HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 2004-12-13 ``c „`AKE pg�fCO O-
liiCity of Lake Oswego
PlanningCommission
�►
`- -,-0,
1 Monday, December 13, 2004
oREGos 6:00 pan. -Public Hearing & Work Session
Members: City Hall Council Chamber
Kenneth L. Sandblast,Chair 380 A Avenue
Frank Groznik,Vice Chair Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Mary Beth Coffey,Julia Glisson,Mark Stayer,
Daniel Vizzini and Alison Webster For Information: 503/635-0290
Council Liaison: Jack Hoffman AGENDA
This meeting is in a handicapped accessible location. For any special accommodations,please contact Iris Treinen,
503/697-6591,48 hours before the meeting.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. CITIZEN COMMENT—Regarding Issues Not On the Agenda(3 minute limit per individual)
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
October 10, 2004 and October 25, 2004
V. PUBLIC HEARING
LU 04-0055—Variance Amendments
A request by the City of Lake Oswego to amend the Community Development Code,Article 50.68,
revising the standards and classifications for variances.
The proposed amendments add flexibility and new review standards to the variance process. New
standards are provided for determining that Class 1 (minor)variances will not have a negative impact
on the scale and character of the neighborhood or the street, and the privacy of nearby properties.
The amendments broaden the definition for what types of variances can be processed as Class 1
variances. For example, current standards limit Class 1 variances to no more than a 20%change in a
setback;the proposed amendments to the Class 1 variance would allow up to a 50%adjustment to the
setback provided there are not negative impacts on the neighborhood or street.
Staff coordinator is Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager.
VI. GENERAL PLANNING—WORK SESSION
P 04-0011 Transition from EC Zone
Staff coordinator is Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager.
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
STAFF REPORT
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
PLANNING DIVISION
APPLICANT: FILE NO:
City of Lake Oswego LU 04-0055
PROPERTY OWNERS: STAFF:
N/A Dennis Egner, AICP
LEGAL DESCRIPTION DATE OF REPORT:
N/A December 2, 2004
LOCATION: DATE OF HEARING:
City-wide December 13, 2004
COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DESIGNATION:
N/A N/A
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION:
All
I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST
The proposed amendments add flexibility and new review standards to the variance process. New
standards are provided for determining that Class 1 (minor) variances will not have a negative
impact on the scale and character of the neighborhood or the street, and the privacy of nearby
properties. The amendments broaden the definition for what types of variances can be processed as
Class 1 variances.
Ordinance 2409, which would enact these changes, is found in Exhibit F-1.
II. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan:
Goal 1 Citizen Involvement, Policies 1 and 5
Goal 2 Land Use Planning, Section 1, Land Use Policies and Regulations,
Policy 23
Staff Report LU 04-0055 Page 1 of 5
Public Hearing December 13,2004
B. City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code:
LOC 50.75.005 Legislative Decision Defined.
LOC 50.75.010 Criteria for Legislative Decision
LOC 50.75.015 Required Notice to DLCD
LOC 50.75.020 Planning Commission Recommendation Required
LOC 50.75.025 City Council Review and Decision
C. Statewide Planning Goal or Administrative Rule adopted pursuant to ORS Chapter
197
Goal 1 Citizen Involvement
Goal 2 Land Use Planning
III. FINDINGS
A. Background and Discussion:
1. Class 1 Variance. The current Class 1 variance was revised in 2000(LU 99-0059)to
eliminate the necessity of showing a hardship for variances to the Code requirements
that would have"little or no effect"on adjacent neighbors and no impact on natural
resources/traffic. The applicability of Class 1 is limited to very small incursions into
the setbacks or small changes from the code requirements, i.e., less than 20% of the
yard setbacks.
In the past 3+ years, a Class 1 variance has been granted if there is no showing of a
material injury on surrounding property and no impact on natural resources /traffic.
Absent a showing of some material impact on surrounding properties, which is
generally shown by the presence of neighbor objections or comments to the variance
request, no design requirements are needed as a condition of approval to mitigate any
adverse impacts.
