Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2003-09-08 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2003 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair James Johnson called the Planning Commission meeting of September 8, 2003 to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 380 A Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Commission members present were Chair James Johnson, Vice Chair Frank Groznik, and Commissioners Mary Beth Coffey, Kenneth Sandblast, Mark Stayer*, Daniel Vizzini and Alison Webster. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Nadine Smith, Consulting 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 Staff confirmed that the August 11, 2003 minutes would be available for consideration at the next regular Planning Commission meeting on September 22, 2003. V. GENERAL PLANNING – WORK SESSION Sloped Lots (P 03-0006) Staff coordinator is Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager. Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager, and Nadine Smith, Consulting Planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Egner explained that the height of a structure on a sloped lot was currently not allowed to exceed 35 feet at any point along the slope. He explained the height of the structure was measured from the grade along a plumb line. He recalled that allowable height on a flat lot varied from zone to zone. He recalled hearing public concern that the sloped lot height limitation created a problem because it limited the size of the main floor level of a house for residents who found it a City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 1 of 5 Minutes of September 8, 2003 challenge to climb stairs. He pointed out that the staff report discussed several alternatives that would relax the height limit, or change the way height was measured on a sloped lot, or allow a minimum guaranteed floor area. Mr. Egner reported that the City of Seattle, Washington code allowed a one-foot increase in height for every 6% slope - up to a limit of five feet - and then capped allowable height at street level. He showed illustrations of the impact of the steepness of a slope. If a 65-foot-deep main floor were placed on a steep slope, the downslope wall would be higher than if the same floor was placed on a lesser slope. He discussed measurement methodology. He related that Tillamook County limited height on sloped lots to an average height of 35 feet, resulting in structures that might have sections that were higher or lower than 35 feet. He suggested that the City could allow a “minimum guaranteed floor area” exception to the standards – with an absolute maximum height cap - to ensure an adequately sized main floor on a sloped lot. Mr. Egner observed that when lot coverage and FAR limits were applied with the 35 foot height limit, a 65 foot deep, flat-roofed house could fit on a 15% to 30% slope, but not on 45% to 60% slopes. He suggested the Commissioners consider what the reasonable absolute height limit should be if they recommended a minimum guaranteed floor area provision. Mr. Egner asked how the height of houses with cantilevered designs should be measured. He explained that the cantilevered portion of the structure was currently measured in the same way as the rest of the structure. He noted that the staff report suggested an option to exempt the cantilevered portion – or a specific length extension of it - from the height measurement requirement, and measure the height of the structure back at the main wall. He acknowledged such a standard could be complicated to administer. Mr. Egner suggested the Commissioners consider how different designs impacted downhill neighbors. He observed that Oceanside, Oregon houses featured decks and porches to break up downslope planes and he suggested that a higher level of buffering vegetation could be required to hide the mass of an upslope wall that was within view of downslope neighbors. He asked them to consider situations, such as where a structure towered over an area such as a canyon or lake and did not significantly impact other neighbors because of the distance between houses. Ms. Smith reported that Tillamook County planners found the height averaging provision easy to administer, the standards allowed flexibility of design, and it had eliminated requests for variances to height. Chair Johnson recalled that when the Columbia Gorge Commission considered how to limit impacts to “key viewing areas” (areas that provided public views of the Gorge) they found that distance was a mitigating factor. The Commissioners generally indicated they were interested in hearing the public comments about the alternatives. They asked the staff to estimate the percentage or number of properties on the steepest slopes that might be impacted by a change in standards, or if the number of affected properties was small enough that variances could provide relief for homeowners. The City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 2 of 5 Minutes of September 8, 2003 staff clarified that sometimes it was the depth of the house itself that determined whether the lot was defined as a “sloped lot” or not. They also clarified for the Commissioners that the pitched roof requirement no longer applied to any area of the City except within the boundaries of First Addition Neighbors (FAN) neighborhood association and that the Infill Standards allowed an exception to the height limit of up to 20% for certain features, such as dormers. Commissioner Vizzini suggested that the width of the downhill side of a structure could offend downhill neighbors and should be limited. The Commissioners drew and examined a diagram of a cantilevered structure and considered if such a design warranted mitigation. The staff suggested the extent of