Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Item - 2010-04-20 soa 0 r 'C-- - (—ol\- cL1 LAKE OSWEGO Centennial 1910-2010 Ili" 0 Public Hearing before the CityCouncil of Lake Oswego April 20 2010 , LU 08-0053 Ordinances 2523 and 2524 Infill Development Staff Coordinator Denny Egner, AICP Assistant Planning Director CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO LAKE OSWEGO 410 Centennial 1970.2010 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 s' Lake Oswego,OR 97034 COUNCIL REPORT 503-675-3984 • www.ci.oswego.or.us TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor Members of the City Council Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: Denny Egner, AICP, Assistant Planning Director SUBJECT: Infill Public Hearing—April 20, 2010 LU 08-0053—Ordinances 2523 and 2524 DATE: March 26, 2010 ACTION 4110Hold a public hearing on April 20, 2010, deliberate, and vote on Ordinances 2523 and 2524. INTRODUCTION On April 20, 2010, the City Council is scheduled to open a public hearing on a comprehensive plan policy amendment and series of code amendments that encourage infill development to be more compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. The Council held a study session regarding the infill amendments on March 9, 2009. This report recaps the process, identifies the review criteria, and provides a guide to the record compiled during the Planning Commission's review of the ordinances. BACKGROUND On February 22, 2010, the Planning Commission adopted its findings in support of the proposed code and policy changes. The adoption followed more than a year of work sessions and hearings. The timeline/history for the City's work related to infill development follows: 2000-2002 Infill Task Force is appointed and works on proposals to make infill compatible. 2003 Infill related code amendments are adopted by the City Council and incorporated into the community development code. 2005-2008 Infill Task Force is reformed and expanded. They are charged with evaluating the 2003 amendments and making recommendations for improvement. .2008-2009 Planning Commission opens public hearing and holds work sessions. 2010 Planning Commission approves package of infill related changes. 1 Page 2 DISCUSSION • The discussion section of the report identifies the review criteria and describes how to access information in the Planning Commission record. Review Criteria —The criteria for making legislative decisions is set forth in Section 50.75.010 of the Community Development Code. The section states: Section 50.75.010 Criteria for Legislative Decision 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; 2. Comply with any applicable Statewide Planning Goal or Administrative Rule adopted pursuant to ORS Chapter 197;and 3. In the case of a legislative amendment to the Community Development Code, comply with any applicable provision of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan. The October 20, 2008 Planning Commission staff report (Exhibit D-1) addresses each of the criteria as well as other applicable regulations. The Commission's adopted findings dated February 22, 2010 (Exhibit B-1) refer back to the findings in the October 20, 2008 staff report and incorporate them. Guide to the Planning Commission Record—The Planning Commission record includes over 600 pages of • written materials. The record is organized according to the standard method for presenting and organizing materials for a Council hearing. The order is as follows: A. Ordinances B. Findings, Conclusions and Order C. Minutes D. Staff Reports E. Graphics/Plans F. Written Materials G. Written Testimony/Letters The only copies of the ordinances included in the Council packet are the final drafts that were recommended by the Planning Commission. Earlier versions are available online if Council members want to see how sections may have changed: http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/plan/Land Use App/2008/LU 08- 0053 CDC Comp Plan Infill/LU08-0053 CDC Comp-Plan Infill.htm. To assist the Council in working through the bulk of the Planning Commission record, staff has prepared a matrix that matches each infill topic with the exhibit in which the topic is addressed. The matrix is attached to this report. In the matrix, the exhibit categories (listed above) are arranged vertically down the page. The infill topics are listed along the horizontal axis. These are the infill topics that were addressed by the Infill Task Force and were used to organize the proposed amendments in the draft ordinance (see • Attachment B of Ordinance 2524). 2 Page 3 The best place to start reviewing the materials are the staff reports - Exhibits D-1 through D-15 (the *Planning Commission report numbering system was changed during the process so it is best to refer to exhibit numbers rather than report numbers). Exhibit D-1 is the original staff report and addresses all of the topics. The matrix will help the Council review topics by issue. If Council members want to focus on the Design Review, the matrix helps identify which exhibits address that topic. Note that some exhibits may only briefly touch on a topic. The matrix should also allow Council members to better match the testimony and Commission discussion with the staff reports. ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT No alternatives are proposed at this time. The code and policy amendments represent a recommendation from the Planning Commission. The fiscal impact is minimal. The code and policy amendments modify the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code and do not direct the City to initiate new projects or programs. Some of the code amendments result in simplification of code provisions. Some of the code amendments result in more complex requirements that may require additional time for staff review. It is expected that the time savings of simplification will balance out the time needed for the more complex provisions. There would be a fiscal impact as a result of a new design review program. The Infill Task Force supported creation of a new design review program and the Planning Commission did not. The February 3, 2009 staff report (Exhibit D-3) addresses alternative review processes and their associated costs. 41110 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 2524 (code amendments). Staff recommends the hearing on Ordinance 2523 (plan policy amendments) be continued to the June 1, 2010 Council meeting. New information regarding neighborhood overlay zoning will be presented at the April 27, 2010 joint meeting with the Planning Commission/Commission for Citizen Involvement. The Council may want to consider the new information prior to adoption of the plan policy amendment. ATTACHMENTS 1. Attachment 1 - Guide to the Planning Commission Record 2. Attachment 2 - Planning Commission Record Reviewed by: De.. - ,t Director ir • ► � Alere City Manager 3 Page 4 Attachment 1 • Guide to the Planning Commission Record Ordinances (A); ,, ca -0 c Findings(B); and � 3 Q giII CD C Planning Commission > -CI o o o U < •a`, �o a in Minutes(C) oo w LI w e N o c N 3 Exhibit# 0 c f9 ci m ra _y a, v m C d0 y E d t -O _it' 4! al C C U, 0In H -O O1 O Gl 5 fa) O C o �p N1 o E a+ u N t7 G1 C •y X .-. O L V1 U u cU cc C ca a� O +� N 8 ❑. 0 C L tu—n ? Q G! pp t—+ C V LO g +n eii - a > .' c`. O 1 a a Attachment B Section# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 - Ex.A-11 X Ex. A-1.11 X Ex. A-1.2 X Ex.A-21 X Ex. A-2.1 X Attach. B—8-04-08' X X X X X X X X X X X Attach. B—11-25-091 X X X X X X X X X X X Attach. B—2-22-10 X X X X X X X X X X X Ex. B-1—Planning X X X X X X X X X X X X Commission Findings III Ex. C-1—9-22-08 X Ex. C-2— 10-27-09 X X X X X X X X X X X Ex.C-3—1-26-09 X X X X X X X Ex. C-4—2-09-09 X Ex. C-5—2-23-09 X X X X X Ex.C-6—3-09-09 X X X X Ex.C-7—3-23-09 X X Ex. C-8—4-13-09 X X Ex. C-9—5-11-09 X Ex. C-10—5-27-09 _ X X X X X X Ex.C-11—6-08-09 X X Ex.C-12—6-22-09 X X X Ex. C-13—7-13-09 X X Ex.C-14— 7-27-09 X X Ex. C-15— 8-24-09 X X X X Ex. C-16— 9-14-09 X X X X X X X X Ex. C-17—10-12-09 X X X X Ex. C-18— 10-26-09 X X X X X X X Ex.C-19— 11-09-09 X X X X X X X X _ Ex. C-20— 12-14-09 X X X X X X X X X Ex. C-21— 1-11-10 I X X X X X X 'Available online—Not in the Council packet. • 4 Page 5 staff Reports and Memos (D) a a) ° .� cv 0) -o Exhibit # o a E - C a a '0 c fl- o ° C ° no ,,, o U 4-, a) 0 v, a. v, v -0 -0 a4 °O ,aJ LL U v, 0 O C s aJ E p p O N N C ^ cn vi (13 o) m c o 3 u cn -a a., a! .2,„ x .c O .0 M °a ' Y > - 73 Q C •`-- N > Q. a) ao .L c I..) L o ° ° Z 2 L Ln > v) cC - > 2 a a tZ a L9 la Attachment B Section # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 - Ex. D-1—Original Staff X X X X X X X X X X X X Rpt. -October 20, 2008 Ex. D-2 —Staff Memo (1) X January 21, 2009 Ex. D-3 —Staff Memo (2) X X X X February 3, 2009 Ex. D-4—Sup. Rpt. (3) X X March 4, 2009 Ex. D-5—Sup. Rpt. (4) X X X April 1, 2009 Ex. D-5.1—Sup. Rpt. (5) X ,ay 11, 2009 Ex. D-6—Sup. Rpt. (6) X May 29, 2009 Ex. D-7—Sup. Rpt. (7) X June 5, 2009 Ex. D-8—Sup. Rpt. (8) X June 11, 2009 Ex. D-9 —Sup. Rpt. (9) X X X X July 2, 2009 Ex. D-10—Sup. Rpt. (10) X X X X August 13, 2009 Ex. D-11—Sup. Rpt. (11) X X X X X X X September 3, 2009 Ex. D-12 —Sup. Rpt. (12) X X X October 1, 2009 Ex. D-13—Sup. Rpt. (13) X October 8, 2009 Ex. D-14—Sup. Rpt. (14) X December 1, 2009 Ex. D-15—Sup. Rpt. (15) X January 6, 2010 • 5 Page 6 •Graphics/Plans (E) and tn v � o Written Materials (F) _. 3 Q ra E -0 C ro Exhibit# a `o c �, o 0 Q 5 o cc ` N bq-0 a) ON a1 IA a) 0 Cv O C UO ,,,,I, Li V o faC fa 0 No fa cacoCop J noUra Oal ro H co a, ' X �7 -Y C � ai = J . a a)-c CO o po .__ u cc, v) cu cc c x = - -0 0 C . N > Q aA + C V o (6 b a c`o - 0 rO ro I. D (a a) oz cn cn >- v) E2 a > a o o LL aL w n Attachment B Section # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 - Ex. E-1 - Map X X Ex. E-2 - Map X X Ex. E-3 - Map X __IN X Ex. E-4- Map X X Ex. E-5 - Map X X Ex. E-6- Map X X Ex. E-7 - Powerpoint X Ex. F-1 -Summary of X Plan Amendments Ex. F-2 -Summary of X X X X X X X X X X ' X Code Amendments _ Ex. F-3—Infill Task Force X X X X X X X III Refinements Ex. F-4—Design Review X Proposal (Jan. 25, 2007) Ex. F-5—Design Review X Research (CA examples) Ex. F-6—Palo Alto X X Design Guidelines _ Ex. F-7 — Floor Area and X Lot Size Graphs Ex. F-8—Floor Area and X Lot Coverage Examples Ex. F-9—RID Handout X Ex. F-10— RID Projects X Approved as of 5-16-071 Ex. F-11—RID Projects X Approved as of 5-01-09 Ex. F-12—Summary Sec. X X X X X 5, 8, 9, 10, & 11; 6-11-09 Ex. F-13—Attachment to X X X PC report#9; 7-02-09 _ Ex. F-14 -Nonconforming X Structures; 8-24-09 'Available online—not in packet • Written Materials- continued on next page. 6 l ow • 4111 S m p m K X D X Clik- n T '"' '71 T n LT .�' 73 dG o ILD F-+ X• IL _ _. N = fD --..I Cr, Cn 3 O- I I N I v rD N n n u n CO CD 0 3 = O OrD N a, I' rD O F O LC) p ('1 v+ .T73 r 3 O v aJ V1 A 3 Q O lD x x ,, Neighborhood Plans and Design Review Policy x x N Lot Coverage and Maximum Floor Area x x u., Structure Design and Setback Planes x x A Yard Setbacks x x tri Sloped Lots x x Q, RID Review x x -., Planned Developments 1 x x oo Variances x x i..0 Miscellaneous Code Provisions x x o Duplexes and Attached Dwellings x x 1— Flag Lots and Serial Partitions x , General Background or Process Page 8 Written Testimony/ i Letters (G) 0 >. m c �a c ,L) v c i a) a -c Exhibit # o Q ,� D m >, a a. -a c Q. • o a) C 0 `° o tin N o Zr. E o a) cu L a) C Y I > 0 '0 "c 1-� > CO o _ro Uvi a) o c c v, 3 a) v, 03 ro a, I-. cu v E a) a _ Jo a) v c c on � c ~ > D Y •> 'a N C a) . - c o E .2 u °' -o a) v " _ x ,c o ,o ra tlA U CJ ca N C c a) ., a) — —I a.. " .DA 'vi �, x i ..o -0 Q C ,L v, > Q bA �' C Z o 2 In v) >-Cri (9. -n E a > 2 a. 0 0 tr. a. C7 Attachment B Section # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 - Ex. G-1— Barbara Paris; X X 9-03-08 Ex. G-2—Patricia X X X Woolsey; 1-16-09 Ex. G-3—Christopher X ' Robinson; 10-27-08 Ex. G-4— Lisa Hunt; X Ii 2-09-09 I 1 • Ex. G-5 — (article) Sherry I ; X Finnegan; 1-26-09 Ex. G-6—Lisa Shaw Ryan X X X X X X X X X • 1-26-09 Ex. G-7—Tom Kelly; X 2-09-09 Ex. G-8—Ernie Platt; X X ( 2-09-09 - Ex. G-9—Barbara Zeller; X X X I X X 2-23-09 Ex. G-10— Barbara X Zeller; 2-23-09 Ex. G-11— Patricia X I X I X Woolsey; 12-14-09 Ex. G-12 —Janine X Dunphy; 12-14-09 j i Ex. G-13—Ralph Tahran; X X X X X X X X X X 12-14-09 Ex. G-14— Sherry X X Finnegan; 12-14-09 Ex. G-15—Maria X X X X X X X X X Meneghin; 12-14-09 • 8 r Page 9 • Attachment 2 Planning Commission Record LU 08-0053 — Ordinances 2523 and 2524 A. Ordinances B. Findings, Conclusions and Order C. Minutes D. Staff Reports E. Graphics/Plans F. Written Materials G. Written Testimony/Letters • 9 • • • 10 Exhibit A Ordinances 0 s s • EXHIBIT A-1.2 SUPERSEDES ALL PREVIOUS VERSIONS Exhibit A-1 has been superseded by Exhibit A-1. 1 Exhibit A-1 . 1 has been superseded by Exhibit A-1 .2 Exhibits A-1 and A-1. 1 can be viewed on the City's website at: www.ci.oswego.or.us/plan/CDC-2008/CDC-2008-Link to LU Pages.htm (Select LU 08-0053) 0 Note : Exhibits A-1 and A-1 . 1 included a policy in support of a city-wide design review program . Exhibit A-1 .2 ( recommended by the Planning Commission ) does not include the policy. 0 11 • • • 12 • EXHIBIT A-1.2 DRAFT LU 08-0053 ORDINANCE NO 2523 Infill(Comprehensive Plan Change) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AMENDING GOAL 2 (LAND USE PLANNING)OF THE LAKE OSWEGO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO AMEND A POLICY RELATED TO INFILL DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING. (LU08-0053) WHEREAS, the City of Lake Oswego adopted infill standards in 2003 that are intended to enhance the compatibility of new residential development in the community; and, WHEREAS in 2005 the City reformed the Infill Task Force and charged the task force with evaluating the 2003 amendments; and, WHEREAS, the Infill Task Force has recommended a set of code amendments and policies intended to improve.the 2003 infill standards; and, WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing for consideration of this Ordinance was duly given in the manner required by law;and, • WHEREAS, a public hearing and work sessions were held before the Planning Commission on September 22, 2008; October 27, 2008;January 26, 2009; February 9 and 23,2009; March 9 and 23, 2009;April 13, 2009; May 11 and 27,2009;June 8 and 22, 2009; July 13 and 27, 2009;August 24, 2009; September 14, 2009, October 12 and 26, 2009;November 9,2009; December 14,2009 and January 11, 2010, to consider and make recommendations to amend the Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 50; and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Lake Oswego City Council on 2010,to review the Planning Commission's recommendation; and, The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows: Section 1. Adoption of Findings and Conclusions: The City Council hereby adopts the Findings and Conclusions (LU 08-0053) attached as Attachment "A". Section 2. Plan Amendments: Goal 2(Land Use Planning) Section Policy 18 of the City's Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended by removing text shown in strikeout and adding new text shown in underline: Comprehensive Plan Goal 2(Land Use Planning) Section 1,Policy 18 41111 18. Develop and adopt specific Neighborhood Plans and implementing measures consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as the means to enhance neighborhood Draft-Ordinance No. 2523 (revised),LU 08-0053 Amendments to Goal 2(Land Use Planning)the Comprehensive Plan Revised: 02/19/10 Page 1 13 livability and achieve desired neighborhood character. If appropriate, implementation may be accomplished through creation of a new zoning district or a new overlay zone. A Neighborhood Association may request the Planning Commission and City Council to initiate Neighborhood Plan Map and text amendments at any time, without fee,upon finding that the proposed changes are in the public's interest and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Section 3. Severability: The provisions of this ordinance are severable. If any portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date of the Ordinance Amendments: Pursuant to Lake Oswego City Charter, Section 34, this ordinance shall be effective on the 30th day after its enactment. Section 5. Mailing Copies of this Ordinance: Within 30 days following the date of adoption: a. The City Recorder is hereby directed to mail a copy of this ordinance to all persons and governmental entities that appeared at the public hearing and requested a copy of the ordinance following adoption. Read by title only and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of 41111 Lake Oswego held on day of , 2010. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: EXCUSED: , Mayor Dated: ATTEST: Robyn Christie, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: • Draft-Ordinance No.2523(revised),LU 08-0053 Amendments to Goal 2(Land Use Planning)the Comprehensive Plan Revised: 02/19/10 Page 2 14 David D. Powell, City Attorney . Draft-Ordinance No.2523 (revised),LU 08-0053 Amendments to Goal 2(Land Use Planning)the Comprehensive Plan Revised: 02/19/10 Page 3 15 • • • 16 • EXHIBIT A-2. 1 SUPERSEDES PREVIOUS VERSION Exhibit A-2 has been superseded by Exhibit A-2 . 1 Exhibit A-2 can be viewed on the City's website at: www.ci.oswego.or.us/plan/CDC-2008/CDC-2008-Link to LU Pages.htm (Select LU 08-0053) • • 17 18 41110 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO 2524 Infill (Code Changes) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO TO AMEND PORTIONS OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CODE, CHAPTER 50(COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE)TO PROMOTE COMPATIBILITY OF NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT (LU 08-0053). WHEREAS,the City of Lake Oswego adopted infill standards in 2003 that are intended to enhance the compatibility of new residential development in the community; and WHEREAS, in 2005 the City reformed the Infill Task Force and charged the task force with evaluating the 2003 amendments; and, WHEREAS,the Infill Task Force has recommended a set of code amendments and policies intended to improve the 2003 infill standards; and, WHEREAS,a notice of public hearing for consideration of this Ordinance was duly • given in the manner required by law; and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on September 22, 2008; October 27, 2008; January 26, 2009; February 9 and 23, 2009; March 9 and 23, 2009; April 13,2009; May 11 and 27,2009; June 8 and 22, 2009; July 13 and 27, 2009; August 24, 2009; September 14, 2009, October 12, 2009; December 14, 2009 and January 11, 2010, to consider and make recommendations to amend the Community Development Code—LOC Chapter 50; and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Lake Oswego City Council on 2010, to review the Planning Commission's recommendation to amend LOC Chapter 50. NOW THEREFORE, The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows: Section 1. Adoption of findings and Conclusions: The City Council hereby adopts the Findings and Conclusions(LU 08-0053) attached as Attachment "A". Section 2. Code Amendments: The Lake Oswego Code is hereby amended by deleting the text shown by strike out and adding new text shown in underline as set forth in Attachment"B". Section 3. Severability: The provisions of this ordinance are severable. If any portion of • this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Ordinance No.2524,LU 08-0053 EXHIBIT A-2.1 Amendments to LOC Chapter 50(Infill Standards) 02/19/10 Page 1 19 • Section 5. Effective Date of the Ordinance Amendments: Pursuant to Lake Oswego City Charter, Section 34, this ordinance shall be effective on the 30th day after its enactment. Section 6. Mailing Copies of this Ordinance: Within 30 days following the date of adoption: a. The City Recorder is hereby directed to mail a copy of this ordinance to all persons and governmental entities that appeared at the public hearing and requested a copy of the ordinance following adoption. Read by title only and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego held on day of , 2010. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 5 EXCUSED: , Mayor Dated: ATTEST: Robyn Christie, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: David D. Powell, City Attorney • Ordinance No. 2524, LU 08-0053 Amendments to LOC Chapter 50(Infill Standards) 02/19/10 Page 2 20 • ATTACHMENT B TO ORDINANCE 2524 DATED 02/22/10 SUPERSEDES ALL PREVIOUS VERSIONS The versions of Attachment B to Ordinance 2524 dated 08/04/08 and 11/25/09 have been superseded by the version dated 02/22/10. The 08/04/08 and 11/25/09 versions of Attachment B can be viewed on the City's website at : • www.ci.oswego.or.us/plan/CDC-2008/CDC-2008-Link to LU Pages.htm (Select LU 08-0053) Note : The 02/22/10 version has been recommended by the Planning Commission . The 08/04/08 and 11/25/09 versions include some explanatory notes that have been removed from the 02/22/10 version . • 21 • • • 22 0 Attachment B Ordinance 2524 Amendments to the community development code are attached. The recommendations are grouped by topic area. Section 1 refers to two new comprehensive plan policies that have been included in ordinance 2523. • Section 1 — Comprehensive Plan Amendments o Neighborhood Plans / Overlay Zones o Design Review ■ Section 2- Lot Coverage and Maximum Floor Area ■ Section 3 - Structure Design/Setback Planes ■ Section 4 - Yard Setbacks ■ Section 5 - Sloped Lots • Section 6 - RID Review ■ Section 7 - Planned Developments / Open Space • Section 8 - Variances • Section 9 - Miscellaneous Code Provisions ■ Section 10 - Duplexes and Attached Dwellings ■ Section 11 - Flag Lots/Serial Partitions • • Ordinance 2524 -Attachment B Page I Revised:02/22/10 laiill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 23 L Section 1 - Comprehensive Plan Amendments 4110 o Neighborhood Plans / Overlay Zones o Design Review See Ordinance 2523 • Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 2 Revised: 02/22/10 lnfill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 24 • Section 2 - Lot Coverage and Maximum Floor Area Lot Coverage Section 50.08.040 Lot Coverage 1. Except as set forth in LOC Article 50.30, lot coverage shall not exceed 35% for a 0 1. Except as otherwise specified in this section. ,he maximum lot coverage shall be established based on the following table: Maximum Lot Coverage—R.7.5,R-10, and R-15 • Height (ft.) Maximum Lot Covera!_%° of primary structure R-7.5 ` 1 R-15 rless 35 % 352A 35% >22' to 23' 33 % 34 ' • 34 % >23' to 24' 3Q ' . 33 >24' to ' 28% 1 ' , 32% • >25' to2_6' 25 °. 28 ' , 30° � >26' to 27' 25.% 27% 29.% >2T to 2I' 25 % 25% 28 % >28' to2Q' 25 % 25.% 27 % >29' to 3 ' 25_% 25 % 25 % >30' to31 25 % 25 % 25 % >31' to32,' 25 % 25 % 25 % >32' to 33' 25 % 25 % 25 >33' to 3 ' 25 % 25 % 25 >34' 25 % 25 % 25 % bet Size (ware-Feet) R 7.5 R 10 R 15 4-S;000 :6 e >5,000 <6,000 33 .555 3 3 3 ,000<8,,000 :45 :4 .4S >8,000<9,000 74 4 44 411 , , -34 4 :�-3 3$ 4 42 Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 3 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 25 73-7 39 :44 36 • 38 4 3§ 37 :39 > 14,000 < 15,000 7.34 736 738 3-3 33 3-7 734 36 734- 33 36 40 732 734 > 19,000<20,000 729 3.1- 33 20,000 728 3 32 a. Ground floor area of detached garage: i. For lots less than or equal to 10,000 square feet in area up to 200 square feet. feet. b. Floor area of attached garage located at or rear of the primary structure or for side-leading-garag Up to 200 e f c. In subsections a. and b. above.a garage is considered to be located to the • 2. The naraee footprint. includine any area_directly above or below the aaraae.shall be exempt from lot coverage as provided below: a. (i)rear-or side-loading,or(ii) located 20 feet or more back from the closest point of the dwelling to the front lot line or,(iii)in case of corner lots, 20 feet or more back from the closest point of the dwelling to the front and street side lot lines- up to cumulative maximum 200 square feet. b. A. detached •araae that eels subsection(a)above and the lot i •reater than 10.000 square feet in area- up to cumulative maximum 400 square feet. Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 4 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 26 • Appendix 50.08—A Garage to the Rear of the Primary Structure The diagram illustrates three scenarios where the garage is located to the rear of the primary structure. 10' back from portion of house closest to street. 1 Front of House 1'0'"4'� Driveway Section 50.07.035 Lot Coverag . 1. Lot coverage in the R-6 zone shall not exceed the lot coverage and tea-standards found in Table 50.07.035 below: Table 50.07.035 Lot Coverage in the R-6 Zone Lot size lit Base Height of Structure at Highest Grade 20'or >20'to >21'to >22'to >23 >24'to >25'to >26' >_27' less 2i 22' 231 to 241 25' 26 to 271 7,000 or 45% 43% 42% 40% 38% 36% 35% 35% 35% less >7,000- 36% 36% 36% 36% 36% 36% 35% 34% 3.3°ln 8,500 >8,500— 35% 35° 35% 35% 34% 33% 32% 31% 30% 10,000 >10,000- 35% 35% 35% 33% 31% 30°/n 29% 28% 77% 11,500 >11,500 35% 34% 33% 30% 2R% 27% 25% 25°/n 25% • For purposes of regulating lot coverage in relation to building height. base building hdgh shall be established by a flat plane measured from the highest point of the natural grade Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 5 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 27 within the building envelope, provided that the height is no more than four f • eet higher t the base height listed in table 50.07.035. TABLE 50.07.035 Lut Sire Primal. Dwelling Primary Dwelling r �� (Stunt a Feet) < 22 feet in height > 22 feet in height 6,000 .5 ? 6,000 7,000 44% 345 _48 ▪ 7.000 ' 8.000 435i, 33% .46 8.000 9,000 42% 3?% .44 >_ 9.000 <z 10,000 11% 31% .1`2 10.000 11,000 40% 30% .40 a 11.000 = 12,000 39% 29% _38 12.000 13.000 38% 28% .36 j 13,000 t-- 14.000 37% 27% .34 >_ 14.000 15.000 36% 26% .32 15.000 35% 25% .3 2. FAR for uses other than single family dwellings and their accessory uses shall be as • fellows: a. The FAR for uses listed as conditional uses shall be established as part of the 32. Decks less than 5 feet above grade, stairs,pergolas, trellises or other landscaping structures, and concrete slabs shall be exempt from lot coverage and FAR calculations. `.\43. No more than 60%of the lot may be covered with impervious surfaces. -54. Provided it is the only garage on th_e_site,_Tthe ground floor area of a detached garage area shall be exempt from lot coverage calculations: a. For lots less than or equal to 10,000 square feet in area -up to 200 square feet. b. For lots greater than 10,000 square feet in area- up to 400 square feet. • Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 6 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 28 • Section 50.06.040 Lot Coverage. 1. Lot coverage shall not exceed the maximums set forth in Table 50.06.040 below: Table 50.06.040 Maximum Lot Coverage Zone Dwelling Type Maximum Lot Coverage R-0 40% 3 detached Single family 35% R-2 attached Row House 55% Duplex 55% Other Structures 50% R-3 50% Single-family detached: <22 fect 45% Single-family detached: >22 feet 3 % in-height • Height(ft.) Maximum Lot R-5 Coverage MI Single Family 22 or less 45% >22 to 25 42% detached >25 to 28 38% >28 to 30 35% >30 Single Family 50% attached Other Structures 50% WR 100% • Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 7 Revised:02/22/10 lnfill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 29 Maximum Floor Area • Section 50.02.005 Definitions—Floor Area Floor Area. The combined square footage area (measured from the exterior of the surrounding exterior walls framin of a building or portions thereof of all stories of a building excluding: • vent shafts, • court yards, • ara,.es except as modified in: o the R-5 zone(Section 50.06.(135)(1)(b)(i), for residential development; o the R-6 zone (Section 50.07.037(1)), for outright permitted residential development; o the R-7,5, R-10, and R-15 zones (Section 50.08.042(1), for single family dwellings); • —allowable projections, • decks, • patios, • uncovered exit stairs,and • uncovered, above-grade driveways. Where a square footage limitation is imposed by this Code upon a building or structure, the method of measuring the square footage shall be presumed to be by "floor area" unless otherwise stated. Section 50.08.042 Maximum Floor Area.--Blear-ratio shall • of ed the • TABLE 50.08.040(2) FAR Lot Size (Square Feet) R 7.5 It 10 R 15 <5,000 :6 3-5 33 33 000 ,000 3 3 3 >7,000<8,000 45 745 45 >8,000<9,000 :4 4 :44 _ 3 9 74 743 .38 3 :42 440 2,000 1 41 36 38 :4 7-34 37 39 > 14,000< 15,000 .34 36 38 33 36 47 • I6,000< 17,000 32 34 -36 , 34 733 35 30 32 -34 .. , 39 34 33 20,000 .28 32 • Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 8 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 30 l. For purposes of calculating maximum floor area for dwellings in the R-7.5, R-10,and R-15 izones,the floor area of garages and accessory structures shall be included in the total that is subject to the maximum floor area standard of this section. 2. The maximum floor area per lot in the R-7.5, R-10, and R-15 zones shall not exceed the floor area calculated according to the formula included in Table 50.08.042. Table 50.08.042 Maximum Floor Area -per Lot Bonus floor area Base floor area calculation (based on zone), (dependent on lot size) Additional floor area Zone allowance per residential unit providing a garage 3000 square feet+ [(actual lot size—5800,square 600 sq. ft. R-7.5 f et)x 0.191 + 750 sq. ft. R-10 850 sq. ft. R-15 the project as a whole and not on a lot by lot basis. • 1. The floor area of a garage shall be exempt from lot coverage calculations: a. Ground floor area of detached garage: i. For lots less than or equal to 10,000 square feet in area up to 200 sq uar€eet. ii. For lots greater than 10,000 square feet in area up to 400 square feet. b. Floor area of attached garage located at or rear of the primary structure or for side loading garages Up to 200 square feet. c. In subsections a. and b. above, a garage is considered to be located to the 53. Habitable areas of detached accessory structures that would normally be counted as floor area shall be exempt from floor area calculations: a. For lots less than or equal to 10,000 square feet in area- up to 200 square feet. b. For lots greater than 10,000 square feet in area- up to 400 square feet. 64. Maximum floor area FAR for uses other than single family dwellings and their accessory uses shall be as follows: a. The FAR for uses listed as conditional uses shall be established as part of the conditional use process. b. The FAR for other non-residential uses shall be no greater than I:1. 