2. The Problem. There are instances where a small expansion to an existing home may
not be harmful to the neighbors and the neighborhood,but an applicant may fail to
qualify for any variance because:
• The amount of variance exceeds the limited Class 1 applicability; and
• The applicant fails to qualify for a Class 2 variance because the applicant has not
been denied reasonable use of the property(no hardship to the applicant).
As a remedy, it is proposed that greater flexibility be developed for the Class 1
variance process. At the same time, criteria need to be added to encourage
compatibility, similar to what is required under the Residential Infill Design Review
(RID Review) process. RID Review is generally applicable to new construction or
major reconstruction because it requires that the design of the resulting development
be "equal or greater"than could be constructed in accordance with the code.
Typically, small additions to existing construction would not meet the "equal or
greater" test for RID Review, so using the RID review as a remedy for small
additions is generally not an appropriate approach.
Staff Report LU 04-0055 Page 2 of 5
Public Hearing December 13,2004
• 3. The Pmposal/Analvsis. The proposed amendments expand the applicability of Class
1, but change the criteria so that the effect of a development proposal could be
examined based upon the impact to the neighborhood and streetscape. The proposal
borrows from the concepts underlying the RID Review standards, but adopts a"no
harm"test, rather than RID's"equal or better"test. For purposes of clarifying the
discussion below, the new Class 1 process is referred to as Class 1+,
The ability to impose design solutions currently exists for Class 1 and Class 2
variances, through the use of conditions of approval to mitigate the impact of the
variance. No design conditions have been imposed on Class t variances during the
past 3+years because the applicability of Class I is limited to "little or no effect"to
adjacent properties. By expanding the applicability of Class 1, the potential necessity
to impose design/landscaping solutions to mitigate the impact will be increased. But
that does not mean that a design/ landscaping condition of approval need be imposed
in every new Class 1+variance approval.
It is expected that staff will adopt an administrative guideline to the effect that in new
Class 1+cases that are within the current Class 1 variance applicability, there will be
a determination that there is no harm under the new criteria. In these cases, (because
the variances currently have"little or no effect"on neighboring property and the
streetscape), it is unlikely there will be a need for any design or landscaping
conditions.
But when a new Class 1+variance is sought for development that is greater than the
current Class 1 variance applicability limits, the administrative guideline will require
a greater level of scrutiny and will allow imposition of design/landscaping conditions
that are necessary for the development not to create harm on neighbors, the
neighborhood, or the streetscape. This does not mean that in every case where the
Class 1+variance is greater than the current Class I variance applicability a design/
landscape solution is necessary. In some cases, there may be no harm on the
neighbors, the neighborhood, or streetscape and hence no design/landscape solution is
required. In other cases, a design/landscape solution may be necessary in order for
the variance request to meet the"no harm" standard under the Class 1+variance
criteria. The guideline merely suggests that a closer examination of impact be given.
The threshold for a"design/landscaping"analysis will not preclude neighbors from
showing that a development proposal that what would now be a Class 1 variance
does, in fact, have harm,just as they can now show that mitigation should be required
for a Class I variance.
Because the applicability of Class 1 variances is being expanded to situations that
would require design/landscape solutions to mitigate the impact of a variance, the
criteria of what constitutes a negative impact needs to be clearly stated, to assist
applicants and neighbors in deciding whether a design/landscape solution should be
considered in the application. Through a statement of administrative guideline, staff
will indicate those types of Class 1+ variances that generally would not have a
negative impact to the neighborhood, to guide both applicants and staff in review of
variance applications—specifically, the current Class 1 variances have, through
application,not been found to require a design/landscape mitigation.
Staff Report LU 04-0055 Page 3 of 5
Public Hearing December 13,2004
B. Compliance With Criteria for Approval:
LOC 50.75.010, indicates that a legislative decision is generally a policy decision which
is up to the discretion of the City Council, but shall:
1. Comply with any applicable state law;
No relevant state law has been identified that effects this amendment.
