Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2003-12-08 r 15)51)71 TIP LAji EYE L fJ L City of Lake Oswego 03- ( : u ) 3 Planning Commission MinuteF E December 8, 2003 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair James Johnson called the Planning Commission meeting of December 8, 2003 to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 380 A Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. H. ROLL CALL Commission members present were Chair Johnson, and Commissioners Mary Beth Coffey, Kenneth Sandblast, Mark Stayer, Daniel Vizzini and Alison Webster. Vice Chair Frank Groznik was absent. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris Treinen, Senior Secretary. III. CITIZEN COMMENT—Regarding issues not on the agenda. Duncan Whitfield, 21 Nansen Summit, Lake Oswego, 97035, discussed the issue of how to allow owners of houses on sloped lots to enjoy adequate main floor space. Mr. Whitfield reasoned that the minimum floor area should not be tied to lot size because that could result in very large rear walls. He suggested allowing an additional 50 to 70 square feet for every foot of landfall between the front and rear walls. He also said the front elevation should be limited to an appropriate height for the street. He observed that cantilevered structures were often visually offensive due to junk and dead vines in the spaces underneath. He suggested that if the underside were enclosed by a solid wall each plane should be limited to 800 square feet and broken up with landscaping, design features, or changes in the plane. He disfavored granting "exemptions" because some might view that as unequal treatment. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Vizzini moved to approve the Minutes of October 27, 2003. Commissioner Coffey seconded the motion and it passed with Chair Johnson and Commissioners Coffey, Sandblast, Stayer, Vizzini and Webster voting yes. There were no votes against. Vice Chair Groznik was not present. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 1 of 9 Minutes of December 8,2003 e Commissioner Vizzini moved to approve the Minutes of November 10, 2003. Commissioner Sandblast seconded the motion and it passed with Chair Johnson and a Commissioners Sandblast, Vizzini and Webster voting yes. There were no votes gainst. Commissioners Coffey and Stayer abstained from the vote. Vice Chair roznik was not present. The Commissioners then rearranged the agenda and addressed Lakefront Zoning. V. PUBLIC MEETING Lakefront Zoning(P 02-0007) Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager, explained that the Lakefront Zoning project was a joint City and Lake Oswego Corporation endeavor. He related that the parties had hired Ron Kellett, University of Oregon Neighborhood Lab, to investigate issues surrounding lakefront zoning. He said the staff had observed that a large number of variance requests came from owners of lakefront sites. He reported that the staff had distributed notices of the meeting to all lakefront property owners and owners of properties that faced the lake from one lot back from the lake. Ron Kellett, University of Oregon Neighborhood Lab, reported his findings. He recalled the City had been investigating compatibility of infill and he observed that the lake was the most in-filled neighborhood within the City. He recalled that an earlier study of non-lakefront neighborhoods had identified features that would make it easier to develop a lot while ensuring the development would be more compatible with adjacent buildings and neighborhoods. He advised that the Infill Ordinance related allowable floor area to lot size, measured height in a more flexible manner, and addressed the mass presented to the street and to neighbors. He reported that the lake area (including lakefront lots and lots that touch the lakefront lots or share a street with those lots) was about 1,120 acres in size and one of the largest areas in the city. He advised that his examination of the lake area raised new issues, including what kind of development standards could be applied to an area that featured highly diverse topography, landscape, lot types and house sizes. He noted that even though most (approximately 1,800) lots around the lake were zoned R-7.5 or R-10 (requiring minimum lot sizes of 7,500 and 10,000 square feet, respectively), the actual lot and house size inventory showed a significant variation from what would normally be expected under those standards. He observed a trend that the newest houses were much larger than the oldest houses. He reported that the average house size was 2,600 square feet in area and the median house size was 2,500 square feet in area. He reported that the lakefront was the most intense residential market in the metropolitan area and experienced a faster housing inventory replacement rate than surrounding areas. Mr. Kellett reported that lakefront lots belonged to more than one zone or neighborhood and infill there impacted as many as ten surrounding neighborhoods. He said lakefront infill was currently regulated by four primary residential zones, three other very small zones, and Lake Oswego Corporation bylaws. He