11111 Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 9 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 31 Section 50.07.037 Maximum Floor Area. • For nurooses of calculating maximum flnnr area for dwellings in the R_F,zone the �araaes and a ssory tructures shall be in laded in the total tha is subject to the maximum floor area standard of this section, 2. The maximum floor area per lot in the R-6 zones shall not exceed the floor area calculated according to the following formula: included in Table 50.08.042, Maximum Floor Area per Lot=2750 sfluare feet+ (actual lot size—6000 square feet)x 0,19) + a 500 square foot floor area allowance per residential unit providing as garage. 23. FAR Floor area for uses other than outright permitted residential development and their accessory uses shall be as follows: a. The FAR for uses listed as conditional uses shall be established as part of the conditional use process. b. The FAR for other non-residential uses shall b not exceed 1:1. 34. Decks less than 5 feet above grade, stairs,pergolas, trellises or other landscaping structures, and concrete slabs shall be exempt from floor area calculations. 6-5. Provided only one garage is provided,lhabitable areas of detached accessory • structures that would normally be counted as floor area for purposes of floor area calculations,shall be exempt as follows in the€rem-floor area calculations: a. For lots less than or equal to 10,000 square feet in area- up to 200 square feet. b. For lots greater than 10,000 square feet in area-up to 400 square feet. Section 50.06.035 Lot Size,Density Transfer,and Maximum Floor Area-Iie-(-FAR}. 1. The standards are as follows: a. Lot area and maximum floor area shall meet the standards of Table 50.06.035. • Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 10 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 32 • Table 50.06.035 Zone Minimum Lot Area Maximum Floor Area Minimum Per Dwelling Area R-0 No minimum No minimum FAR: 1.2:1 R-2 No mi No minimum FAR: 1.2:1 R-3 3 5 sq,..ft. 3 No maximum R-5 5,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. Lot area 5,000 7,000 sq. ft.: .6:1 SOW Lot area>7,000 9,000 sq. ft.: .5:I Lot area>9,000 sq. ft.: .4:1 See subsection (bZbelow WR 3,375 sq. ft. 3,375 sq. ft. No maximum b. Residential development in the R-5 zone shall comply with the following maximum floor area standards; i. For purposes of calculating maximum floor area for dwellings in the R-5 zone,the floor area of garages and accessory structures shall be included in the total that is subject to the maximum floor area standard of this section. ii. Residential development shall not exceed the maximum floor area • per lot as calculated by the following formulas; (1 Lots 5 000 sa feet and above Maximum Floor Arear Lot=2850 square feet+ [(actual lot size—5000 square feet) x 0 281 +a 500 square foot floor area allowance per residential unit providing a garage, (2) Lots less than 5,000 sq. feet: Maximum Floor Area per Lot=2850 square feet+[(actual lot size—5000 square feet) x 0.48) +a 500 square foot floor area allowance per residential unit providing a garage, 4110 Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 11 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 33 Section 3 - Structure Design and Setback 1110 Planes Setback Planes The front profile of a structure shall fit behind a plane that starts at the front yard setback line and extends upward,to 20 feet in height,then slopes toward the rear of the lot at a mini -slope of 6:12, up to the maximum allowed height at the Section 50.08.045 Structure Design -R-7.5,R-10, and R-15 Zones. I. Street Front Setback Plane. a. Except as set forth in LOC 50.08.045 (1)(c),the The front profile of a structure that fronts on a street shall fit behind a plane that starts at the front-yard-setback line (front yard or side yard abutting a street) and extends upward to 20 feet in height, then slopes toward the rear center of the lot , up to the maximum allowed height at the peak highest point of the roof, as illustrated in Appendix 50.07-C. The slope of the street front setback plane is de.endent upon whether it applies to a fron and or sid- and abutting a street, as follows: i. Front yard—6:12 slope. ii. Side yard abutting astreet— 12 12 slope b. Exceptions to the street front setback plane. Any individual roof form may penetrate the street front setback plane if it is less than one-third of the total structure width at 20 feet in h 'gh (See A..endix 50.07-D . Two or more separate and distinct roof forms, such as dormers, • may project into the street front setback plane if they are less than one-half of the total structure width at 20 feet in height. 2. Side Yard Setback Plane—Interior Yards. a. Except as set forth in section (c) below, the side profile of a structure shall fit behind a plane that starts at the side lL e}Lrtv line and extends upward to 12 feet and sloes toward the center of the lot at a slope of 12:12 up to the maximum allowed he'•ht at the peak as illustrated in Appendix 50.07 - E. • b. Roof forms may penetrate into the side va_rd setback plane required under(a) above as follows: _. i. Any_individual roof form may penetrate the side setback plane if it is less than one-third of the structure length at 12 feet in height. Two or more separate and distinct roof forms such as dormers or gables may project into the side setback plane if the_ .re less than one-half of the structure length at 12 feet in height. Building projections allowed under LOC 50.22.045 may project up to 2 feet into the side yard setback plane Chimneys are exempt from the setback In ane requirement. c. On steepl sloped lots that are upslope from the abutting street, no side yard setback plane is required. Cross-reference: See 50.02.005,"Lot, Steeply Sloped". • Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 12 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 34 • Appendix 50.07 - C Street Front Setback Planes Street Side Yard Setback Plane Front Setback Plane - •• �� b 12 �� _----.._...._..-._--•--..._. _._._._ Maximum — ' height I I 20' I I ROW ' ROW -I y i I - 1-- Front Yard Setback Side Yard Setback Adjacent to a Street 110 Appendix 50.07 - D Exceptions to the Setback Plane Front Setback Plane Exception Example- 6:12 slope Width=y Setback Plane Exception Area 1 � 4has 20' Front Side View View I 3t'i 4 Structure Width =x Top View(reduced) Exception Width Formula y < x/3 A ; „ii_.„, ill Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 13 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 35 0 Appendix 50.07 - E Side Yard Setback Plane Property Line • t 12— 1 Maximum ‘ height 12 ----A—f ) IT I Building Envelope • ! • ! --► Side Yard Setback Side Yard Setback Section 50.07.040 Structure Design - R-6 Zone. ill 3. Street Front Setback Plane. a. Except as set forth in LOC 50.07.040 (3)(c),the The front profile of a structureihat fronts on a street shall fit behind a plane that starts at the front yard-setback line (front yard or side yard abutting a street)and extends upward to 20 feet in height,then slopes toward the rear center of the lot ,up to 28 feet in height at the peak highest point of the roof,as illustrated in Appendix 50.07-C. The slope of the street-front setback plane is dependent upon whether it applies to a front yard or side yard abutting a street as follows• i Front yard-6:12 slope. ii. Side yard abutting a street- 12:12 slope. This requirement shall not apply to flag lots. b. Exceptions to the street-front setback plane. Any individual roof form may penetrate the street-front setback plane if it is less than one-third of the tetal-structure width at 20 feet in height. Two or more separate and distinct roof forms, such as dormers, may project into the street-front setback plane if they are less than one-half of the total-structure width at 20 feet in height. 4. Side Yard Setback Plane-Interior Yards. a. Except as set forth in section (c) below,the side profile of a structure shall fit behind a _ne rat . r . i ide property line and extends upward to 12 feet and slopes toward the center of the lot at a sloe of 12:12 up to the maximum allowed height at the peak as illustrated in Appendix 50.07 -E. • Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 14 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 36 b. Roofows:forms may penetrate into the side yard setback plane required under (a) above as foll i. Any individual roof form may nenetrat the ide setback plane if it is less than one-third of the structure length. Two or more separate and distinct roof forms such as dormers or gables may project into the side setback plane if they are less than one-half of the structure length. ii. Building projections allowed under LOC 50.22.045 may project up to 2 feet into the side :rd setback plane. Chimneys are exempt from the setback plane requirement. c. On steeply sloped lots that are upslope from the abuttin. -. •• • - . • setback plane is required. Cross-reference: See 50.20.005. "Lot, Steeply Sloped". Section 50.22.025 Special Determination of Yards and Yard Requirements; Special Side Yard Setback Plane Requirement. 1. Corner Lots. In the case of corner lots with more than two street frontages,the City Manager shall determine the front yard requirements, subject to the following limitations: (1) at least one front yard shall be provided having the full depth required generally in the zone; (2)No other front yard on such lot shall have less than half the full depth required generally; and (31 For sites where street front setback planes are required, only one frontage shall be • required to meet the front yard setback plane standards. The other frontages shall comply with the setback plane requirements for side yards abutting a street. 2. Through Lots. Unless the prevailing front yard pattern on adjoining lots indicates otherwise, front yards shall be provided on all street frontages. Where one of the front yards that would normally be required on a through lot is not in keeping with the prevailing yard pattern, the City Manager may waive the requirements for the normal front yard and substitute therefore a special yard requirement which shall not exceed the average of the yards provided on adjacent lots. 3. Determination of Front Yard for Flag Lots Created Prior to September 6, 1998 and Lots Accessing by Easement. The front yard shall be the area abutting the property line of the "flag" portion of the lot parallel to the street providing access to a flag lot created prior to September 6, 1998. If this standard is not practical due to placement of structures on adjacent lots,topography or similar reasons, then the front yard will be that portion of the lot abutting the property line of the greatest length abutting the access portion of the flag or easement. Section 50.06.060 Structure Design—R-0, R-2,R-3, and R-5 Zones. Rune. 1. Applicability. The structure design standards of this section shall apply to the following types of development within the R-0, R-2, R-3, and R-5 Residential Zones• • Detached single family dwellings; • Zero lot line dwellings; • • Duplexes; and Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 15 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 37 • Structures that are accessory to the development types listed above. • 4-2, Street Front Setback Plane-in-the 4one. a. Except as set forth in LOC 50.06.060(2)(c), the The front profile of a structure that fronts on a street shall fit behind a plane that starts at the front-yard—setback line(front yard or side yard abutting a street) and extends upward to 20 feet in height, then slopes toward the rear center of the lot ,up to 28 feet in height at the peal-highest point of the roof, as illustrated in Appendix 50.07-C. The slope of the street-front setback plane is dependent upon whether it applies to a front yard or side yard abutting a street as follows• i. Front yard—6:12 slope. ii. Side yard abutting a street— 12:12 slope, Thi� e e nt shall not a ply to flag l is TIi� . b. Exceptions to the street-front setback plane. Any individual roof form may penetrate the street-front setback plane if it is less than one-third of the total-structure width at 20 feet in height. Two or more separate and distinct roof forms, such as dormers, may project into the street-front setback plane if they are less than one-half of the total-structure width at 20 feet in height. i. Side Yard Setback Plane—Interior Yards. a. Except is set forth in section(c)below,the side profile of astructure shall fit behind a plane that starts at the side property line and extends upward to 12 feet and slopes toward the center of the lot at a slope of 12:12 up to the maximum allowed height at the peak as illustrated in Appendix 50.07-D, b. Roof forms ma genet ate into the side yard setback plane required under(a above as follows: i. An individual roof form may penetrate the side setback plane if it is less than one-third of the structure length. Two or more separate and distinct roof forms such as dormers or gables may project into the side setback plane if they are less than one-half of the structure length. ii. Building projection allowed under .O - 0.22.045 may nroiect up to 2 feet into the side yard setback plane Chimneys are exempt from the setback ne requirement, c. On steenlv stoned lots that are undone from the abutting street no ide yard setback plane is required. Cross-reference: See 50.20.005,"Lot, Steeply Sloped", Side Yard Appearance and Screening Section 50.08.045 Structure Design -R-7.5,R-10,and R-15 Zones. 