2. Comply with any applicable Statewide Planning Goal or Administrative
Rule adopted pursuant to ORS Chapter 197; and
Statewide Plannini. Goal 1. Citizen Involvement
This Goal requires jurisdictions to develop a citizen involvement program that insures
the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The
City's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code
contain all necessary requirements for a citizen involvement program which clearly
defines the procedures by which the general public will be notified in the on-going
land use planning process and enables citizens to comprehend the issues and become
involved in decision making. All required notification measures and opportunities for
input as specified in these documents were provided during this process. Public
hearings will be held before the Planning Commission and City Council. Therefore,
the process followed for this amendment is in compliance with Statewide Planning
Goal 1.
Statewide Planning Goal 2. Land Use Planning
This Goal requires jurisdictions to develop a land use planning process and policy
framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to the use of the land and to
assure an adequate factual basis for such decisions and actions. This application
provides the required information and responses to the applicable approval standards
for a Community Development Code text amendment and therefore is consistent with
Statewide Planning Goal 2. Furthermore, the application has been coordinated with
the applicable jurisdictions and agencies as required by Goal 2. Therefore, this
amendment is in compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 2.
3. In the case of a legislative amendment to the Community Development
Code, comply with any applicable provision of the Lake Oswego
Comprehensive Plan.
Goal 1. Citizen Involvement, Policies 1 and 5
1. Provide opportunities for citizen participation in preparing and revising local
land use plans and ordinances.
5. Seek citizen input through service organizations, interest groups and
individuals, as well as through neighborhood organizations.
Staff Report LU 04-0055 Page 4 of 5
Public Hearing December 13,2004
Findings: This application addresses policies 1 and 5 above.
Pursuant to the requirements of a legislative process, announcements for the proposed
Community Development Code text amendments have been provided to all
neighborhood associations. Public hearings will be held before the Planning
Commission and City Council. Citizens, interest groups, and neighborhood
associations will have an opportunity to participate in the review of the proposed
amendment during the City's public hearing processes. Notice has been provided
consistent with City requirements. Adequate opportunities have been made available
for citizen involvement with regard to this application.
Conclusion: The application complies with Goal 1, Citizen Involvement Policies 1
and 5.
Goal 2, Land Use Planning, Section 1, Land Use, Policy 23
23. Coordinate the development and amendment of City plans and actions related
to land use with other county, state, Metro, federal agency and special district
plans.
Findings: Policy 23 was addressed under Goal 1, Citizen Involvement Policies I and
5, above.
Conclusion: The application complies with Goal 2, Section 1, Policy 23.
IV. CONCLUSION
The proposed amendments are in compliance with City Comprehensive Plan policies, state
laws, and statewide planning goals.
V. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments to the variance standards of
Community Development Code(LOC 50.68.010 and 50.68.015).
EXHIBITS:
A. Notice of Appeal (No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use)
B. Findings, Conclusions and Order (No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use)
C. Minutes (No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use)
D. Staff Reports (No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use)
E. Graphics/Plans
None
F. Written Materials
F-I Ordinance 2409, dated November 23, 2004
G. Letters
G-1 Neither for Nor Against (None)
G-2 In Favor (None)
G-3 Opposed (None)
Staff Report LU 04-0055 Page 5 of 5
Public Hearing December 13,2004
04
oft ANNOTATED WITH COMMENTS 1 /231
of ORDINANCE NO. 2409
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AME ING THE CLASS I
VARIANCE APPLICABILITY AND CRITERIA OF THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE,LOC 50.68.010 AND 50.68.015.
Whereas; upon recommendation of the Lake Oswego Planning Commission, the City Council
determines that the applicability for variances to the requirements of the Community Development
Code(LOC Chapter 50)should be modified,to increase the types of variances that would qualify as
a Class I variance; and
Whereas, upon recommendation of the Lake Oswego Planning Commission, the City Council finds
that the criteria for a Class 1 variance should be modified, due to the expansion of applicability of a
Class 1 variance;
Now,therefore,the City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows:
The Lake Oswego Code is hereby amended by deleting the text shown by sfpikeeat and adding
the new text shown in underline.