reported finding a very high incidence of variance requests that was costly to the City and property owners. He City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 2 of 9 Minutes of December 8,2003 reported compatibility conflicts stemming from development of very large houses on small lots that impacted adjacent smaller houses and encouraged taller house designs(to achieve a view of the lake) on lots in adjacent neighborhoods. He reported that the consulting team was discussing with City staff and the Lake Oswego Corporation whether current regulatory methods and standards were working. He said the purpose of the meeting was to hear from the public before briefing the City Council. Mr. Kellett recommended that the lake area be defined and he suggested that it should consist of all the lots that touched the lake; all lots that shared a street with a lot that touched the lake, and a few areas of lots on steep slopes overlooking the lake (for a total of about 2,054 lots). He related that most of the variances granted on the 135, R-7.5 lots that had received variances during the eight years between 1994 and 2002 were to side and front yard setbacks. He reported the consultants found the need for a variance was triggered by an undersized lot (compared to the zone's standard size). A variance to the side yard setback was typically to accommodate the width of a house and a variance to the front yard setback was typically requested for a garage. He explained that topography and the presence of large rocks and trees also created a need for variances. Mr. Kellett presented a map of the lake area that highlighted areas of steep slopes. He advised that on a 20% slope a house would rise two feet for every ten feet across the slope and present a tall wall on the downslope side. He also noted that on a steep slope the garage would typically be positioned close to the street where the lot was flatter, or the garage footprint would be cut deep into the slope. He observed that the presence of natural obstacles pushed a house into a smaller footprint or toward one edge of the lot. He discussed lot configuration. He observed that although the standard R-7.5 lot was 7,500 sq. ft. in area and 100 feet deep and 50 feet wide, most lake area lots were irregularly shaped. He advised that a significant percentage of lake area lots were below the zone's minimum area, or minimum depth, and some were under both minimum depth and width. He observed that development on successive narrow lots created a "wall" that obscured the lake. He cautioned that the problem could grow in the future when some lots that were larger than the zone's minimum lot size were partitioned. Mr. Kellett then discussed the house size issue. He observed that developers were inclined to build the largest house allowed in the zone. He reported that the consultants found that development on R-10 lots was generally at or below what was permitted by current standards. He advised that in the R-7.5 zone, where the allowable floor area could be as large as 3,300 sq. ft., existing houses were typically about 2,600 sq. ft. He advised that when house volume was pushed into a smaller footprint by setbacks and lot coverage requirements its shape tended to become simpler and it looked more massive. Mr. Kellett noted that the buildable area of a lakefront lot could actually be much less than it appeared because the structure had to comply with the City's Lakefront Setback, which was 25 feet from the land around the lake owned by the Lake Oswego City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 3 of 9 Minutes of December 8,2003 Corporation. He noted the fact that the Lake Oswego Corporation required a property to have 60 feet of lakefront before lake access would be provided. He indicated that it tended to reduce demand for lot partitions. Mr. Kellett observed that many lakefront house owners considered the lake their front yard and the street their back yard and located the garage close to the street and the house as close as possible to the water. He observed that builders of non-lakefront houses on hillsides around the lake attempted to orient the rooms to achieve a view of the lake. He recalled that informal views of the lake were possible in selected areas around the lake. He asked if the community wanted to preserve opportunities for passers by to view the lake by addressing regulating spacing of houses on narrow lots. He demonstrated how an existing house could be reoriented on its lot to create a better outside view of the lake (a"view cone"). Mr. Kellett recommended that the community identify what they expected of lakefront development and define the lake area. He suggested there might be two zones: a lakefront zone and a transition zone. He suggested a strategy to predict areas where future teardowns and subdivisions would happen. He suggested that the City start by addressing substandard lots in the R-7.5 zone and consider new or revised standards that would apply to them (similar to the Infill Standards for lot and house size, house location, and house volume). Mr. Egner anticipated the staff and the consultants would test possible Code changes