Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2003-11-24 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes November 24, 2003 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair James Johnson called the Planning Commission meeting of November 24, 2003 to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 380 A Avenue Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Commission members present were Chair James Johnson, Vice Chair Frank Groznik and Commissioners Mark Stayer, Daniel Vizzini and Alison Webster. Commissioner Mary Beth Coffey was excused and Commissioner Kenneth Sandblast was absent. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager and Iris Treinen, Senior Secretary. III. CITIZEN COMMENT – Regarding Issues Not On the Agenda None. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. V. GENERAL PLANNING – WORK SESSION Sloped Lots (P 03-0006) – Possible Amendments to Community Development Code The Commissioners continued their discussion of issues related to development on sloped lots that they had identified at their September 8, 2003 meeting. Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager, presented the staff report. He related that he had invited neighborhood chairs and members of the Infill Task Force to comment, but no one had yet responded. He advised that allowable building height ranged from 28 feet (R-5, R-6, and R-7.5) to 35 feet (R-15 and sloped lots). He advised that a “sloped lot” was defined as one where the grade fell at least 10 feet between the front and rear of the building. He said that allowable building height on a sloped lot was currently measured from the grade at all points along the slope. He explained that the standards could result in restrictions on main floor area on very steep lots. He suggested that a solution to this problem might be to relax the height City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 1 of 5 Minutes of November 24, 2003 limit, or guarantee a specific minimum amount of floor area, or exempt cantilevered designs. He suggested that an additional foot of height might be allowed for every 3% of slope over 30%; or height averaging could allow part of a house to be higher than the 35- foot limit, if other parts would be lower. He advised that the City of Seattle related allowable height to the degree of slope and also limited street level height to the height of the building across the street. He pointed out the staff report provided an example of how a guaranteed minimum floor area percentage could result in a very large house on a big lot. He said it might make more sense to guarantee a specific reasonable minimum square footage for the main floor. He suggested another approach to height might be to exempt all or part of a cantilevered portion of the house because that type of design helped to break up the wall. He asked if the City should address appearance by requiring the overhang to be enclosed, or to limit the size of the overhang, or to require porches or decks or vegetation that would break up a wall. He asked if an exception should be allowed for overhangs that were not visible from certain public or private areas or that were in the distance, such as across the lake. Commissioner Vizzini suggested that dormers be allowed to pierce the height limit. Mr. Egner reported that he and Brad Beals had discussed allowable height on moderately sloped properties. He said one solution might be to establish a sliding scale of allowable height that factored in lesser slopes. He recalled that he and Mr. Beals had calculated that on a moderate slope with a 10-foot drop it would be a challenge to build a two-story house under the current regulations without stepping it down. The Commissioners indicated they desired to know how many properties in the City could potentially be impacted by the Infill Ordinance’s limit on height on a sloped lot. They commented that it might be more appropriate to allow an exception to the limit if there would only be a small number of lots to address. The Commissioners and the staff acknowledged that there was potentially annexable land that was sloped and there were view lots in the City where the existing building was to be torn down that might also be affected in the future. Chair Johnson directed the staff to present their suggestions to the Development Review Commission and ask for their comments. Public Comment City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 2 of 5 Minutes of November 24, 2003 Brad Beals, 541 Ninth Street, Lake Oswego, 97034, who had served on the Infill Development Ad Hoc Task Force, reported that many lots in First Addition Neighborhood were on a shallow slope. He gave a specific example of a situation where a small 1.5-story, Cape Cod style house on a 10,200 sq. ft., slightly sloped lot was 22- feet high from the grade on one side and 22.5-feet high from the grade on the other side. He explained that due to the difference in slope the building was considered over 22-feet high and to have passed a threshold in the current regulations (that related allowable lot coverage) that suddenly reduced allowable lot coverage from 40% to 30%. He explained that in the case he cited, only a slight difference in height resulted in a loss of approximately 1,000 sq. ft. of building area. He saw that as a “glitch” in the Code. He suggested that building limits on sloped lots that dropped less than 10 feet should be addressed. He said in the case he cited a slope of 5/8-inch per foot had created the problem and that illustrated how the current relationship between height and lot coverage was not a gradually incremental one, but jumped at a certain threshold. He observed that almost every lot in the R-6 Zone was on some degree of slope and many houses on that slope featured daylight basements. The Commissioners observed that the infill standards were intended to allow lower buildings with more lot coverage and higher buildings with less lot coverage, but the relationship between height and lot coverage became more complex on sloped lots. Mr. Egner reported that the staff planned to create a list of issues related to the Infill Ordinance and present them at a future Planning Commission meeting. Duncan Whitfield, 21 Nansen Summit, Lake Oswego, 97035, observed that most of the land in the City and the land that might eventually come into the City was sloped. He indicated he did not favor the suggestions to allow exceptions for cantilevered structures due to stability, cost