Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2004-08-23 455-42Cs'i. City of Lake OswegDDD (j Planning Commission Minutes I ; L,vad - �55 August 23, 2004 , _ -1 CALL TO ORDER Acting Chair Daniel Vizzini called the Planning Commission meeting to order at approximately 6:10 p.m. on Monday, August 23, 2004 in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 380 A Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners present were Vice Chair Groznik*, Mary Beth Coffey*, Mark Stayer, Daniel Vizzini and Alison Webster. Commissioner Julia Glisson was excused and Chair Kenneth L. Sandblast was absent. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager and Iris Treinen, Administrative Support. III. CITIZEN COMMENT—Regarding Issues Not On the Agenda Dave Powers, 1981 Maple Leaf Road, Lake Oswego, 97034. who had once served on the Development Review Commission, encouraged the Commissioners to keep in mind that there would be exceptional circumstances where a variance should be available to an owner who wanted to expand his older existing home on a challenging site. He reported that he had found the current variance process very difficult and expensive. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Webster moved to approve the Minutes of June 28. 2004. Commissioner Coffey seconded the motion and it passed with Acting Chair Vizzini and Commissioners Coffey and Webster voting yes. Commissioner Stayer abstained. There were no votes against. Chair Sandblast, Vice Chair Groznik and Commissioner Glisson were not present. Commissioner Webster moved to approve the Minutes of July 12, 2004. Commissioner Coffey seconded the motion and it passed with Acting Chair Vizzini and Commissioners Coffey, Stayer and Webster voting yes. There were no votes against. Chair Sandblast, Vice Chair Groznik and Commissioner Glisson were not present. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 1 of 6 Minutes of August 23,2004 V. GENERAL PLANNING— WORK SESSION Variances and Adjustments —LU 04-0055 (P 04-0007) Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager, presented the staff report. He advised that the proposed amendments would expand the scope of Class 1 variances. He recalled that the Class 1 variance process did not require the applicant to show hardship and the variance was typically approved if no one complained. He gave a PowerPoint presentation showing changes the staff proposed since the previous meeting. He said the staff had followed Commission direction and clarified applicability language so it provided that the result of a Class 1 Variance proposal was to be compared to the broader neighborhood, the streetscape and neighboring properties. He pointed out the staff had modified the draft amendment that allowed as much as 100% variance to the Oswego Lake Setback so it would only allow up to 50% variance. He pointed out the proposal now allowed up to 50% adjustment to the setback for non-single-family dwellings. He recommended inserting the term, "less than or equal to" before each percentage. He explained the staff did not propose any change to the Building Height standard because there were other ways to address exceptions to height via a Residential mull Design (RID) review process, or using the height exceptions in the current Code, or using a Class 2 variance. He reported they proposed a 25% adjustment limit to the side yard setback plane because a RID review or a Class 2 variance could allow greater adjustments. He pointed out they had not changed the proposed five-foot adjustment limit to lot width or depth, or the 25% limit to an adjustment to lot coverage and Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Acting Chair Vizzini saw a need to more specifically describe the larger neighborhood to help the staff interpret the standards regarding a site's relationship to the broader neighborhood. He suggested the "larger neighborhood" might be defined by a consistent pattern of lot sizes and a consistent pattern of development, and he suggested that criteria be developed to demonstrate that the result of the variance would have something in common with the larger neighborhood. The Commissioners observed that a far-away resident might object to seeing any house on a hill in his view. They wondered whether 300 feet was a reasonable range to set within for considering the effect of a development on the scale, character and privacy of immediate neighbors. Mr. Egner advised that 300 feet was the range currently used for reviewing Class 1 variances. Commissioner Stayer agreed there should be more specific definitions and guidance in the amendments to help those who administered the process. Acting Chair Vizzini asked the staff to prepare for the hearing by illustrating how the proposed range of adjustments listed in the Table on page 6 of the staff report would apply to "real world" examples. The staff clarified for the Commissioners that the proposed amendments would give the City Manager discretion to require or not require an applicant for a Class 1 variance to accomplish the neighborhood noticing requirements found in LOC 50.77.025. Public Comments John Pullen, 18 Britten Court. Lake Oswego. 