Section 1. LOC 50.68.010 Variance Standards
1. The reviewing authority may grant a variance from the-requirements this Cod exce
expressly prohibited, if it is established that: -Mp a�W�1f111d
a. Class 1 (Minor)Variance Standards. ►.� D6g'
i. The rantin of the variance will not iesult ' a in om of a ative a ationshi
between the proposed development and:
A. The scale and character of the neighborhood:
This is the "no harm" test akin to the "house size" test for RID Review—
LOC 50.72.020(2)(a).
B. The scale and character of the street, such that the safety or experience of a
pedestrian using the street abutting the development is diminished: and
This is the "no harm" test akin to the "relationship to thEbQ
RID Review—LOC 50.72.020(2)(b).
ot`C. The scale. character and tvac ro ierties within 300 feet oThis is the"no harm"testaakin'to the"relationship to the n
RID Review, EXCEPT rather than using "adjoining neighbors", which
would limit the scope to immediately adjoining neighbors (See LOC
Ordinance No. XXXX EXHIBIT F-1
Page I of XX
L\Case riles 21004TU 044155 Variance I CDC Amendments ms I varimic Ordimma r)rattl
50.02.005, "adjoining'), the area of concern was retained at 300 feet,
which is the current Class 1 "zone of impact". "Neighboring properties"
was not used because that could have been interpreted to limit criterion A
above to the same "privacy zone".
This section is deleted as it is thought that the new criteria A, B, and C
embody the "public health and safety" and "materially injurious" to
property standard.
ii. The proposed development will not adversely affect existing physical and natural
systems such as traffic, drainage, Oswego Lake, hillsides, designated sensitive lands, historic
resources, or parks, and the potential for abutting properties to use solar energy devices any more
than would occur if the development were located as specified by the requirements of the zone.
No change to the"natural resource"no impact criterion.
b. Class 2 Variance.
i. Class 2 Variance Standards.
(1) The request is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship; and,
(2) Development consistent with the request will not be injurious to the neighborhood
in which the property is located or to property established to be affected by the request; and,
(3) The request is the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of the
property; and,
(4) The request is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
ii. Class 2 Variance Factors and Considerations.
In evaluating whether a particular request is to be granted, the granting authority
shall consider the following, together with any other relevant facts or circumstances:
(1) Relevant factors to be considered in determining whether a hardship exists
include:
(A)Physical circumstances related to the piece of property involved.
(B)Whether a reasonable use similar to like properties can be made of the
property without the variance.
(C)Whether the hardship was created by the person requesting the variance.
(D)The economic impact upon the person requesting the variance if the request
is denied.
(2) Relevant factors to be considered in determining whether development
consistent with the request is injurious include:
(A)An analysis of the physical impacts such development will have, such as
visual, noise, traffic and the increased potential for drainage, erosion and landslide hazards.
Ordinance No. )OM
Page 2 of XX
I:lC.w FiIW100 {L.0 04-W55 Varumce I CDC Amendlnans\Ql s I vwwce.0rdinenec•Draftl docf;AP { r._... r=.
F)r 4Dr31(in '!'lase 1
(B)The perceptions of residents and owners of property in the neighborhood
concerning the incremental impacts occurring as a result of the proposed variance.
2. A determination of whether the standards set forth in subsection 1(b)(i) are satisfied
necessarily involves the balancing of competing and conflicting interests. The considerations
listed in subsection l(b)(ii) (1) and (2) are not standards and are not intended to be an exclusive
list of considerations. The considerations are to be used as a guide in the granting authority's
deliberations.
3. Prior variances allowed in the neighborhood shall not be considered by the reviewing
authority in reaching its decision
Note: subsection 3 is proposed for repeal as part of the 2004 CDC Update.
LOC 50.68.015 Classification of Variances
A variance which would allow development not in conformance with the requirements of the
development standards ma be anted.