23. Maximum Side Yard Plnnc.Side Yard Appearance and Screening At least one of the following design treatments shall be applied along side yards or side elevations This section is applicable to both interior side yards and side yards that abut street a. Treatment 1 - Maximum Side Yard Plane 11 Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 16 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 38 • a_i. The side elevation of a structure must be divided into smaller areas or planes to minimize the appearance of bulk to properties abutting the side elevations of a primary structure. When the side elevation of a primary structure is more than 750 square feet in area, the elevation must be divided into distinct planes of 750 square feet or less. For the purpose of this standard, areas of side-yard wall planes that are entirely separated from other wall planes are those that result in a change in plane such as a recessed or projecting section of the structure,that projects or recedes at least 2 feet from the adjacent plane, for a length of at least 6 feet. The maximum side yard plane may be increased by 10%on a side for every additional 5 feet of side yard setback provided beyond the minimum required by the zone, on the side property line. b. Treatment 2 - Side Yard Features i. The side elevation of a structure shall consist of two or more planes that are offset by a minimum of 16 inches. The wall planes shall be a minimum of 4 feet in width, and shall result in a change in a wall plane for one full story, EXCEPTION: Window bays may be utilized to satisfy the requirement for offsets. Such windows shall extend a minimum of twelve inches outward from the main wall of a building and shall form a functional bay or alcove in an interior room Bay windows used to meet this requirement shall not be exempt from setback a uirements; and; ii. Walls shall include a roof cave overhang of 16 inches or greater; and, 111 iii. Windows and/or doors shall occupy a minimum of fifteen percent of the side elevation facing the street. All windows shall have window trim that is a minimum of four inches in width. c. Treatment 3 -Screening i. The applicant shall provide screening and buffering of the wall plane with a minimum of one standard plant unit for every 50 linear feet of side property line or fraction thereof. Planting shall occur within_an area that is defined by the length of the side elevation plus 20 feet beyond the width of the building at either end, and outward 20 feet from the side elevation of the building, towards the side lot line, as shown in Appendix 50.07-F. Standard plant units are defined in Appendix 50.07-G. All landscape plants shall be grouped and clustered within the side yard to visually break up wall planes into smaller segments. ii To use the screening option,the following standards must exist or be provided: (1). A minimum distance of 15 feet bet_weenslwellings, (2). Columnar tree species shall be used when the setback is less than 10 fit,. (3). Root barrier techniques shall be used to avoid root growth damage to foundations. • Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 17 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 39 • Appendix 50.07-F Example—Trtatment 3 — Scr•eninP 01 t� f0n • :41 2_0' ► t 20' 4.: t 1 120' Section 50.07.040 Structure Design—R-6 4.5. .Side Yard Appearance and Screening _At least one of the following ign treat ents shall be pplied along side yards or sid • elevation T is section is aaplicable to both interior side Xards and side yards that abuts eet a. Treatment 1 -Maximum Side Yard Plane The side elevation of a structure must be divided into smaller areas or planes to minimize the appearance of bulk to properties abutting the side elevations of a primary structure. When the side elevation of a primary structure is more than 500 square feet in area, the elevation must be divided into distinct planes of 500 square feet or less. For the purpose of this standard, areas of side-yard wall planes that are entirely separated from other wall planes are those that result in a change in plane such as a recessed or projecting section of the structure, that projects or recedes at least 2 feet from the adjacent plane, for a length of at least 6 feet. The maximum side yard plane may be increased by 10%on a side for every additional 5 feet of side yard setback provided beyond the minimum required by the zone, on the side property line. b. Treatment 2 - Side Yard Features i. The side elevation of a structure shall consist of two or more planes that are offset by a mu]imum of 16 inches. The walLplanes shall be a minimum f 4 feet 'n width. and shall result in a change in a wall plane or one full story{ EXCEPTION: Window bays may be utilized to satisfy the requirement for offsets. Such indows shall extend a minimum of twel a inches outward from the main wall of a building ands all f rm a f notional hay or alcove in an inte for room •• . . _he structure Bay =�indows use Q meet this requirement sha l not be e emnt from__ setback reouirement • Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 18 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 40 iii. Walls shall include a roof eave overhang of 16 inches or greater; and, Windows and/or doors shall occupy a minimum of fifteen percent of the side elevation facing the street. All windows shall have window trim that is a minimum of four inches in width, c. Treatment 3 - Screening i, The applicant shall provide screening and buffering of the wall plane with a minimum of one standard plant unit for every 50 linear feet of side property line or fraction thereof. Planting shall occur within an area that is defined by the length of the side elevation plus 20 feet beyond the width of the building at either end,and outward 20 feet from the side elevation of the building, towards the side lot line. as shown in Appendix 50.07-F. Standard plant units are defined in Appendix 5fi m-G All landscapeplants shall be 'ro ped and clustered to visually break up wall planes into smaller segments. ii To use the screening option, the following standards must exist or be provided: (1 . A minimum distance of 15 feet between dwellings, (2). Columnar tree species used shall be used when the setback is less than 10. (31. Root barrier techniques shall be used to avoid root growth damage to foundations, Section 50.06.060 Structure Design—R-0, R-2. R-3, and R-5 R Zones.ze. • 4. Side Yard Appearance and Screening At least one of the following design treatments shall be applied along side yards or side elevations. This section is applicable to both interior side yards and side yards that abut streets, a. Treatment 1 -Maximum Side Yard Plane The side elevation of a structure must be divided into smaller areas or planes to minimize the appearance of bulk to properties abutting the side elevations of a primary structure. When the side elevation of a primary structure is more than 500 square feet in area,the elevation must be divided into distinct planes of 500 square feet or less. For the purpose of this standard, areas of side-yard wall planes that are entirely separated from other wall planes are those that result in a change in plane such as a recessed or projecting section of the structure, that projects or recedes at least 2 feet from the adjacent plane, for a length of at least 6 feet. b. Treatment 2 -Side Yard Features i. The side elevation of a structure shall consist of two or more planes that are offset by a minimum of sixteen inches. The wall planes shall be a minimum of 4 feet in width, and shall result in a change in the wall plane for one full story. EXCEPTION: Window bays may be utilized to satisfy the requirement for offsets. Such windows shall extend a minimum of twelve inches outward from the main wall of a building and shall form a functional bay or alcove in an interior room within the structure Bay windows used to meet this requirement shall not be exempt from setback requirements; and: ii. Walls shall include a roof eave overhang of 16 inches or greater; and, 111111 Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 19 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 41 iii. Windows and/or doors shall occupy a minimum of fifteen percent of the • side elevation facing the street. All windows shall have window trim that is a minimum of four inches in width. c. Treatment 3 - Screening i. The applicant shall provide screening and bufferi • of the wall plane with a minimum of one standard plant unit for every 50 linear feet of side property line or fraction thereof Planting shall occur within an th area that is defined by he leng of the side elevation olus 20 feet beyond the width of the building at either end and outward 20 feet from the side elevation of a building,towards the side lot line, as shown in Appendix 50.07-F. Standard plant units are defined in Annendix 50 07-r, All landscape plants .shall be •rouged and clustered to isually break up wall planes into smaller segments. ii To use the screening option, the following standards must exist or be satisfied: (11. A minimum di tance of 15 feet between dwellings. (2). Columnar tree species used shall be used when the setback is less than 10 feet. (31. Root barrier techniques shall be used to avoid root rg owth damage to foundations. Appendix 50.07-G Standard Plant Unit Ouantity Minimum Size and Illustration Alternative Type of Plants Required • Standard Plant Unit A 1 - 3"caliper canopy tree 2 - 1 '/a" caliper under story tree 13 - 3' high shrubs (6(3 -"' eStandard 1 - 3" caliper canopy tree Unit AB* 1 - 1 '/" caliper under story tree 1 -6' high evergreen tree 11 -3' high shrubsOF)CI Standard Alternative 2 - 1 %2" caliper under story tree Unit 13C* 3 - 6' high evergreen trees 7- 3' high shrubs _ _`_ • Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 20 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 42 • Standard"'temative 2 - 3"caliper canopy tree Unit ED** 3 - 3' high shrubs Standard ltem Minimum 10' long trellis,arbor, Unit DE* or pergola minimum 6' tall) 6,JU'i)0 c3 b1 1 - 1 '/2" caliper under story tree 10 -climbing plants (native) *Preferred for year around screen ** May be required where vision clearance is required for safe automobile operation, Existing landscaping may be used to meet the screening requirement provided the landscaping meets the minimum size requirements set forth above or if multi plants exist. the caliper, dimensions, and sizes of plants cumulatively meet the cumulative minimum sizes required. Corner Lots • Section 50.08.045 Structure Design- R-7.5,R-10, and R-15 Zones. 4. Corner Lots—Side Yards That Abut Streets. As an alternative to the treatments set forth in Section 50.08.045 (3), on a corner lot, either of the following treatments can be used for the side elevation that abuts a street: a. Corner Treatment I - Covered Side Porch. The side yard elevation shall include a covered porch. The porch shall be a minimum of 80-square feetfeet in area, a minimum of five feet deep, and shall extend along a minimum of 25%of the side elevation that faces the street. The porch must meet setbacks. b. Corner Treatment 2—Balcony. The side yard elevation shall include a second floor balcony. The balcony shall be a minimum 30-square feetfeet in area, and a minimum of three feet deep. The balcony may encroach four feet into the_setback. she14 meet etbacks The ntry to the ho sl.all be ale g the front ele et: Section 50.07.040 Structure Design—R-6 6. Corner Lots—Side Yards That Abut Streets, As an alternative to the treatments set forth in Section 50.07.040 (4). on a corner lot,either of the following treatments can be used for the side elevation that abuts a street a. Corner Treatment 1 - Covered Side Porch. The side yard elevation shall include a covered porch. The porch shall be a minimum of 80-square feetfeet in area, a • minimum of five feet deep, and shall extend along a minimum of 25%of the side elevation Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 21 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 43 that faces the street. The porch must meet setbacks. The main entry to the hou a hall b •,uµ,a1 va,H�' av Nay Huai\,�r[ai7r-pe b. Corner Treatment 2—Balcony. The side yard elevation shall include a second floor balco . The balcony s all be a minimum 30-square feetfeet in_area, and a minimum of three feet deep. The balcony may encroach four feet into the setback. shall eet setbacks Them ntr,' to th h i, II b 1 th f * 1 ti Section 50.06.060 Structure Design—R-0,R-2, R-3, and R-5 Zones. R 5 Zone. 5. Corner Lots— Side Yards That Abut Streets. As an alternative to the treatments set forth in Section 50.06.060(2), on a corner lot. the following treatments can be used for the side elevation that abuts a street: a. Corner Treatment 1 - Covered Side Porch. The side yard elevation shall include a covered porch. The porch shall be a minimum of An- quare feetfeet in area a minimum of five feet deep, and shall extend along a minimum of 25%of the side elevation that faces the street. The rch must meet setbacks. along the front elo at: b. Corner Treatment 2— Balcony. The side yard elevation shall include a second floor balcon . The balcony shall be a minimum 30-square feetfeet in area,and a minimum of three feet deep. The balcony may encroach four feet into the setback. sh t14 Wall Plane Length Section 50.08.045 Structure Design - R-7.5, R-10,and R-15 Zones. 5. Lona Wall Planes. To break up building mass and provide greater privacy on narrow lots, on a lot that has greater than 2.5:1 ratio of lot depth to the average of the lengths of the front and rear setback lines,no portion of a residential structure shall exceed 18' high for a cumulative length greater than 60', unless the excess portion of the residential structure more than 18' high beyond the 60' cumulative length is setback not less than 20' from the side lot line. See Appendix 50.07-H, Section 50.07.040 Structure Design—R-6 7. Long Wall Planes. To break up building mass and provide greater privacy on narrow lots, on a lot that has greater than 2.5:1 ratio of lot depth to the average of the lengths of the front and rear setback lines, no portion of a residential structure shall exceed 18' high for a cumulative length greater than 60',unless the excess portion of the residential structure more than 18' high beyond the 60' cumulative length is setback not less than 20' from the side lot line. See Appendix 50.07-H. • Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 22 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 44 • Section 50.06.060 Structure Design—R-0,R-2,R-3, and R-5 Zones. R—�ne. 6. Long Wall Planes. To break up building mass and provide greater privacy on narrow lots,on a lot that has greater than 2.5:1 ratio of lot depth to the average of the lengths of the front and rear setback lines, no portion of a residential structure shall exceed 18' high for a cumulative length greater than 60',unless the excess portion of the residential structure more than 18' high beyond the 60' cumulative length is setback not less than 20' from the side lot line. ppendix 50.07-H. Appendix 50.07-11 Lome Wall Planes l.ow,long hldp• Long,two-story bldg: Long,two- standard setback 20'setback for any portion story bldg:20 oNer_60' in length ft.setback 4-10t 4-►'4► - - 1.ont;,split • C level bldg: standard 0 setback for first 60'of 1,Idg.and low • portion of Not applicable-less than 60 ft.in depth.Standard setbacks apply • Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 23 Revised:02/22/10 tnfill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 45 Section 4 - Yard Setbacks 0 A. Yard Setbacks Section 50.08.030 Yard Setbacks (R-7.5) Amend the existing table as follows: Zone Front Yard Side Yard Adjacent To a Street R-7.5 25 feet 20 feet on arterial and collector, 4-0-15 feet on local streets Section 50.07.025 Yard Setbacks(R-6) 1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, LOC 50.16.040, 50.22.010, 50.22.025, 50.22.030, or 50.22.035,the following minimum yard setbacks are required for development in the R-6 zone. Primary and • Accessory Structures Primary Structures Accessory Structures Front Side Yam d Rear Yard Adjacent Other Side Yards Yard Side and Rear Yards to a Street Portir+ns of _Portions of Sttaicture Stmcture Stiuttuir, St'ut tot cs _ 18 feet 18 fret 18 fret 18 feet iii height in height in height iii height 20 feet Ull _ feet 1111irniiuli1 Side - Senile 20 feet arterial and 5 feet ichli on aside, 20 feet 5 feet as foi primal), collector. 15 feet structure 10 fc-t on local cinnulatly e: elieel!, except pis Rear - 10 feet pros ided in Garages— See subsection(3) LOC 50.07.04-7 for sctbnck of this sc,tioit. Iequueilieuts ful Kaitlgcs • Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 24 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 46 • Primary R-6 Minimum Yard Setbacks Accessory Other Accessory Garage—Vehicle Structures Structures Structures Opening <600 sq. ft. and (Also see Section with walls< 10 ft 50.07.047 Garage in height below Appearance and the eave Location) Front 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 15 feet behind the front building line of the house (excludi g a porch) Sift Arterial/Collector: Arterial/Collector: Arterial/Collector: Arterial/Collector: Adjacent 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet to a Local: Local: Local: Local: 15 feet Street 7.5 feet provided 7.5 feet provided 7.5 feet provided there is no less there is no less there is no less than 20 feet than 20 feet than 20 feet between the road between the road between the road surface and the surface and the surface and the structure structure structure Site 7.5 feet 5 feet 7,5 feet 7.5 feet Rear 15 feet 5 feet 15 feet 15 feet • 2. A projecting covered front porch may extend into the front yard setback up to 6 feet. ea-each-side: 43. Eaves, bay windows, chimneys and other decorative features that do not expand the plane of the primary exterior wall may extend into the yard setback areas as long as minimum fire code distances are met. 5 Primary and accessory structures built prior to January 1. 