on lake area properties to determine whether the City might be able to reduce the need for variances in the lake area. He anticipated that the staff would continue to work with the consultant and report to the City Council in January 2004. Public Comment Geoff Chew, 15340 Diamond Head, Lake Oswego, 97034, cautioned the Commissioners that some streets around the lake, including Diamond Head Road, were not designed to handle a larger draw of"tourist" traffic. He also opined that to require property owners to open up their landscaping to create "view sheds" diminished a residents' privacy. Mr. Egner clarified for the audience that Lake Oswego Corporation's financial participation in the joint project had been $10,000, or half of the cost of consultant services, and that the Lake Oswego Corporation liaisons with the City were board members Linda Kerl and Bob Barman. Mark Roberts, 1024 North Shore Road, Lake Oswego, 97034, stated he was a real estate broker and sold property around the lake. He said lake area zoning seemed to have been applied randomly. For example, the last house in the R-7.5 zone along North Shore Boulevard was 9,500 sq. ft., but the next few houses - which were in the R-10 zone - were in the range of 8,500 sq. ft. He said the staff had attributed that situation to the fact that the City used to break zones at intersections. He reported that results of a study that he had conducted three years ago showed that out of 106 variances, one-third City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 4 of 9 Minutes of December 8, 2003 were requested for lake properties, one-third were requests from expanding churches, and the rest were for properties off of the lake. He said he found that almost every variance requested had been granted, as long as the applicants endured the process and the cost. Mr. Roberts opined that the kinds of fixes the Planning Commission was considering would only address 60% of lake area lots, and would leave the issue to be resolved for the remaining 40%. He advised that the same 50 ft. x 100 ft. lake area lot would vary significantly in value depending upon its location, because in some locations it could be developed without variances. He suggested the City address that unfair situation. He also advised there were probably more re-developable sloped lots around the lake than anywhere else in the City. He suggested that lake houses be allowed to be taller than 35 feet because they would look smaller on the lake than they would seem farther back in a neighborhood. He cautioned the Commissioners that any regulations to create "view cones" through house spacing requirements should also regulate future landscaping and fencing that could also obscure the view. He said that zoning and lot size should be disconnected in order to reduce the number of minor partitions. He predicted that if all lake area properties were zoned R-7.5 that would create more developable parcels and encourage division of the 100-foot wide lots. He suggested a concept that the owner of any 50 ft. x 150 ft. lot should be able to develop,it with a 40-foot wide house (about 2,500 sq. ft of lot coverage) and 4,000 sq. ft. of floor area. He recounted cases where the selling price of homes had been significantly reduced after prospective buyers worried they might pay too much and not be able to get the variances they needed for the house they wanted to build. One case was a narrow (50-feet wide), 150 feet deep lot at 16737 Maple Circle that was originally marketed for $750,000 and finally sold for $550,000. He described a similar case at 16852 Alder Circle. He explained that his own residence on North Shore Boulevard was on a 60-foot wide R-10 lot. Mr. Roberts advised there was a strong market for lakefront properties under $1 million, and prospective buyers generally intended to tear down or significantly remodel the existing house. He also recalled that when the Country Club/North Shore Neighborhood Association had conducted a study preliminary to considering a 28-foot height limit, they had identified his neighbor's house as one of the best-looking houses in the neighborhood even though it was 45 feet high. He cautioned the Commissioners to keep in mind that there was a small, but vocal, minority who would testify, but who might not actually represent the larger population. Karen Silverstein, 380 Berwick Road, Lake Oswego, 97035, said the Commission should be careful not to eliminate the need for variances, especially when that would allow builders to maximize the size of a house on a small lot and to remove trees around the lake. Evie Fuson, 1255 Chandler Road, Lake Oswego, 97034, stressed that the issues being considered impacted all of the City, and not just the lots around the lake. She held the public should not lose their views of the lake. She observed that builders built maximum sized houses to maximize profit and they were not building to fit the site. She expressed her concern that most variances were granted. She opined that First City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 5 of 9 Minutes of December 8, 2003 Addition Neighborhood and the lake area were turning into