1. Class 1 vanance are small hmus from the Code requirements And whieh
willthat generally ave little or no sigttifican of et-impact n the neighborhood, streetscane. or
neighbors .
This change reflects the expansion of the Class 1 variance's applicability
and change of criteria.
Class 1 (►roof)-variances include:
a. Variance from yard setback requirements for a single-family dwelling, or its
associated accessory structure that does not comply with the three criteria set forth in LOC
50.14.005 (5)(a)-(c), of?850%, or less.
b. Variance from yard setback requirements for a structure other than those described in
subsection (1)(a) of this section of Iwa fee450% or less in side or „! ;Ara_ __r.._ cogs Rr
Feff)Q S.
c. Variances to the Oswego Lake setback (LOC 50.22.030) of less than 50%.
d. Variances to building height due to cliange of roof fort to increase the roof pitch,
provided that the plate height is not increased or a new story will not be added to the building.
c. Variance to side yard setback plane of 25% or less.
ef. Variances from minimum lot width or depth of 5 feet or less.
dg. Variances in lot coverage or floor area ratio (FAR) on platted lots which were platted
with an area less than the current zoning requirement for single-family residential dwellings and
accessory structures of up to and including 4-525%of the maximum allowed lot coverage or FAR.
eh. Variations from maximum fence height restrictions.
. Variation to the maximum grade of a private street or driveway.
gi. Variances for construction of a dormer that does not exceed the height of the roof
ridge in which the dormer is being constructed in an existing single family detached dwelling that
is non-conforming relative to lot coverage or setbacks.
hi. Variances to distance of driveway from intersections (LOC 50.58.015).
ik. Variances to street frontage (LOC 50.57.015).
Ordinance No. XXXX
Page 3 of XX
L Xiw FdcsV004U U 04-0055 Varim" I CDC Amendments\Class I renal Ordinance fhaRl d cCPeemi�'- Ad
jl. Variances to driveway width for Flag Lots(LOC 50.20.020). ,
in. Variances to the floor area of accessory buildings to allow not more than one
accessory building per lot, up to 1200 square feet in area,provided that in no case shall
the accessory building exceed the floor area of the primary dwelling on the site.
These changes would implement the expanded applicability of Class 1
variances.
The language proposed for subsection "in" is intended to address situations
where accessory buildings are situated such that they have little or no
impact on neighboring properties. In such cases, allowing accessory
buildings of up to 1200 square feet (rather than the current maximum of
600 or 800 square feet,depending on height of the building) is reasonable.
2. Class 2 variances whir#-are signifleant changes from the Code requirements ,an&-that are
likely to have significant impact on the neighborhood, streetscape. or neighbors.GFeHW 414paets ea
.,r nt PFOPeft)' BF users.
Class 2 variances include:
a. Variances from setback requirements for a single-family dwelling, or its associated
accessory structure that does not comply with the three criteria set forth in LOC 50.14.005 (5)(a)-
(c),of more than 2050%.
b. Variances from the minimum lot width or depth of more than 5 feet.
c. Variances from setback requirements for structures other than those described in
subsection (1)(a) of this section of more than ' feet ' -a nt Yard- and FnF;Fe than 5 t;@,;t
rear_vards50%.
d. Variances from the lot coverage or floor area ratio (FAR) for other than a single-
family residential dwelling or its associated accessory structures.
e. Variances to building height, except when due to change of roof form from flat to
pitched..
f. Variances to any other requirement of this Code except as classified as a Class 1
(rimer}variance above, and applicable to a development.
3. The City Manager shall decide the classification of any variance application.
4. For Class 1 (miner)-variances, the City Manager shall have the authority to require an
applicant to fulfill the requirements of LOC 50.77.025 at his/her discretion. This authority is
solely at the discretion of the City Manager and is not subject to appeal.
These Class 2 changes mirror the changes for Class 1 variances.
Read for the first time by title only and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Lake Oswego held on the day of . 2005.