2009. are subject to the following minimum side yard setbacks: Primary and Accessory Structures Built Before January 1,2010, or Additions to Those Structures Structures < I8 feet in height Structures > 18 feet in height 5 feet 5 feet minimum width on a side, 15 feet cumulative,except a multi-story structure may have a smaller side yard setback than required by this section where the ground floor is setback a minimum of 5 feet and the remainder of the structure is stepped back from the side building line by at least • four feet on each side, Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 25 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 47 B. Yard Exceptions • Section 50.14.005 Accessory Uses. 5. A side-or rear yard setback may be reduced to three feet and a side yard may be reduced to five feet for an accessory structure in a residential zone if the structure complies with the following four criteria: a. The accessory structure is erected more than 40 feet from any street. For the purposes of this section,an alley shall not be considered a street.The side and rear setbacks for a detached garage obtaining access from an alley may be reduced to 3 feet or to the degree the garage maintains access that provides an outside front wheel turning radius of at least 25 feet, whichever is greater. b. The accessory structure is detached from other buildings by 5 feet or more. c. The accessory structure does not exceed a height of 10 feet nor an area of 600 hundred square feet. d. The parcel is zoned other than R-6. The setback exception authorized by this subsection does not apply to setbacks required by LOC 50.22.035 (Special Setbacks). The setback exception also does not apply to noise producing accessory structures such as heat pumps, swimming pool motors, etc., unless abutting property owners of the proposed site of the proposed noise producing accessory structure agree in writing that said accessory structure may be located within the accessory structure setback exception permitted under this subsection. Flag Lots. The setback exception authorized by this subsection does not apply to flag lots. However,a side or rear yard accessory structure setback may be reduced to 6 feet on a • flag lot when the above criteria(a-d) are met. Section 50.22.045 General Exceptions for Building Projections,Decks, and Walkways and Pathways to Setbacks. 1. Projections from Buildings. Cornices, eaves,eanepiesr sunshadesTgutters,ems; flues-;belt courses, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental features, and other similar architectural features may project not more than 2 feet into a required yard or into required open space as established by coverage standards. Canopies,sunshades,chimneys,and flues may project not more than 2 feet into a required yard or into required open space as established by coverage standards:, but in no event may the projection be within five feet of a side lot line. • Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 26 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 48 Section 5 - Sloped Lots Definitions Section 50.02 Definitions Amend Section 50.02 Definitions to include the following: Base Height. The height allowed by the underlying zone district prior to the application of any height exceptions that may be authorized by the code, Slope. Slope is measured by the following equation S=E/D, where S is the slope.E is the vertical elevation change from the highest point to the lowest point,and D is the horizontal distance from the highest point to the lowest point [cross reference sloped lot]. Steep Slope. A steep slope is an average slope of 25%or more,when measured from the front lot line to the most distant point of the building. Lot, Steeply Sloped. A steeply sloped lot is a lot with an average slope of 25%or mores when measured from the front lot line to the most distant point of the building. Height Adjustments for Sloping Topography Section 50.07.030 Height of Primary Structures. 1. Base MalEimum-Height. Primary structures shall not exceed 28 feet in height-on- flat except as otherwise specified in subsections(2)oror(31 below. 2. Exceptions to the Base Maximum-Building Height. A greater height than otherwise permitted is allowed for roof forms, or architectural features, such as cupolas or dormers provided that these roof forms or features: a. Do not extend more than 6 feet above the maximum specified base height; b. Do not, in total,exceed one-third of the width of the building for an individual roof form or projection or do not exceed one-half of the width of the building for two or more separate roof forms or projections, as measured on any elevation drawing; and c. Do not, in total, cover more than 20%of the roof area on which they are located, as viewed from directly above for an individual roof form or projection or 30%for multiple roof forms or projections. Examples of permitted exceptions are illustrated in Appendix 50.06-A. 3. Height Adjustment for Sloping Topography. Base building height across the site shall be established by a flat plane measured at 28 feet above fthe highest point of the natural grade within the building envelope. except that in no case shall the base height be greater than 32 feet above the natural grade (see Appendix 50,07.030—A). • Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 27 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 49 - • 6-foot Base height- -` exception to zone de ep ndent A 4-foot adjustment v to base heir t for Nommi topggra by Section 50.06.055 Height of Structures (R-0,R-2, R-3, R-5,and WR zones) 1. Projects> 'A Acre a. On a lot or lots developed as one project of 1/2 acre or greater in total area for the R-0 and R-3 zones or for attached development in the R-5 zone,the structure height may average 40 feet over the project lot(s)with no individual structure exceeding 50 feet. b. On a lot or lots being developed as one project of 1/2 acre or greater in total area for the R-2 zone, the structure height may average 32 feet over the project lot(s) with • no individual structure exceeding 35 feet. 2. Except as provided in subsection (1)(a)above and (5) below,the base height of a structure in the R-0,R-2, R-3 and R-5 zone shall not exceed: a. Flat Lots-28 feet �ro„-meets; b. Lots with Sloping Topography - Maximum base height across the site shall be established by a flat plane measured at 28 feet above the highest point of the natural grade within the building envelope, except that in no case shall the base height be greater than 32 feet above the natural grade(see Appendix 50.07.030-A). c. Sloped Lots --er-35 feet on sloped-lets,. illustrated i n ppe„dix 50 06 A rn �a 3. In the R-0,R-3 or R-5 zones, A-a structure shall not exceed a-the base height of 28 feet standards set forth in(2)above in the R 0, R 3 or R 5 zones-if the structure is closer than 60 feet to a lot carrying a residential designation other than R-0, R-3 or R-5. 4. No structure in the WR zone can exceed 24 feet in height. Height is measured from the mean water level surface (elevation 98.6) of the water. 5. Exceptions to Maximo-Base Building Height. A greater height than otherwise permitted is allowed: • Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 28 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 50 • a. Single family dwellings-building height may be increased by one foot for every five additional feet in yard setback on all sides, beyond the underlying zone code standards provided in subsections 1 and 2 above; or b. Any structure - for roof forms,or architectural features, such as, cupolas or dormers, provided that these roof forms or features: i. Do not extend more than 6 feet above the maximum specified base height; ii. Do not, in total, exceed one-third of the width of the building or buildings as measured on any elevation drawing for an individual roof form or projection or do not exceed one-half of the width of the building for two or more separate roof forms or projections; and, iii. Do not, in total,cover more than 20%of the roof area on which they are located as viewed from directly above for an individual roof form or projection or 30%for multiple roof forms or projections. Examples of permitted exceptions to base height are illustrated in Appendix 50.06-A. [Cross-References: Height Limitation: See also LOC 50.45.010(1)(a)for non-single- family dwellings; Charter Section 46A for 50 ft. Maximum Height of Structures in Residential Areas.] Section 50.08.035 Height of Structures (R-7.5,R-10,and R-15). • 1. Maximum Base Height ua m .,Priar structures shall not exceed the f flowing heights• • Maxinmin HeiS ht 7nne Flat Lot Sloped Lot R-7.5 28 feet ;5 feet R 10 30 feet 35 feet 2_lc 3 c faet 36 feet Except as provided in subsection (2)below, a primary structure shall not exceed the following maximum base heights: Maximum Base Height Zone Flat Lot Lot with Sloping Sloped Lot Topography R-7.5 28 feet 32 feet* 35 feet.. R-10 30 feet 34 feet* 35 feet R-15 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet • Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 29 Revised: 02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 51 *Lots with Sloping Topography-Maximum base height across the site shall be established 1111 by a flat plane measured at 28 feet(R-7.5 zone)or 30 feet(R-10 Zone) above the highest point of the natural grade within the building envelope. except that in no case shall the base height be greater than 32 feet(R-7.5 zone)or 34 feet(R-10 zone) above the natural grade (see Appendix 50.07.030—A). 2. Exceptions to Maximum Building Height. A greater height than otherwise permitted is allowed for: a. Single family dwellings-Base building height may be increased by one foot for every five additional feet in yard setback on all sides, beyond the minimum code standards provided in subsection 1 above; or b. Any structure - roof forms,or architectural features, such as,cupolas or dormers, provided that these roof forms or features: i. Do not extend more than 6 feet above the maximum specified base height; ii. Do not, in total, exceed one-third of the width of the building or buildings as measured on any elevation drawing for an individual roof form or projection or do not exceed one-half of the width of the building for two or more separate roof forms or projections; and, iii. Do not, in total, cover more than 20%of the roof area on which they are located as viewed from directly above for an individual roof form or projection or 30%for multiple roof forms or projections. Examples of permitted exceptions are illustrated in Appendix 50.06-A. Steeply Sloped Lots • Section 50.06.050 Yard Setbacks, Buffers Add the following section: 9. S secial Setbacks for Steeply Sloped Lots. Where the average lot slope is 25%or more,the minimum required front yard setback for detached dwellings 1l s be 18 feet Section 50.06.060-Single Family and Duplex Dwelling Design — R 5 Zone R-0,R-2,R-3,and R-5 Zones Add the following sections: 1. Front Setback Plane c. Street Front Setback Plane on Sloped Lots, i. Down Slone(Steeply sloped lots, sIo downhill awafrom the street). n sloped lots where the average elevation of the ground surface at the front setback line is below the average elevation of the centerline of the street_ the elevation at which the street front setback plane height is measured shall be the avera'e elevation of the centerline of the street, as illustrated in Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 30 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 52 • Appendix 50.07-F. For this measurement.the average elevation of the street centerline shall be measured at points along the street centerline where a perpendicular line extended from the centerline would intersect the abutting property corners, as illustrated in Appendix 50.07-G. ii. Upslose. (Steeply sloped lots, sloping uphill away from the street). On sloped lots that rise up in elevation from the street or right-of-way and where the average lot slope is 25%or more as measured from the lot line abuting a street to the most distant point of the dwelling,the street front setback plane shall be determined as follows: the front profile of a structure shall fit behind a plane that starts at the setback line fronting a street and extends upward,to 24 feet in height, then slopes toward the center of the lot at a slope equal to the average lot slope for a horizontal distance of ten feet, at which point the structure may rise to the maximum allowed height for the lot as set forth in LOC 50.06.055. The standard is illustrated in Appendix 50.07-H, Section 50.07.040 - Dwelling Design Add the following sections: 3. Front Setback Plane • c. Street front setback Plane on Sloped Lots. i. Down Slope (Steeply sloped lots slopin• •• s .is • On sloped lots where the average elevation of the ground surface at the setback line fronting a street is below the average elevation of the centerline of the street,the elevation at which the street front setback plane height is measured shall be the average elevation of the centerline of the street, as illustrated in Appendix 50.07-F. For this measurement,the average elevation of the street centerline shall be measured at points along the street centerline where a perpendicular line extended from the centerline would intersect the abutting property corners. as illustrated in Appendix 50.07-G. ii. Upslope. (Steeply sloped lots. sloping uphill away from the street). On sloped lots that rise up in elevation from the street or right-of-wav and where the average lot slope is 25%or more as measured from the lot line abuting a street to the most distant point of the dwelling, the street front setback plane shall be determined as follows: the front profile of a structure shall fit behind a plane that starts at the setback line fronting a street and extends upward,to 24 feet in height, then slopes toward the center of the lot at a slo eeeequal to the average lot slope for a horizontal distance of ten feet, at which point the structure may rise to the maximum allowed height for the lot as set forth in LOC 50.07.030. The standard is illustrated in Appendix 50.07-H. • Section 50.08.030 —Yard Setbacks Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 31 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 53 Add the following sections: • 6. S.ecial Setbacks for S -• . y Sloped Lots. Where the average lot slope is 25% or more the minimum required front yard setback for_detached dwellings shall be 18 feet. Section 50.08.045-Dwelling Design Add the following sections: 1. Front Setback Plane c. Street Front Setback Plane on Sloped Lots. i. Down Slo a (Steel ly sloped lots slo ing downhill away from the street On sloped lots where the average elevation of the ground surface at the setback line fronting a street is below the average elevation of the centerline of the street the elevation at which the street front setba k .lane height is measured shall be the average elevation of the centerline of the street. as illustrated in Appendix 50.07-F. For thi measurement.the average elevation of the street centerline shall be measured at points along the street centerline where a perpendicular line extended from the centerline would intersect the abutting property corners, as illustrated in Appendix 50.07-G. ii. Upslooe. (Steeply sloped lots_ loving uphill away from the street( On slo•ed lots that rise up in elevation from the street or right-of-way and where the average lot slope is 25%or more as measured from the lot line • abutin, a street to the most •istant point of the dwelling, the street front setback plane shall be determined as follows: the front profile of a structure shall fit behind a plane that starts the setback line fronting a street and extends upward,to 24 feet in height,then slopes toward the center of the lot at a slope equal to the average lot slope for a horizontal distance of ten feet, at which •oint the structure may rise to he maximum allowed he'.ht for the lot as set forth inLOC 50.08.035. The standard is illustrated in Appendix 50.07-H. • Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 32 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 54 Appendix 50.07-F Setback Planes—Down Slope Lots The street center- Base zone height limit— line provides the follows the Around slope elevation for txteasurinR the Front setback height of the set- e -6:12 slope back lanes. ----_--- --- !