97035, suggested that "neighborhood" should be defined in the proposed amendments. Acting Chair Vizzini recalled that the Deputy City Attorney had told the Commission that he anticipated part of the process of City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 2 of 6 Minutes of August 23,2004 deciding each case would be to define the "neighborhood," and it might be found to be inside or beyond the neighborhood association boundaries. Mr. Egner reported that the staff planned to hold a public open house on September 13, 2004; and to schedule the public hearing on September 27, 2004. Partitions and Flag Lots—P 04-0008 Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager, presented the staff report. He suggested that the Commissioners discuss how connectivity standards might be used to encourage yet-to-be annexed neighborhoods to build out to planned densities in a manner that provided good connectivity and a sense of neighborhood. He predicted that development in areas such as Lake Forest, Rosewood and Forest Highlands would be stimulated after these areas received sanitary sewer service. He predicted that owners there would then start partitioning and developing their existing large lots and that the likely development pattern would be clustering of houses around cul-de-sacs and more flag lots. He reported that he had also discussed this with the chair of the Lake Forest Neighborhood. He suggested that the City take a proactive approach to the issue and adopt stronger connectivity requirements before the areas were annexed. He acknowledged that this would require neighborhoods to reconsider existing neighborhood plan policies that called for lower density development. He showed a map of the Forest Highlands Neighborhood and pointed out it contained many small unconnected streets. He showed an illustration of how the development pattern there could be configured for better connectivity. He advised that the City's goal for the area was R-7.5 density development. Acting Chair Vizzini, who lived in the neighborhood, observed that existing development could have been connected in a way that provided better pedestrian access, but that the existing development pattern forced most residents to use Country Club Road. He said it was likely that existing large lots along Goodall Road would each eventually be divided into three lots clustered around a narrow driveway. Mr. Egner advised that planning for future density included considering how the pedestrian environment could be enhanced, neighborhood identity, and different options for travel. He observed that houses on flag lots did not enhance the streetscape or neighborhood identity. He then presented maps showing the current lot pattern in the Lake Forest Neighborhood and how it might be configured for better connectivity. He reported that a developer was putting together a proposal to develop land at the corner of Parker, Baleine and Carman Drive that could result in as many as six lots served by a small access lane. He said the City had no existing mechanism to use to require that development to connect to any other properties. The staff report contained copies of the Flag Lot and Connectivity Standards. Mr. Egner pointed out that code criteria for a partition did not require connectivity to encourage enhancement of a neighborhood. Acting Chair Vizzini agreed that the Code's access requirements should call for more than to simply provide access to a particular development and that the Code should provide that a development was to be connected to City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 3 of 6 Minutes of August 23,2004 the larger neighborhood in a manner that would make the area more efficient and to help avoid congestion as the neighborhood became denser. The Commissioners recalled the Parker/Carman/Baleine neighborhood had no sidewalks and Baleine Street was rocky and not a through street. Mr. Egner anticipated that when sanitary sewer service arrived the area would begin to change from its currently rural character. He advised that the existing tree grove would need to be protected by any plan for future connections there, and developers would be required to protect at least half the trees on their site. He clarified that new connecting streets may not be built to current full street improvements. Commissioner Coffey, who had once resided in the Lake Forest Neighborhood, cautioned that residents there would likely want to partition and develop their properties, but they might never want a new sidewalk or through street. Mr. Egner suggested that the area could retain its rural character by planning connecting narrow lanes that houses could front on. Acting Chair Vizzini suggested that the City create a pedestrian connection overlay plan and make it a requirement that cul-de-sacs and flag lots were to feature pedestrian connections to the street system. He stressed that the issue should be addressed soon, before City services became available and spurred development. He advised that other jurisdictions avoided "piecemeal" annexation by setting a size threshold and requiring some level of master planning for land proposed for annexation. He commented that the fact that the City's Minimum Density requirements did not apply to partitions of three lots or less was an incentive for piecemeal development that did not enhance neighborhoods. He recalled the Planning Commission had previously discussed addressing the issue of sequential partitioning by requiring an applicant to show how minimum density would be achieved over time. Mr. Egner observed that houses were sometimes positioned in the middle of a lot and/or where it would be logical to build a street extension. Acting Chair Vizzini then stated a need for the Commissioners to address Minimum Density requirements as well as Flag Lot and Connectivity standards. Mr. Egner confirmed that the staff would begin a work program that would include examining case studies. He also confirmed they would involve the neighborhoods. He anticipated