the need for mitigation might depend on its distance from the view of others. The Commissioners indicated they desired to hear how a change in sloped lot height limitations would affect the recently adopted Infill Standards. They wondered if the Infill Standard that limited the size of unbroken side yard planes should also be applied to the rear yard (downslope) plane. The Commissioners discussed whether land owners should be allowed as much flexibility of design as possible, or whether that flexibility of design would result in a reduction of the value of the downslope property. They heard that views from a public park or trail should be protected. They heard comments that any new standards should be made easy to understand and apply; but that “simpler” standards might result in subjective decisions, while “clear cut” requirements were often based on a (more complicated) formula. They heard a suggestion to allow “trade offs,” where the height limit could be increased in return for larger setbacks or additional screening and mitigation. They anticipated that the number of affected lots could be estimated by counting those in areas such as Mountain Park, where slopes were very steep. They anticipated any new standards would eventually apply to steep slopes in the Stafford area. They indicated that an estimate of potentially affected lots would help them estimate the consequences of using the height averaging methodology. Chair Johnson then invited public comments. Public Comment Duncan Whitfield, 21 Nansen Summit, Lake Oswego, 97035, opined that the citizens of Lake Oswego would not want to see buildings such as those shown in the photographs on pages 4 and 5 of the staff report. He related that he owned a lot on a 45-degree slope and he wanted to build a house on it that he could enter from street level. He said he could agree to limit height at street level, which he considered “crucial height,” but the limit should be more than the current regulations allowed. He said he agreed with a suggestion he recalled hearing at some previous meeting to remove the height limit as long as the main floor was at or less than 1,500 sq. ft. He opined that would allow a reasonably sized main floor. He agreed the downslope elevation should not present a blank wall, but should be broken up by different planes or columns holding up decks. He concluded that the regulations should allow sufficient height at street level to accommodate one floor and a shallow roof and allow an amount City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 3 of 5 Minutes of September 8, 2003 of the main floor or a percentage (perhaps 25%) of the lot area to be free of a height restriction. The Commissioners suggested that the staff provide illustrations showing how the alternatives would work on very steep slopes and how new standards could tie into existing Infill Standards. Mr. Egner anticipated that when consultant Ron Kellett met with the Planning Commission in October to present lakefront issues, he would discuss the issue of height on sloped lots. When the Commissioners asked the staff if the City should guarantee lot owners a minimum floor area, Mr. Boone advised that the minimum guaranteed floor area might be determined through the variance process, which looked at reasonable use of like properties, or the City could define what a functional minimum was. Chair Johnson directed the staff to include an invitation to the public to present other alternatives for determining allowable height on sloped lots in the notice of the next Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Egner anticipated the staff would contact neighborhood chairs, the Lake Corporation, the Chamber of Commerce and local Realtors to hear their suggestions. VI. OTHER BUSINESS Oregon Planning Institute The staff announced that the Oregon Planning Institute had scheduled its annual Planning Commission training workshop on October 4, 2003 in Springfield, Oregon. The Commissioners asked the staff to look into the possibility of scheduling a local training session for attendees from Lake Oswego and surrounding jurisdictions. Other Training The staff suggested a field trip that would allow the Planning Commissioners and the Lake Grove Town Center Planning Committee to visit smart development projects. The Commissioners suggested the staff look for projects that featured mixed use and shared parking and visits that would allow the Lake Grove representatives to talk with other business owners in redeveloped areas. The Commission agreed that October 18, 2003 would be a good date for the field trip. City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting Mr. Egner reported the agenda for the upcoming joint meeting with the City Council provided for discussions of the Lake Grove Town Center, the EC Zone, and Outlook 2025. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 4 of 5 Minutes of September 8, 2003 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 5 of 5 Minutes of September 8, 2003 Lake Grove Town Center Plan Advisory Committee The staff related that all affected groups had submitted names to the City Council of individuals they wanted to represent them on the Lake Grove Town Center Plan Advisory Committee. Bridgeport Settlement Mr. Egner reported that the City had negotiated an agreement with the City of Tualatin and the developer of the Bridgeport Development in which the other parties had agreed to provide $300,000 for Lake Grove roadway improvements if the City of Lake Oswego did not pursue an appeal that would interfere with that development. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business before the Planning Commission, Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 7:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Iris Treinen Senior Secretary