_ ___—_____ Centerline Allowed Height ROW Front >IE Setback Measured at the front building line, the front setback plane begins 20' up from the average street centerline elevation • 1111 Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 33 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 55 Appendix 50.07-G 0 Measurement Locations Street center line locations for measuring base elevation of setback planes. + + + . ---- T T ± ..— a a I .1 \it Front Side yard setback • setback plane location + location I t Note: Elevation measurement points are located by a perpendicular line I III extending from the street centerline to the property corner and not .y an extension of the property line to the street centerline, If the centerline is curved,the line shall be perpendicular to a line that is tangent to the curve. 411 Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 34 Revised:02/22/10 Infi11 Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 56 Appendix 50.07-H .•••'". Front Setback Plane—Upslope Lots Maximum height •. • allowed on sloped lots .•••• ....••'''. ................ Front Setback Plane ...................... I (follows 6:12 slope or the actual slope of thclat=ivhickur r .A.6 provides the greater 12 building envelope). 24' IMMEMMI • ROW Setback 10' Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 35 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 57 Section 6 - RID Review • A. Notice �> J Section 50.81.010 Notice of Minor Develop ‘:Application. . , application is made piled r the most rece_ t ert t_.x Article 50.72 Residential Infill Design Review Standards. Section -0.72...020 Autho iz t• a Cris N 4.VIt Nllti �!"iiL-1 TC[: f ethaek f • ail � } b Residential Dwellin.. Accesso,.. Structure Size N. .IV J.Y\.1 I.t C.1 IJ.�VtI]Itb • - Floor area ratio - Lot coverage - Yard Setbacks - Building height - Accessory structures Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 36 Revised: 02/22/10 In611 Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 58 S inetude-eensideratien-ef:- 2. Topography; 3. Building number(mote smaller versus one lager, f r example`; 5. Landscaping. - Front yard setback - Front setback plane - Garage door openings S 3. Topography; ; , ; '7 f di t,an a and sibility fro., the street. l. Vil[ixr.,a. GxaTxaxli�i , 8. Perceived size and scale of garage doors from the street; Pe a ea nd .ale ofd« nd rk' f om the st« et• .. ....+.+......a..vaa.a�aa.. ..vaaly vx a..al.v..a:;j.�i ulaax Yusni�ig isia.us xlvrrrZlxti-:ltitizcc: 10. Fencing or screens; and 11. Landscaping. Relationship t the Neighbor. • Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 37 Revised:02/22/10 1111111 Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 59 - Side yard setback • • Side wall elevation ; propeFtieg 3. Topography; > , ; ; 7. Fencing or screening; and 8. Landscaping. -7,46 , • association: B. Applicability Section 50.72.020 Exceptions to Zone Requirements Based on ResidentialDwelling or Accessory Structure Design, I. Provided the applicant demonstrates that the criteria listed in subsection (2) below are satisfied. the City Manager may grant the following exceptions for proposed residential dwellings or accessory structures: a. For new residential structures and remodeling projects where 50%or more of the floor area of the structure is removed or demolished, exceptions may be granted to: i. Setback planes (front and side yard), ii. Wall planes, iii. Garage appearance and location, iv. Oswego Lake setback. and iiv. Setbacks abutting dedicated open space. • Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 38 Revised:02/22/10 lnfill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 60 • b. For remodeling projects where less than 50%of the structure is removed or demolished,exceptions may be granted to: i. Setback planes (front and side yard), ii. Wall planes, iii. Garage appearance and location, iv. Lot coverage(up to 20%), v. Oswego Lake setback, vi. Setbacks abutting dedicated open space, vii. Front and rear setbacks (may be adjusted by a total combined maximum amount of 20%;no partial yard adjustments), and viii. Side yard setbacks(only where an existing, nonconforming wall is continued and extended into the side yard setback). 2. To approve an exception,the City Manager shall determine that the following criteria are met: a. The development is compatible with_abutting property in terms of: i. Scale, massing,building form, and height; ii. Side and rear elevations, including window and deck placement; and iii. Neighbor privacy. b. The development is compatible with the character of the neighborhood and the street in terms of: • i. Massing, proportion, height, and the rhythm of building forms along the abutting street; ii. Building elevations, window and doorway placement; iii. Building materials and detailing; and iv. Site planning and orientation of the building; 3. In determining whether the criteria are met,the City Manager shall consider the following,to the extent applicable to the site and the proposed development; a. Distance and visibility from street; b. Distance and visibility from adjoining properties c. Topography; d. Building number(more smaller versus one larger,for example); e. Building form(s), massing and orientation; f. Landscaping; g. Prevailing patterns of building alignment and spacing (rhythm); h. Preservation of existing trees and other natural features of perceived value to the street, the adjoining neighbors,and nei • •. •••i• i. Porch and/or entry location and treatment relative to the street; j. Garage distance and visibiljtY frim_th k. Perceived size and scale of garage doors from the street; 1. Perceived area and scale of driveways and parking areas from the street; m. Fencing or screens. 4111 Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 39 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 61 C. Compatibility • Section 50.72.020 Exceptions to Zone Requirements Based on Residential I:) elfin., or Accessory Structure Design. 34. When determining whether the proposed development is compatible to the character of the neighborhood and the street,the City Manager shall consider the pattern and character of development in the vicinity of the subject site including, at a minimum,the 20 dwelling units that are closest to the subject site when measured along the street or streets abutting the subject site. . The City Manager shall also consider any neighborhood design objectives or guidelines for residential development that have been adopted by the City as part of a neighborhood plan. Floor Area Exceptions — Variance Process Section 50.68.015 Classification of Variances. A variance which would allow development not in conformance with the requirements of the development standards may be granted. 1. Class 1 (minor) variances are small changes from the Code requirements and which will have little or no effect on adjacent property or users. Class 1 (minor) 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 20%, or less. b. Variance from yard setback requirements for a structure other than those described in subsection (1)(a)of this section of two feet or less in side or front yards or five feet or less in rear yards. c. Variances from minimum lot width or depth of 5 feet or less. d. Variances in lot coverage n lots which have the same boundaries as when platted and 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 15%of the maximum allowed lot coverage-of l A R. e. Variances in floor area ratio (FAR)for single family residential development, up to a maximum l5% increase in floor area, subject to the following lot size limitations: Zone Minimum Lot Size Required if House Floor Area is to be Adjusted Under Class 1 Variance R 10.000 sq. ft. R-6 12,000 sq. ft. R-7.5 15,000 sg. ft. R-10 15,000 sq. ft. R-1 5 22,500 sg. ft, S Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 40 Revised:02/22/10 lnfill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 62 • ef. Variations from maximum fence or retaining wall height restrictions,pursuant to LOC Article 45.15. €g. Variation to the maximum grade of a private street or driveway. gh. 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). ii. Variances to street frontage(LOC 50.57.015). ki. Variances to driveway width for Flag Lots (LOC 50.20.020). ki. Variances for elevated walkway or pathway within setback or yard. 2. Class 2 variances which are significant changes from the Code requirements and are likely to create impacts on adjacent property or 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 20%. 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 2 feet in side and front yards and more than 5 feet in rear yards. 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. f. Variance to fence,wall,and retaining wall requirements,other than height. g. Variances to any other requirement of this Code except as classified as a Class I (minor) variance above,and applicable to a development. 3. The City Manager shall decide the classification of any variance application. 4. For Class I (minor)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. Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 41 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 63 Section 7 - Planned Development Overlay • Section 50.17.015 Authorization 5. Except as required by LOC 50.06.050(5), the reviewing authority may grant exceptions to the minimum side yard setbacks of the underlying zone, without the necessity of meeting the requirements of LOC Article 50.68(Variances) if the requirements of 50.17.015(2) are met, and: a. Proposed lot sizes are less than the minimum size required by the underlying zone, or b. Lesser setbacks are necessary to provide additional tree preservation or protection of abutting natural areas. c. Side yard setbacks shall not be reduced to 20'separation n(portions exceeding less than 8 feet except under the following 18'm height standardsksback 10" circumstances: i. Structures on abutting lots within the development are separated by no less than 16 feet when all portions of the structure within the standard setback are no greater than 18 feet in Wg ii. Structures on abutting lots within the d" development are separated by no less than 20 feet when any portion of the structure exceeds 18 feet in I. height within the standard setback area. • PI This limitation does not affect the underlying base zone yard setbacks when those setbacks are less than 8 feet. • Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 42 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 64 Section 8 - Variances (Class 1 Variance) Section 50.68.015 Classification of Variances. A variance which would allow development not in conformance with the requirements of the development standards may be granted. 1. Class 1 (minor)variances are small changes from the Code requirements and which will have little or no effect on adjacent property or users. Class 1 (minor) 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 20%,or less. b m..Variances to yard requirements for extension of existing nonconforming walls, provided: i. The square footage of any new encroachment into the setback does not exceed the square footage of the existing non-conforming,encroaching portion of the structure. ii. The resulting structure complies with the FAR, lot coverage and other 1111 setback requirements. iii. The variance shall not reduce the yard setback by more than 50%. iv. No previous variance has been granted for an extension of the subject non- conforming wall. v. The expansion area shall be defined by the extension of two or more existing exterior walls. Section 50.68.015 Classification of Variances. A variance which would allow development not in conformance with the requirements of the development standards may be granted. 1. Class 1 (minor)variances are small changes from the Code requirements and which will have little or no effect on adjacent property or users. Class 1 (minor)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)_ i. ref20%,or less,provided the resulting side yard setback is no less than five feet in width.;or ii. (1) The request is the minimum necessary to preserve a tree; (2). The resulting yard setback is no less than 50%of standard required by the zone;and (3) Side yards are not reduced to less than five feet. • Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 43 Revised:02/22/10 lnfill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 65 b. Variance from yard setback requirements for a structure other than those • described in subsections (l)(a) of this section of: i. -Two feet or less in side or front yards; ii. -et-fEive feet or less in rear yardsr iii. (I l The request is the minimum_necessary to preserve a tree; (2). The resulting yard setback is no less than 50%of standard required by the zone; and (3) Side yards are reduced to not less than five feet, c. Variances from minimum lot width or depth of 5 feet or less. d. Variances in lot coverage or floor area ratio (FAR)on lots which have the same boundaries as when platted and 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 15%of the maximum allowed lot coverage or FAR. e. Variations from maximum fence or retaining wall height restrictions, pursuant to LOC Article 45.15. f. Variation to the maximum grade of a private street or driveway. g. 