consisted of items they had had issues with in practice. Staff clarified that applicants currently used Residential Infill Development (RID) approval or a Class 1 variance to exceed lot coverage. They clarified that temporary structures (not affixed to the ground) such as BBQs, swing sets and trampolines were not counted, but if a BBQ was affixed to the ground it would be counted as an accessory structure. Staff confirmed that a vent shaft was currently exempt from lot coverage because it was not useable space. Commissioner Gaar suggested adding language to give staff more flexibility in administering the code. He would refer to the list as “historical examples,” or specify that the listed items and “other similar structures” would also qualify as exempt from lot coverage calculations. Commissioner Johnson noted that “boat house” was inconsistent with the other items on the list. The Commissioners briefly discussed the status of lake zoning. Staff recalled the Council had not directed the Commission to work on a lake zone. Mr. Boone advised the Commission could propose it as a goal for next year. Chair Gustafson and Commissioner Johnson commented that if the listed exceptions were important to staff they should remain in the draft. Commissioner Johnson advised that if some other item came up a lot it should be added to the list and not left to the variance process. Chair Gustafson observed a consensus to direct staff to add “other similar structures.” Mr. Boone noted that lot coverage applied only to permanent structures. Staff explained that the proposed amendment also excluded the portion of a lot that was below the lake water level (except in the WR zone). They clarified this was to avoid having a house that looked too large for the “dry land” portion of the lot (the Parker house application had raised the issue). Commissioner Johnson stated he had seen that happen a lot in the Columbia Gorge. He explained the issue was similar to the infill issue of big houses on small lots: the perception of scale and mass that was out of character with the neighborhood when big houses were built on small lots. Chair Gustafson commented it would be unfair to penalize an owner because part of the property was under water. He recalled a modest lakefront house owner who could not put on a relatively small addition due to lot coverage issues even though his home was surrounded by massive houses. Chair Gustafson cautioned that shrinking allowable lot coverage encouraged higher structures. He anticipated an owner might ask the Lake Oswego Corporation for permission to fill the submerged area. The Commissioners wanted to know if a house could be built out over the water. Mr. Boone stated that to his City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2011 Page 5 of 6 knowledge, the ability to fill in the lake was somewhat unique to the Parker house due to lake restrictions, but not zoning/flood plain restrictions. Commissioner Gaar wanted to know how big a problem having a big house on a small, un-submerged portion of a larger, partially submerged property was. Staff responded it would require a GIS analysis of lots around the lake to find out what the potential extent of the problem was and that if there were only a few, the owners could apply for a variance instead. Commissioner Gaar observed that the variance process had a cost. Chair Gustafson indicated he did not favor the proposed amendment. Commissioner Johnson said that although he did not favor it, if other Commissioners felt strongly about approving the proposed amendment, he would not object. Commissioner Prager held if people were allowed to build over the lake anyway, the submerged part should be counted in lot coverage. Mr. Boone offered to report back to the Commissioners about that before they made a decision regarding the amendment. Commissioner Jones planned to wait to find out if owners could fill and utilize their entire lot. Chair Gustafson posed the question: if the code treated owners of private property that happened to be covered by water as if they did not own that land and it did not count towards lot coverage should all the development standards only apply to the part of the lot above the water? He also questioned whether the rear setback should be allowed to be under water. Mr. Boone advised the purpose of the rear yard was to provide visual space between the owner’s property and the adjacent neighbor. He indicated that the RID process had granted exceptions when there was no rear neighbor. Chair Gustafson observed a consensus to continue discussion of this amendment after the Commissioners heard Mr. Boone’s report. Graphic in Appendix 50.04.005-D Definitions – Lot Coverage Staff proposed to remove this unhelpful graphic and the Commissioners did not question that. Definition: Lot Depth Staff proposed to strike this definition. The majority of Commissioners supported the proposed change, but Commissioner Jones had concerns and Commissioner Prager was opposed to doing so until he could fully understand the implications. During the discussion staff clarified the problem was that an applicant could contort a lot to meet the lot depth standard (Buley example) and the result could be an odd-looking lot. Ms. Andreades indicated that some jurisdictions addressed the issue by drawing a circle and requiring a certain amount of buildable area within that circle. She indicated that staff had spent a lot of time working with some applicants to find a way to configure lot boundaries that would meet the technical requirements of the current lot depth definition, but which probably did not meet the intent of the definition. She clarified that lot depth was measured between midpoints of the boundaries, which could be a strange angle. Staff asked that the Commissioners decide if the goal was lots that met the definition or to have better results, that there were many irregular lots in the City. When asked why the code could not eliminate lot depth and lot width requirements and rely on setbacks, staff recalled some neighborhoods wanted lot width at the street to be consistent with the rest of the street. When asked if infill standards were intended to ensure that backyards generally lined up, staff clarified that infill only did that for flag lots. Commissioner Johnson acknowledged he could not think of a situation where not having minimum lot depth would be a problem. Chair Gustafson thought the combination of all the other standards would prevent a lot that was too shallow and that the proposed City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2011 Page 6 of 6 amendment would help avoid having strangely shaped lots. Commissioner Jones observed that First Addition Neighbors/Forest Hills Neighborhood Association (FAN) applied minimum depth and width standards to lots. Staff advised the problem did not come up much in FAN where the lotting pattern was a grid. Commissioner Prager explained his main goal was to assure compatibility with the neighborhood, and withdrew his objection. Definition: Net Developable Acre The Commissioners generally agreed to this definition. Mr. Boone clarified that public open space easements were proposed to be excluded from the Net Developable Acre calculation because they were no longer considered part of the site. Commissioner Prager suggested adding “vehicular” to “except that an area of a vehicular access easements….” The Commissioners raised no concerns about the rest of the definitions. Commissioner Johnson moved to continue Ordinance 2526, LU 08-0054 to September 26, 2011. Commissioner Gaar seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. 7. OTHER BUSINESS – PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioner Johnson clarified that he had met with the Mayor and the Parks and Recreation Director as a representative of the Oregon Department of Agriculture to discuss the agricultural capabilities of the Luscher Farm property. His opinion was the property was large enough to deserve the same status as and be processed like a neighborhood plan. 8. OTHER BUSINESS – COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT None. 9. SCHEDULE REVIEW The Commissioners reviewed the rolling agenda. Chair Gustafson asked staff to brief the Commissioners on changes the Council had made to the Commission’s Industrial Park zone recommendation. Ms. Andreades explained that she had divided LU 08-0054 into sections and planned to circulate the document so Commissioners could decide how to schedule them. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Chair Gustafson adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Iris McCaleb /s/ Iris McCaleb Administrative Support