areas of enormous homes that did not fit the character of the community. She said the 25-foot lakefront setback from the Lake Oswego Corporation property should not be reduced because that would allow people to maximize the house on the lakefront side, as well as on the other sides of the lot. She asked the City to maintain community character by imposing regulations that protected views and trees and benefited all City residents, not jut the fortunate few who owned lots along the lake. George Puterbaugh, 17570 SW Chippewa Trail, Tualatin, Oregon, 97062, stated he owned property on the lake on Phantom Bluff. He encouraged the Commissioners to consider his situation when they addressed lake area issues. He explained that he had owned the lake property for over 30 years, but had not been able to build on it because of Comprehensive Plan changes that required him to construct and pay for a sewer connection, a street connection and fire turnaround. Rai Savara, 2605 South Shore Boulevard, Lake Oswego, 97034, endorsed the concept of creating a lakefront zone and a transition zone. He said that even if height requirements were increased on the lake, they should not be increased along a canal. He suggested that any new regulations should also address boathouses. He pointed out that vehicle parking was regulated differently on the north and south sides of the lake. He said the Commissioners should examine the fact that a majority of lakefront lots did not meet the Lake Oswego Corporation criteria of lake frontage of 60 feet. Chair Johnson encouraged him to discuss that with the Lake Oswego Corporation. Mr. Egner announced that a separate web page would be created to update the public about the lakefront zoning issue and it would be accessed via a link from the Planning Department page on the City website. He invited anyone who was interested in serving on a committee to study the issue to contact him so he could put their name on a list in case the City Council decided to form such a committee. Shelley Lorenzen, 1920 North Shore, Lake Oswego, 97034, indicated she felt the regulations should not be changed to allow people to build as large as they wanted and to relieve the City workload. She suggested the Code should remain strict and the variance process should be retained to allow change where it made sense on a particular property. Chair Johnson agreed that a variance was a method to address extra-ordinary circumstances, but he reasoned that if most variance requests were being granted, then the Code might need to be changed. He recalled that the Commissioners had decided to address the issue of lakefront zoning separately during the process of adopting the new Infill standards because they found the lake area might require different treatment due to special circumstances, including topography. Mr. Boone reported that many variance requests had been reduced or withdrawn after the applicant consulted with the staff. He reminded the Commissioners that another category of variance — Class 1 Variances - were also available under some circumstances. Mr. Egner recalled that the Commissioners wanted to be certain that the limitations placed on infill by the Infill City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 6 of 9 Minutes of December 8, 2003 Ordinance also made sense in the lake area. He noted that the consultants had found that only six lots in the R-10 zone and 39 lots in the R-7.5 zone would exceed the infill caps. Ms. Lorenzen asked the Commissioners to retain the 25-foot lakefront setback in order to maintain the character of the lake. She urged them to hold more than one additional public meeting or workshop. Joel Johnson, 16634 Maple Circle, Lake Oswego, 97034, explained that in his circle and others in the lake area the lakefront homeowners considered the lake their front yard and paved over a relatively large percentage of their 50-foot street frontage for parking. He said that marred the front yard view of non-lakefront residents along the circle and the additional impervious surface generated additional water runoff into the lake and created water quality problems. He also reported that since no off-street parking was available, when all of the neighbor's parking spaces were full drivers parked in front of his house. He requested that limitations be placed on the amount of paving. Skip O'Neill, 16731 Greenbriar Road,Lake Oswego, 97035, stated that he resided on the lake and that he had sought variances many times in order to construct homes there. He observed that most variances were sought by people who intended to build their dream home and most of the new houses he was familiar with were 3,500 to 4,500 square feet in area. He recalled that the variance process might cost as much as $30,000 to $50,000. He saw a need to ensure consistency of interpretation of regulations. He indicated that current setbacks worked fairly well and property owners were usually considerate of neighbor's views. He said that each area of the City should be allowed to address its own unique issues. He stressed that lake area property owners paid high prices for the land and paid high property taxes. Doug