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. h. Variances to distance of driveway from intersections(LOC 50.58.015). i. Variances to street frontage(LOC 50.57.015). j. Variances to driveway width for Flag Lots (LOC 50.20.020). k. Variances for elevated walkway or pathway within setback or yard. .... n. Variances to dimensional requirements that are necessary due to prior errors in land surveying. Prior errors in land surveying are errors that were made before the 410 ap.lic.nt acquired the property or gained control of the property, 2. Class 2 variances which are significant changes from the Code requirements and are likely to create impacts on adjacent property or users. Class 2 variances include: a. Variances from setback requirements for a single-family dwelling,or ito 50.11.005 (5)(a) (c), of more than 20%or where the resulting side yard setback is less than five feet in width. b, Variance from yard setback requirements for An associated accessory structure to a single-family dwelling that does not comply with the three criteria set forth in LOC 50.14.005 (5)(a)-(c), of more than 20%. be. Variances from the minimum lot width or depth of more than 5 feet. ed. Variances from setback requirements for structures other than those described in subsection(1)(a)of this section of more than 2 feet in side and front yards and more than 5 feet in rear yards or where the resulting side yard setback is less than five feet in width. de. Variances from the lot coverage or floor area ratio (FAR) for other than a single- family residential dwelling or its associated accessory structures. ef. Variances to building height. fg. Variance to fence,wall, and retaining wall requirements, other than height. gh. Variances to any other requirement of this Code except as classified as a Class 1 (minor) variance above,and applicable to a development. 3. The City Manager shall decide the classification of any variance application. Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 44 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 66 • 4. For Class 1 (minor)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. Section 50.79.040 Conditions of Approval. 1. The reviewing authority may impose conditions of approval on a major or minor development permit in one or more of the following circumstances: a. The condition is necessary to bring the application into compliance with applicable approval criteria. b. The condition is required as a condition of approval, construction or implementation by the development standards, the Lake Oswego Code or state statute. c. The condition is reasonably related to alleviation of a need for public services or facilities created or contributed to by the proposed development. As used in this section, "public services or facilities" includes sewer, water, surface water management,parks, open space,streets, sidewalks,and pathways. d. The condition is reasonably related to eliminating or mitigating a negative impact on natural features or processes or on the built environment of the neighborhood which is created or contributed to by the proposed development. As used in this section, "natural • features or processes" includes Distinctive Natural Areas, stream corridors and natural drainage ways, significant tree(s)or trees,wetlands, and other natural areas. e. The proposed or exception to a code requirement is based on the preservation of tree(s), and the condition of approval is reasonably related to preserving the tree(s) that is the basis for the variance or exception. 2. Conditions of approval contemplated by subsection(1)of this section include, but are not limited to: a. Imposition of a development schedule. b. Requiring reservation or protection of land for open space or to protect significant natural features. c. Requiring dedication of property,rights-of-way, easements or conservation easements for public facilities such as streets, utilities,pathways, sidewalks, surface water management and street trees,or for protection of Distinctive Natural Areas,wetlands, stream corridors or other natural features. Dedications of property or property rights pursuant to this subsection must be based upon findings pursuant to subsections(1)(c) or (1)(d)of this section. d. Requiring on-site and off-site construction of or improvements to public facilities • where necessary to ensure adequate capacity and where service demand will be created or increased by the proposed development. The costs of off-site improvements may be pro- Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 45 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 67 rated between the applicant and the City in proportion to the increased service demand • which will be created by the project when compared to the demand existing if the project were not constructed. e. Requiring construction and maintenance guarantees to ensure that required public facilities are constructed to and will comply with City standards, regulations or conditions. f. Requiring modifications in the design or intensity of a proposed development or to require or prohibit certain construction methods. g. Requiring approval, inspection,or evaluation by another agency,jurisdiction, public utility or consultant. h. Limiting the number, location or design of street accesses to a proposed development to maintain street capacity, improve safety, or otherwise comply with an approval criterion. i. Requiring covenants,conditions or restrictions to be recorded against the property. It shall be a violation of this code for a property owner or homeowner's association to amend or rescind or fail to comply with any covenant, condition or restriction required by the City pursuant to a development approval without approval of the City. • Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 46 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 68 Section 9 - Miscellaneous Code Provisions Section 50.70.005 Non-Conforming Use, Structure Defined; Rights Granted. I. A use or structure is considered a nonconforming use or structure if the use or structure was lawfully established, but does not comply with or would not be permitted to exist under a subsequent enactment or amendment to this Code. 2. a. A use or structure for which a variance was granted under these code provisions is not considered non-conforming solely by the fact that the characteristic of the use or structure for which the variance was granted fails to comply with the requirements of this Code. The existence of such variance does not prevent the use or structure from being classified as non-conforming if some other characteristic of the use or structure fails to comply with the requirements of this Code. b. A residential structure which is classified as a non-conforming structure by this section may be enlarged or expanded in the following circumstances: ich i. The enlargement or expansion does not increase the degree of non- conformity; or ii. A change in roof pitch on the non-conforming portion of the structure may be permitted if the building height is not increased by more than 6 feet and is less than the underlying zone height, 3. Subject to the provisions of this Article, and except as otherwise provided by this Code, a non-conforming use or structure may be continued and maintained in reasonable repair so long as it remains otherwise lawful, but it shall not be altered in a manner to II/ enlarge or expand or reconstruct the use or structure. [Cross-Reference: LOC 50.69.005 (3) - Uses Under Conditional Use Provisions Not Non-Conforming Uses.] Section 50.70.020 Destruction,Movement and Replacement of Structures. 0 , a _er4ess._44he_eurrent_reigneemerit_eosts3.4hefebtliktint of truetion n ed . of a ply with the terms of this Coda my to the extent tL t tl ail . .ithin o of the d t f th V /US R{ig,i C{l i{.//G"V]IIfT/ . .thin ti. e of. alp date . n which it is 1. Single-Family or Duplex Dwellings, Accessory Structures,and Historic Landmarks. a. Applicability. Excluding structures within the Flood Management Area • (LOC Article 50.44). this subsection I is applicable to nonconforming: Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 47 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 69 (1) Single-family(attached or detached) or duplex dwellings; • (2) Historic landmarks designated or listed upon the Landmark Designation List, pursuant to LOC 58.02.025 or 58.02.080. (3). Non-conforming accessory structures to a single-family dwelling, duplex dwelling, or historic landmark. b. Ability to Construct or Reconstruct Nonconforming Structure. Subject to the one-year time limitation provided in subsection (1)(c)below, when an applicable structure, or any portion thereof, is damaged or destroyed: (1) By causes not under the control of the owner(including but not limited to fire, earthquake, flood, landslide,and wind or tree damage, but not including destruction due to lack of structural maintenance by the owner, reconstruction.remodeling,or new construction).the rebuilding or reconstruction of the nonconforming structure, or portion thereof, shall be exempt from the provisions of this Code to the extent that the structure failed to conform. (2) By causes under the control of the owner,e.g., lack of structural maintenance by the owner, reconstruction, remodeling,or new construction,the portion of the nonconforming dwelling being rebuilt, reconstructed,or being newly constructed shall conform fully to City Codes and Standards. c. Time Limitation. In order to utilize the rights granted by subsection (1)(b) above, the building permit for the construction or reconstruction must be issued within one year from the date of damage or destruction. If the building permit is not issued within the one year period,or if issued, the building permit expires.the ability to construct or reconstruct an applicable nonconforming structure shall cease. d. Maintenance of Non-Conforming Structure. Maintenance of a non- • conforming structure that does not enlarge or expand the structure is permitted,, maintenance that does enlarge or expand the structure is subject to subsection (1)(e) below. e. Expansion of Nonconforming Structure in Conforming Manner. Applicable non-conforming structures may also be enlarged or expanded in a manner which does not increase the degree of non-conformity. 2. Structures Other Than Single-Family or Duplex Dwellings,Accessory Structures, and Historic Landmarks. This subsection 2 is applicable to structures subject to subsection (2)(a)below. a. Applicability. This subsection 2 is applicable to all structures other than listed in subsection (1)(a)above. b. Ability to Construct or Reconstruct Nonconforming Structure. Subject to the time limitation provided in subsection (2)(c) below. if a non-conforming structure is damaged or destroyed by any means to the extent that the cost of rebuilding the damaged portions would exceed 50%of the then current replacement cost of the entire building,the rebuilding shall conform fully to City Codes and Standards. Determination of the rebuilding costs shall be made by the City Manager,who may utilize an appraisal or other suitable method to determine current replacement costs. If the damage is 50%or less of the current replacement costs, the rebuilding or reconstruction need not comply with the terms of this Code only to the extent that the destroyed portions of the structure failed to conform. c. Time Limitation. In order to utilize the rights granted by subsection (2)(b) • above, the building permit for the construction or reconstruction must be issued within one Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 48 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 70 • year from the date of damage or destruction. On demonstration that a good faith effort has been made by the owner to be able to apply for the building permit to construct or reconstruct the damaged or destroyed structure (including obtaining funding and completion of architectural work)and a written request for extension is submitted prior to expiration,the City Manager may extend the construction rights for an additional year. No more than two one-year extensions may be granted. If the building permit is not issued within the one year period, or if issued, the building permit expires, the ability to construct or reconstruct an applicable nonconforming structure shall cease. B. Exceptions Section 50.22.050 Exception for Survey/Construction Errors,Tree Protection, and Alenment for Additions to Existine Structures . I. The following exceptions to underlying zoning standards are permitted provided the criteria listed in subsection 2 below are satisfied: a.. Up to 2.5%exception to lot area,or b. Up to six inches to dimensional standards. 2. Criteria: a. The exception is for an alteration or addition to an existing structure (conforming or non-conforming); and b. At least one of the following circumstances applies: i. The adjustment is necessary to address survey or construction 11111 errors: ii. The adjustment will result in greater tree protection, including root protection;or iii. The adjustment for the alteration or addition will allow the alteration or addition to align with the existing portion of the structure. • Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 49 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 71 Section 10 - Duplex and Attached Single • Family Dwelling Provisions Article 50.06 Residential - Medium and High Density R-0, R-2, R-3, R-5, and WR Zones. Section 50.06.065 Garage Appearance and Location —R-0. R-2. R-3. and R-5 Zones. 1 Except when a earage is located behinri the primary structure or the garage is side or rear loading. as shown in Appendix 50 02-C the aara egappearance and location standards of this section shall apply to the followin pes of development within the R-0 R-2 R- and R- 5 Residential Zones: • Detached single family dwellings; • Zero lot line dwellings; and • Duplexes. e2. The garage shall comply with subsections (a)—(c) below: ia. Not be located closer to the street than the dwelling, unless the exception criteria outlined in subsection (-1 e4) below are met. For the purpose of meeting this standard,the exterior wall of at least one room of habitable space, other than any habitable space above the garage, shall be located closer to the street than the garage door. Habitable space above a garage shall be considered an acceptable method of meeting this standard for remodeling projects involving homes built prior to August 2004 in the R-5 zone, and [effective date of this ordinance]. 2010. in the R-0. R-2. and R-3 zone . jib. Either: i. Not occupy more than 60%of the width of the front facade of the structure; or- ii. For duplexes and zero lot line dwellings. ag=rages may occupy un to 75%of the width of the front facade of the structure when the following criteria are satisfied: 1). The lot width of the lot upon which the duplex is located or the combined total lot width for the two lots upon which the zero lot line dwellings are located is less than 88 feet; and (2). The total combined width of all garage doors does not exceed 36 feet; and (3). Livin are provided above the ag=rage The front facade of the living area must have fenestration that is not less than 20%of the facade; and (4). One or more of the following is . I '+-•A. Pergolas or trellises are provided across the entire front of the garage: or B. A covered porch occupies at least 25%of the facade; • Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 50 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 72 III C. An enclosed outdoor living space is located between the front of the house.the garage, and the public right-of-way. The enclosure shall consist of wood, wrought iron, brick,stucco, stone, or other masonry fencing (excluding concrete block)and include an operable ei rymygg appendix 50.06.065 (21(bl(iil(4YCll: and Appendix 50.06.065 (2)(b)(ii)(4)(C) Garage Wood and II ill stone fencing 1 7 Operable gate • Outdoor living area (5). If the garages for the units are adjacent to one another,the horizontal planes of the garage doors shall be offset no less than two feet. iik. Comply with at least two of the following standards,to minimize the appearance of the garage: Ai. Set the garage an additional two feet further from the front property line than the facade of the dwelling; Bii _Provide individual garage doors, not to exceed 75 square feet each, for each parking stall; Ciii.