AYES:
Ordinance No. XXXX
Page 4 of XX
L\Case Files1 ONTU 04JJ055 Variance I CDC AinmdmenlsUns I variance(Adinmc•thaIII do c'''n,.........._,.. .._d c..r.,,.n.,..., n .._..
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
EXCUSED:
Judie Hammerstad,Mayor
Dated:
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie,City Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
David D. Powell
City Attorney
Ordinance No. XXXX
Page 5 of XX
UCa Fi]e QOWLU 04-W55 Variance I CDC AlmndmmisUws I and `- ^^-^••^� °"•-•'
seal g _ _ hueffl
r
TABLE COMPARISON BETWEEN EXISTING AND PROPOSED CLASS 1 APPLICABILITY
Standard to be Varied Current Class 1 Recommended for inclusion
applicability as Class 1+
Yard Setbacks, when Less than 20% Less than 50%
residential single family
dwelling and accessory
structures that don't comply
with LOC 50.14.005(a-c).
Yard Setbacks, non-single <2 feet for side or front yard No Change
family dwelling <5 feet for rear yard
Oswego Lake Setback Probably treated as 20% - 100%
technically should be Class 2
Building Height None(Class 2) Class 2, except for building
height changes when changing
from a flat to a pitched roof
Front Yard Setback Plane Class 2 No change(Class 2
Side Yard Setback Plane Class 2 Less than orequal to 25%
Lot Width or Depth <5 feet No change
Lot Coverage, single family < 15% Less than or equal to 25%
and accessory, small platted
lots
FAR, single family and < 15% Less than or equal to 25%
accessory, small platted lots
Fence Requirements, including All No change
fence height
Private Street or Driveway All No change
Grade
Construction of a dormer that All No change
does not exceed the height of
the roof ridge in which the
dormer is being constructed in
an existing single family
detached dwelling that is non-
conforming relative to lot
coverage or setbacks
Distance of driveway from All No change
intersections(LOC 50.58.015).
Street frontage(LOC All No change
50.57.015).
Driveway width for Flag Lots All No change
(LOC 50.20.020).
Ordinance No. XXXX
Page 6 of XX
LACme Fi1e5100711.0 044)055 Variance I CDC Arnendmentc`Cm I vafimce. rdinoce.Draal doc"`r49e*meA aw �,.�_..�n... , e� ,_
..,n.a:........,9MI4 dRA 4400R Kdrdllraitin ,E4a� I
NA Chairs Revised: 11/24/04
Lynne Paretchan, Chair Ed Buchman, Chair
Blue Heron N.A. Lake Grove N.A.
17339 Blue Heron Road 3151 Upper Drive
Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Lake Oswego, OR 97035
Sandra Lear, Vice Chair Heather Chrisman
Bryant Neighborhood Association Lakewood N.A.
17623 Schalit Way 172 Middlecrest Road
Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Lake Oswego, OR 97034
George Van Ginhoven,Chair Brad Settlemyer
Country Club/North Shore NA McVey-South Shore N.A.
455 Iron Mountain Blvd. P.O. Box 2309
Lake Oswego,OR 97034 Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Chris Brien, Chair Dr. John Rumpakis, Chair
Evergreen N.A. Oak Creek N.A.
702 Lake Forest Drive 5435 Southwood Drive
Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Lake Oswego, OR 97035
Jim Bolland, Chair Jeannie McGuire, Chair
First Addition N.A. Old Town N.A.
804 5`h Street 144 Wilbur Street
Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Julie Bryan Maack, Chair Paul Ostroff, Chair
Forest Highlands NA Palisades N.A.
2112 Goodall Court 17766 Treetop Lane
Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Liz Hartman, Chair Ron Hanson, Chair
Glenmorrie NA Uplands NA
1748 Glenmorrie Terrace 2960 Wembley Park Road
Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Merrill Aiken, Acting Chair Jeff Novak, Chair
Hallinan Heights N.A. Waluga N.A.