the City would apply for a "quick response" Transportation Growth Management (TGM) program grant that could enable the City to hire a consultant to help with the work. Commissioner Webster stressed that neighborhoods should be made aware that the consequences of not planning for connectivity and future development would be that parcels would develop one at a time in a pattern that would eventually adversely impact the neighborhood with poor connectivity and congestion. Acting Chair Vizzini stressed that there were also areas currently within the City where owners were feeling pressure to partition their lots and where connectivity and density planning needed to be done. He opined that flag lots created the worst kind of development pattern because they did not create good neighborhoods. He recalled a situation where a parcel along Country Club Road had been partitioned over time into three lots that had been timed and configured to avoid Flag Lot ordinance limits to the size of the houses. He speculated that if the developer had been required to plan for Minimum Density and Connectivity at the time of the first partition, there would be better pedestrian access and four modest houses that fit the character of the neighborhood, instead of two overly large houses. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 4 of 6 Minutes of August 23,2004 Public Comments Carolyn Krebs. 16925 Denny Court. Lake Osweeo. 97035. who resided in the Lake Forest neighborhood, stressed that it was important to involve the neighborhood association from the start of the process. She worried that the City's requirements for street width and emergency turnarounds would take a lot of private property. She asked if pathways could be planned instead of streets. Mr. Egner clarified that the staff had presented the Potential Connectivity map in the staff report only to stimulate discussion and it did not reflect the reality of the tree grove or propose an actual number of streets. The Commissioners and the staff anticipated that skinny streets or pathways could be used to create connections. Mr. Egner also clarified that Clackamas County would not allow lots to be divided until they had sanitary sewer service. Acting Chair Vizzini observed that the fact that the Lake Forest Neighborhood Association had already come together to create a neighborhood plan showed they could work together to address density and connectivity issues. Mr. Powers commented that to allow hammerhead configured connections (for emergency vehicles) would reduce the need for flag lots and that hammerheads and cul- de-sacs could be connected via easements or rights-of-way. He asked if the planning process considered neighborhood character and the size of existing development before it forced increased density. Acting Chair Vizzini explained that the zone established density, and the Minimum Density requirement reflected the Metro Functional Plan to ensure the City would build to its planned density. He observed, however, that there were ways to get around the Minimum Density requirement through a series of minor partitions of up to three lots each time. He acknowledged that when a subdivision of R- 7.5 lots was proposed in an area of larger lots and larger homes the existing owners might not be ready to accept that the zoning designation could trump neighborhood character. VI. OTHER BUSINESS *Vice Chair Groznik arrived at 7:54 p.m. Infill Internretation—LU 04-0010 Mr. Egner reviewed the staff memorandum. He asked the Commissioners to clarify how they had intended Infill setback requirements to be applied to a house with a stair-stepped ("wedding cake") configuration. He recalled that setbacks had been tied to building height and lower structures (under 18 feet high) were allowed to use a narrower setback, but higher structures were to conform to a greater setback. He explained that the staff wanted clarification of how to apply the setback requirements to existing houses that were currently within 10 feet from the property line, but that were proposed to be remodeled so that a portion of the house was higher than 18 feet. He explained that although the proposed updates to the Code were scheduled to be considered by the City Council before the end of 2004, and might be implemented in early 2005, the staff needed clarification about how to interpret the regulations and apply them to current applications. He reported that the staff had been interpreting the requirements to mean that the allowable setback was determined by the height of the entire structure. The Commissioners' consensus was to affirm their original intention, which was to allow the City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 5 of 6 Minutes of August 23,2004 1 higher portion of a structure to rise to the maximum height allowed by the zone if that portion of the structure conformed to the zone's setback requirement. Mr. Egner said the staff would start using that interpretation of the standard. Ballot Measure 37 The staff distributed Community Development Department Memorandum, "Ballot Measure 37," dated August 19, 2004 and pointed out that it contained a copy of the City Attorney's memorandum to the City Council regarding Ballot Measure 37, a statewide ballot measure that was intended to require compensation for certain types of government regulations. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Acting Chair Vizzini adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Iris Treinen Administrative Support III City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 6 of 6 Minutes of August 23,2004 ■