and appearance issues. He explained that he wanted to build a 70- foot wide house on a 12,000 sq. ft. lot and maximize the main floor area, but he found it a challenge to accomplish that because the rear wall would exceed the 35-foot height limit. He clarified that he agreed that large walls should be broken up or screened. He said current regulations would not have allowed a large percentage of the houses in Mountain Park to be constructed. He said he desired to construct a house on a slope that would fall 24 feet between the front and rear of the building. He referred to one alternative suggested by the staff and estimated that if he were allowed 70 additional square feet of main floor area per foot of fall of the grade (to which the 35-foot height limit would not apply) he would be able to add 1,680 sq. ft. to what was currently allowed for the main floor. He opined that such an allowance would be fair to builders on shallow or steep slopes because even a slope of six feet would allow them a little bit more room. He explained that his current residence did not appear to be too high from the road - even with a cathedral ceiling - because it featured a shallow roof and the upper story was towards the rear of the house and lot. He clarified that although his lot featured a flat portion at the front, most of that flat area was within the front setback. He said he guessed that under current regulations he could achieve 1,200 to 1,300 sq. ft. of main living area in the new house. Commission Discussion Chair Johnson related that his experience with sloped lots showed that mitigation (such as stepping back the upper story of a house) was an important aspect of compatibility. The Commissioners wanted to know the extent of the problem of height on sloped lots, so they asked the staff to research and estimate how many lots might be affected. They explained that the potential number of affected lots would indicate to them whether an exceptions process would resolve the problem, or if a variance process would be better, or if situations should be addressed in specific sub-areas, like the lakefront, or if the Infill Ordinance should be amended. They directed the staff to solicit DRC comments regarding the issue and to suggest realistic mitigation alternatives that would help reduce City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 3 of 5 Minutes of November 24, 2003 the mass of houses on sloped lots. They suggested offering a flexible “menu” of mitigation methods, similar to the approach to street facing garages in the Infill Ordinance. East End Redevelopment Plan Update (P 03-0008) Continued from November 10, 2003 The Commissioners recalled Bob Galante’s presentation of the East End Redevelopment update at their last meeting. Vice Chair Groznik noted that the Foothills plan would create a third anchor in the downtown to complement the planned anchors at each end of First Street. The Commissioners questioned whether an “anchor” was needed at the north end of First Street near First Addition Neighborhood. They saw a need to better connect the Foothills and East End Redevelopment Plans. It was suggested that the broader vision for downtown should be fashioned first - before specific development details were created. They discussed whether it was appropriate to use scarce retail land for public buildings or whether a civic center could serve as a draw for surrounding retail. The Commissioners saw a need to re-examine the plan for State Street crossings. Mr. Egner reported that ODOT was considering the City’s request to have State Street designated as a Special Transportation Area (STA) where state highway standards could be relaxed. They advised that STA status would make a secondary connection to the Foothills District easier. The Commissioners then discussed whether one or two stories, or as many as five or six stories was the appropriate height of Downtown. It was suggested that a taller skyline helped to define and draw people to an urban town center and could help make Downtown an alternative to NW 23rd Avenue or the Hawthorne District. They recalled that old photographs of State Street showed three-story buildings. Outlook 2025 (P 02-0001) – Prioritization of Issues The Commissioners discussed their joint work session with the City Council. They endeavored to identify and prioritize a few work issues for 2004 and others to be addressed over the longer term. They generally agreed to compare the entire list of issues prepared for the City Council to state criteria in order to determine which issues warranted a comprehensive plan review. Chair Johnson suggested that they use Quality of Life Indicators during the review. The Commissioners acknowledged the need to plan the Stafford area by first settling the issue of which community had responsibility for planning what part of that land. The staff anticipated that Metro, or some other body, might convene a meeting to discuss that. They then agreed to the following list of work projects for 2004: 1. Unfinished business: Neighborhood planning and Lake Grove Town Center 2. Town Center Planning: Discuss Downtown and Foothills planning together. 3. Complete the infill process: Lakefront zoning, sloped lots, duplex attached lots, and housekeeping matters 4. Growth management: Discuss the Stafford area, and annexation policy in general City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 4 of 5 Minutes of November 24, 2003 5. Outlook 2025 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 5 of 5 Minutes of November 24, 2003 Mr. Egner announced the City had received a grant to plan access to the Foothills District and a grant to work on transportation planning along Kruse Way. VI. OTHER BUSINESS Robbie Bruss 13733 SW Knaus Road, Lake Oswego, 97034, a Boy Scout working on his Citizenship in the Community Merit Badge, asked the Commissioners if he could get a copy of their budget. The Commissioners explained that Commissioners were volunteers and the staff was paid from the Planning Department budget. They suggested he could read the City budget at the Library or online or get a copy from the City offices. They asked Mr. Bruss what he thought was missing from Downtown that he would like to see there. He answered that he would like to have a movie theater closer to his home on Knaus Road. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business before the Planning Commission, Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Iris Treinen Senior Secretary