Bollam, P.O. Box 1944, Lake Oswego, 97034, observed that the lake area was unique and it might be appropriate to designate a lake area neighborhood. He also held that it was reasonable for purchasers to expect to be allowed to build an expensive house on an expensive lot. Mike Glanville,769 North Shore Road, Lake Oswego, 97034, related that he began a remodeling project three years ago and, with the assistance of an architect, he had been granted several small variances after a year and considerable expense. However, during a recent phase of the project, the City staff had advised him that the angle of the roof had to be changed, even though he was not adding another floor and the plan for a flat roof had not changed from his original plan. He explained that his neighbors had agreed to the original plan, his house was less than 3,000 sq. ft., and it was only one story at street level. He anticipated more time and expense and another variance application would be required to complete the project. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 7 of 9 Minutes of December 8,2003 M Wally Glass, P.O. Box 2245, Lake Oswego, 97035, stated that he had just completed his fifth house on the lake and he had remodeled three residences and built two new residences during the past 20 years. He opined that current setbacks were reasonable. He explained that although there had been situations where he would have liked to build a little further into the setback, he had never applied for a variance because he was acquainted with people who had gone through the variance process and found it time consuming and expensive. Alice Schlenker, 257 Iron Mountain Boulevard, Lake Oswego, 97034, stated she belonged to the Forest Hills Easement Association (and Country Club/North Shore Neighborhood Association) and enjoyed deeded access to the lake, even though she did not live on the lake. She applauded the City and the Lake Corporation for their effort to work together to address issues. She asked the Commissioners to keep in mind that there were non-lakefront families who had legal access to the lake and were bound by Lake Oswego Corporation rules. She stressed the importance of ensuring that the quality of lake water was not adversely impacted and she said the lakefront setback should not be reduced because that would allow development to place impervious surfaces closer to the water. She reported that a statewide objective in the State of Washington was to attempt to improve the water quality of Puget Sound by moving development further back from the waterfront. . Mr. Egner anticipated another public meeting would be scheduled in late spring 2004 to discuss the issue of lakefront zoning. Chair Johnson directed the staff to consider lake access easement holders. He announced a three-minute break in the proceedings and thereafter reconvened the meeting for the work session regarding East End Commercial Zone Changes. VI. GENERAL PLANNING—WORK SESSION East End Commercial Zone Changes(P 03-0003) Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager, said that he anticipated the City Council would adopt the ordinance without a sunset clause. He encouraged the Commissioners to continue to work on the issues outlined in the memorandum. Commissioner Vizzini urged the Commissioners to ensure that all groups that would be impacted by the plan - including the Downtown Business Association and the adjacent neighborhoods — were involved in the discussions. Ron Kellett, University of Oregon Neighborhood Lab, agreed to provide examples of how other jurisdictions determined what was reasonable floor area for retail uses. VII. OTHER BUSINESS Allowable Height on a Sloped Lot Mr. Egner distributed copies of a map generated by the GIS staff that identified the locations of different categories of slopes in the city. He recalled testimony that a house City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 8 of 9 Minutes of December 8,2003 would be limited to a height of 28 feet if it were located on a moderate slope (one that did not have at least ten feet of fall across the building envelope) that did not trigger the 35-foot sloped lot height limit. He recalled testimony that the sloped lot height restriction would not allow as much main floor square footage as some people desired to have. Commissioner Vizzini observed that some lots sloped in more than one direction. Mr. Kellett suggested that the City might allow a moderate slope to trigger a height exception, or to allow a certain percentage of the roof to be above the height limit, or to allow elements of the roof—such as dormers—to pierce the height limit. He related that he was not aware of any other city that had found a solution to the issue. Chair Johnson directed the staff to schedule a January work session, to prepare and present options, and to invite the Development Review Commissioners to comment on the issue. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business, Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 8:36 p.m. Respectfully submitted, s Treinen Senior Secretary City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 9 of 9 Minutes of December 8, 2003