715 Hemlock 4322 Collins Way
Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Lake Oswego, OR 97035
Ken Golsan, Chair David Standish,Treasurer(Contact)
Holly Orchard N.A. Westridge N.A.
3894 Tamarack Lane g Essex Court
Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Lake Oswego,OR 97034
Cathy Shroyer, Chair Lake Grove Business Association Barbara Price, Executive Mgr.*
Lake Forest NA clo Adelle Jenike Mt. Park Homeowners Assoc.
16727 Babson Place Jenike RE MAX #2 Mt. Jefferson Terrace
16055 Ferry Rd.
Lake Oswego,Lake Oswego, OR 97035 , OR 97035 Lake Oswego, OR 97035
Labels—Staff Report Distribution (LU 04-0055) Revised 12/03/04
DLCD Clackamas County
Meg Ferenekees,Field Metro Home Builders Association Planning Department
Representative 15555 Bangy Road 9101 SE Sunnybrook Blvd
800 NE Oregon, Suite 18 Portland,OR 97035 Clackamas,OR 97015
Portland,OR 97232
Mary Weber
Chamber of Commerce Bob Storer Long Range Planning
Ch
Ch Box 3of Lake Oswego Corporation METRO
Lake Oswego, OR 97034 PO Box 203 600 NE Grand Ave
Lake Oswego,OR 97034 Portland, OR 97232-2736
Plan Amendment Specialist
Colleen Bennett,Chair 1000 Friends of Oregon
LONAC Department of Land Conservation 300 Willamette Building
1131 Oxford Drive and Development
Lake Oswego,OR 97034 635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150 534 SW Third Avenue
Salem, OR 97301-2540 Portland,OR 97204
ALL RECOGNIZED
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS
(SEPARATE SET OF LABELS)
Dave Powers Curt Olson
Interested Parties: 1981 Mapleleaf Road 17150 S.W. Upper Boones Ferry Rd.
Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Durham, OR 97223
Egner, Dennis
From: Laura Rybowiak [Irybowiak@earthlink.nel]
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 3:25 PM
To: Egner, Dennis
Subject: Tonight's hearing/setbacks variances
Denny,
2 think 20� is`plenty for a setback variance. If there is such an overwhelming need to
loosen this standard, then 25% should be more than enough. Houses are on top of one
another as it is.
Laura Rybowiak
761 Briercliff Lane
Lake Oswego, OR 97034-1641
503-675-6467
EXHIBIT G3.1
t
December 13, 2004
To the Lake Oswego Planning Department
Re: modifications to variance standards
The Evergreen Neighborhood Association is working with the City to develop a
neighborhood plan. One of our primary concerns is the preservation of the unique
character of the Evergreen neighborhood. One way the planning committee intends to
address this is through the creation of a set of neighborhood design objectives as defined
in the Residential Infill Design standards, LOC 50.72.020(3). It reads, "The City
Manager shall also consider any neighborhood design objectives or guidelines for
residential development that have been adopted by the local neighborhood association".
The purpose of this standard was to reflect in the RID review process that each
neighborhood has unique design criteria. The addition of this statement to the already
listed criteria helps to make RID reflective of that uniqueness.
The Evergreen Neighborhood Association Neighborhood Planning Committee proposes
that a s ilar-effort b .Wade v it hanges.tn the v bVq standards. Since the intention
ofniiic ' ing these standards is to make resulting development and remodels more
_compatible wA the surrQunding.neighborhood, we believe it makes sense to allow the
City Manager the option to consider the unique characteristics defined by the
neighborhood in their own words. We suggest the addition of the following sentence:
" he City Manager shall also consider any neighborhood design objectives or guidelines
Iresidential development that have been adopted by the local neighborhood
1
he
T hank you for your consideration in this matter.
eU,4-ee oL 1
Carol Radich
ENA Neighborhood Planning Committee
A
CA.'PVL&
p r'k
GO EXHIBIT G•2.1
December 13,'2004
TO: Lake Oswego Planning Commission
FROM: Blue Heron Neighborhood Association
RE: File No. LU 04-0055—Proposal to change variance approval standards
The Blue Heron Neighborhood Association(BHNA)is located in an older part of lake Oswego.
Many properties front the Main bake,the Main Canal, Blue Heron Bay and Blue Heron Canal. There
is significant infill development in our neighbor hood and a housing stock that was constructed from
the 1930s to 2004.
The membership of BHNA voted at our last general meeting to unanimously oppose the above-
referenced land use application by the City of Lake Oswego to increase dimensional variance
standards. We do not wish to see any increase in the change to dimensions which are currently
regulated by the Class 1 variance standards.
We rely on the current variance standards to protect the character of our neighborhood. We do not
agree with the language of the staff report in that it states that the ability to reduce yard setbacks, lake
setback and increase building height and lot coverages in Class 1 variances"generally have little or
no significant impact on the neighborhood, streetscape or neighbors." (See proposed text change in
LOC 50.68.015.) In fact,by their very definition,variances do affect neighborhoods, and not just
those neighbors that live within 300 feet of the properties,(which are those properties that get specific
notice of the application under the code.)
Neighborhoods rely on the development code to provide a bright line test for variance standards, and
the dimensional variances allowed do not need increasing from our point of view. Although City
staff would like to have more flexibility in granting variances,the members of BHNA do not feel the
same way. We rely on staff to implement the code as it is,without additional discretion that relies on
subjective standards and undefined terms as proposed in the current application.
We support the Residential Infill Design review process being applied to the existing standards for
Class 1 variances, with no dimensional changes allowed, and with a better definition of terms in LOC
50.68.010 for such terms as"neighborhood, scale,character, privacy, experience of a pedestrian and
diminished".
We propose that any code change that is adopted use more precise language that is actually protective
of a neighborhood's character. Currently the proposed language is so vague that any savvy builder or
attorney could drive a truck through the proposed variance application standards and make every
variance request seem to conform to the scale and character of the many varieties of housing stock
found in many Lake Oswego neighborhoods.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments and opinions.
EXHIBIT G-3.2
[/STANDARD.011 12 13.M
Presentation before Lake Oswego Planning Commission
December 13, 2004
My name is John Pullen. I live at 18 Britten Court, Lake Oswego. I appreciate the
opportunity to give you my comments on the rewriting of Class I variances, or Class I Plus, or
whatever you want to call it. I have a large file on variances. It goes back to 1998. Mr.
Sandblast and Mr. Vizzini were around in 2000 when they worked on the last changes on the
issue of variances.
Looking at the present issue from the point of view of a neighbor, not as a development
applicant for a variance, I am not happy with the new amendment. The use of legal wording
such as "no harm test" and "no significant impact" lessens my rights to oppose granting of a
variance to someone nearby. Compare the present wording "Class I is limited to little or no
effect to adjacent property" to the new wording providing for a "no harm test" or "no significant
impact,'. And why was the word "minor' crossed out in the classification of Class I variance?
All these changes in wording appear to give the nearby neighbor less legal protection.
Last August, when the staff said that they had a problem with Class I variance and they
wanted to revise the criteria, they indicated they wanted to expand the application of Class I
variance. That was all that was said. Where are the examples of need, the number of
applicants turned down? I would like to see the real need for these amendments before
changes are made. What we have now is all right. A development applicant always wants
more. At the same time, a neighbor has some rights. I think a neighbor's rights have been
diminished in the legal wording of some amendments.
Another thing that astounds me is the possibility of the planning staff getting involved in
mitigation in granting a variance. In general I don't think staff is happy working with variances
and to add mitigation possibilities leaves me dumbfounded. Decreasing setback by 50%
instead of 20% just adds another reason to oppose these amendments. From 5 feet to 12.5
feet is a big change for cutting back on a required 25-foot setback.
The proposed new variance standards are for the purpose of helping development
requests. They do not protect adjacent neighbors as much as the present standards, so I
voice my opinion in opposing them.
EXHIBIT G-3.3