—Any individual garage door may not exceed 50%of the width of the facade of the suture-dwelling and garagefaeadc, or in the case of duplexes and zero lot line dwellings, 50%of the width of the combined facade of the strueturesdwellings and garages. Any garage opening width beyond 50%of the primary-stye dwelling and garage width must be set back at least 2 feet further from the front • Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 51 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 73 property line than the facade of the other garage velumeopening; —=Provide a decorative trellis or other feature that will provide a shadow line giving the perception that the garage opening is recessed. The feature shall be provided across the top and along the width of the garage door(s) and shall be at least 12 inches deep and 6 feet tall. b3. Multiple Garage Opening Setbacks. In any instance where a garage or a set of adjacent garages is designed to park 3 or more vehicles,only the garage openings for the first 2 vehicles may occupy the same building plane. Each additional building plane with a garage opening shall be set back by a minimum of 2 feet from the previous garage building plane. e4. Exceptions. The standards in subsections (4-Zj(a)and(4-)(b) shall not apply in any one of the following circumstances: ia. Where the average slope of a parcel exceeds 20%, ib. Where the width of a parcel is less than 50 feet,or Where the garage is proposed to be set back at least 60 feet from the public right-of-way. 25. When a side-loading garage wall is exposed to the street or abutting property, the front or side of the exposed garage building wall shall have more than one plane or shall include fenestration equal to at least 10%of the exposed garage wall. 3;. For garages located at the rear of the primary structure or for side-loading garages, the area of the garage, up to 200 square feet, shall be exempt from lot coverage calculations. • Article 50.07 Residential -First Addition District (R-6) Zone. Section 50.07.047 Garage Appearance and Location 1. Garages. In addition to compliance with LOC 50.07.025 (accessory structure setback requirements)and 50.07.045,a garage shall comply with the following requirements: a. Garages shall be accessed from an alley, if available. If a property is located on a corner lot, garages may also be accessed from the street that abuts the side of the primary dwelling when the following criteria are met: i. The garage is located between the primary structure and the alley, ii. The garage is set back a minimum of 15 feet from the side street property line, and iii. The garage is set back a minimum of 2 feet from a line extended from the side elevation of the primary dwelling to the rear lot line, and behind the primary structure. See Appendix 50.07-B. b. For interior lots, garages shall be located so that the garage is set back a minimum of 15 feet behind the front building line of the house(excluding a porch). See Appendix 50.07-B. • Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 52 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 74 • c. When a side or rear-loading garage wall is exposed to the street or abutting property,the front or side of the exposed garage building wall shall have more than one plane or shall include fenestration equal to at least 10%of the exposed garage wall. d. Where no alley access is available-the . • - -• , - • i. Not occupy more than 60%of the width of the facade of the structure,or ii. For zero lot line dwellings, garages may occupy up to 75%of the width of the front facade of the structure when the following criteria are satisfied: 11. he combined total lot width for the two lots upon which the zero lot line dwellings are located is less than 88 feet; and 21. The total combined width of all garage doors does not exceed 36 feet; and (3). Living area_ is provided above the garage The front facade of the living area must have fenestration that is not less than 20%of the facade; and (4). One or more of the following is provided: A. Pergolas or trellises are provided across the entire front of the garage;or B. A covered porch occupies at least 25%of the facade, (5). If the garages for the units are adjacent to one another.the horizontal planes of the garage doors shall be offset no less than two feet. • 2. This section shall not apply to secondary dwelling units, which shall be governed by the requirements for the primary structure and LOC 50.30.010. Article 50.08 Residential - Low Density R-7.5, R-10, and R-15 Zones. Section 50.08.055 Garage Appearance and Location. l. The following standards apply, except when a garage is located behind the primary structure or the garage is side or rear loading, as shown in Appendix 50.02-C: a. The garage shall: i. Not be located closer to the street than the dwelling, unless the exception criteria outlined in subsection(c)below are met. For the purpose of meeting this standard,the exterior wall of at least one room of habitable space,other than any habitable space above the garage, shall be located closer to the street than the garage door. Habitable space above a garage shall be considered an acceptable method of meeting this standard for remodeling projects involving homes built prior to August 2004. ii. Not occupy more than 60%of the width of the facade of the structure; except that aarag`s for zero lot line dwellings a occu. up to 75%of the width of the facade of the structure when the following conditions are satisfied: A. The combined total lot width for the two lots upon which the zero lot line dwellings are located is less than 88 feet;and • B. The total combined width of the garage doors does not exceed 36 feet; and Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 53 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 75 C. Living area is provided above the garage. The front facade of the living area must have fenestration that is not less than 20%of the facade; and D. One or more of the following is provided; (1). Pergolas or trellises are provided across the front of the garage: or (2). A covered porch occupies at least 25%of the facade; or (3). An enclosed outdoor living space is located between the front of the house,the garage,and the public right-of-way. The enclosure shall consist of wood,wrought iron, Krick, stucco, stone. or other masonry fencing(excluding concrete block)and include an operable entryway gate (see Appendix 50.06.065(2)(b)(ii)(4)(C)); and E. If the garages for the units are adjacent to one another, the horizontal planes of the garage doors shall be offset no less than two feet, iii. Minimize+ham v ofthe a by ^Complying with at least two of the following standards, to minimize the appearance of the garage: A. Set the garage an additional two feet further from the front property line than the facade of the dwelling; B. Provide individual garage doors, not to exceed 75 square feet each,for each parking stall; C. Any individual garage door may not exceed 50%of the width of the facade of the structure dwelling and garage€acude, or in the case of zero lot line dwellings, 50% of the width of the combined facade of the statetufesdwellings and garages. Any garage opening width beyond 50%of the pfimftry-stftiettire-dwelling and garage width must be set back at least 2 feet further from the front property line than the facade of the other garage veltumeopening; D. Provide a decorative trellis or other feature that will provide a shadow line giving the perception that the garage opening is recessed. The feature shall be provided across the top and along the width of the garage door(s)and shall be at least 12 inches deep and 6 feet tall. b. Multiple Garage Opening Setbacks. In any instance where a garage or a set of adjacent garages is designed to park 3 or more vehicles, only the garage openings for the first 2 vehicles may occupy the same building plane._Each additional building plane with a garage opening shall be set back by a minimum of 2 feet from the previous garage building plane. c. Exceptions. The standards in subsections(1) (a)and(b) shall not apply in any one of the following circumstances: i. Where the average slope of a parcel exceeds 20%, i. Where the width of a parcel is less than 50 feet, or . Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 54 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 76 • public right-of-iiiwa.y. Where the garage is proposed to be set back at least 60 feet from the 2. When a side or rear loading garage wall is exposed to the street or abutting property,the front or side of the exposed garage building wall shall have more than one plane or shall include fenestration equal to at least 10%of the exposed garage wall. 3. For garages located at the rear of the primary structure or for side or rear loading garages,the area of the garage,up to 200 square feet, shall be exempt from lot coverage calculations. • Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 55 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 77 Section 11 - Flag Lots I Serial Partitions • Flan Lots Article 50.68 LOC 50.68.015 Classification of Variances 1. Class 1 (minor)variances are small changes from the Code requirements and which will have little or no effect on adjacent property or users. Class 1 (minor)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 20%, or less. b. Variance from yard setback requirements for a structure other than those described in subsection (1)(a)of this section of two feet or less in side or front yards or five feet or less in rear yards. c. Variances from minimum lot width or depth of 5 feet or less. d. Variances in lot coverage or floor area ratio(FAR)on lots which have the same boundaries as when platted and 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 15%of the maximum allowed lot coverage or FAR. e. Variations from maximum fence or retaining wall height restrictions,pursuant to LOC Article 45.15. • f. Variation to the maximum grade of a private street or driveway. g. Variances for construction of a dormer that does not exceed the e height of the roof ridge g in which the dormer is being constructed in an existing single family detached dwelling that is non- conforming relative to lot coverage or setbacks. h. Variances to distance of driveway from intersections(LOC 50.58.015). i. Variances to street frontage(LOC 50.57.015). j. Variances to driveway width for Flag Lots(LOC 50.20.020). k. Variances for elevated walkway or pathway within setback or yard..... o. Determination of the Front Yard for Flag Lots(LOC 50.20.025), 2. Class 2 variances which are significant changes from the Code requirements and are likely to create impacts on adjacent property or 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 20%. 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 2 feet in side and front yards and more than 5 feet in rear yards. 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. f. Variance to fence,wall,and retaining wall requirements,other than height. Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 56 Revised:02/22/10 tnfill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 78 g. Variances to anyother requirement of this Code except as classified as a Class I • q p (minor) variance above, and applicable to a development. 3. The City Manager shall decide the classification of any variance application. 4. For Class I (minor) 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. Article 50.20 Section 50.20.025 Lot Configuration Requirements. 1. Determination of Front Yard: creation, tThe front yard shall be determined as follows: Except for a lot that fronts on a public street, the front yard(s)of a flag lot shall be measured from the access lane or from a projected extension of the access lane through the perty ( ectiQn 50.20.030 (6) for setback requirements). (Note: A front yard occurs on either side of the access lane of the _flag lot. See Appendix 50,2p easement: 410 Appendix 50.20.025(-Z-A) Front Yards for Flag Lots and Lots Abutting Access Lanes Flag lot access lanQ Front yard ' i1J measut l remenocations Lots fronting onIh� street must meet the front yard requirement on the street and the setback requirement on the access lane, 41111 Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 57 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 79 Section 50.20.030 Building and Site Design Standards. • 1. Building Orientation: For land divisions the reviewing authority shall require that the following: a. New dwellings on flag lots shall have the front of the house oriented towards the access lane or from a pro'ecte• extension of the access lane through the property. c,,,,,1 .,.,h. ,e,....oa t ,, t,:o.., �., t: ,.,:+�, 1(„) .,�.,.. ' •- - Buildings shall be oriented to provide the maximum separation and privacy from existing ana�, r�-dwellings on adjaeent-abutting lots outside of the partition site. The reviewing authority may require conditions of approval to include measures such as specific building locations, increased setbacks, additional height restrictions, location and orientation of windows and other openings. 2. Garage placement shall be reviewed at the time of building permit application to ensure minimum visibility of the garage from the street. Garage placement shall meet the following requirements: a. Be side-loading where a turning radius can be provided that allows for a minimum of 24 feet separation from the garage door and any obstructions or property lines, or b. Be placed such that no more than 40%of garage wall area is visible from the intersection of the flag lot driveway and street. c. When a garage is visible from the street, the front or side of the exposed garage building wall shall have more than one plane, or shall include fenestration equal to • at least 10%of the facade visible from any point at the intersection of the driveway and the public street. To demonstrate compliance with this standard, building elevations shall be submitted which depict the facade area visible from the street at a width equal to the access easement. The area of a specific facade of a building is determined by adding the square footage of surface area of each section of wall visible from that perspective. For buildings with more than one wall (plane) along one facade (for example,rooms jutting out from the main building or a building where each floor is set back from the floor below), all of the walls are included in the total area. The total area does not include any roof area. 3. Maximum Structure Height. The height of a single-family residential structure and any accessory structures on a flag lot shall not exceed: a. For flag lots created after August 14, 2003,the taller of: i. 22 feet,or ii. The average height of all dwellings on properties abutting the development site, as determined prior to the time of creation of the flag lot. Where there is no dwelling on the abutting property or where a dwelling is located more than 100 feet away from the development site,then the maximum height permitted in the underlying zone shall be used for calculating the average. In cases where the abutting property is zoned to permit a height greater than that allowed on the subject site,then the maximum height for the zone in which the subject site is located shall be substituted and used to calculate the average. Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 58 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 80 • b. For flag lots created before August 14, 2003,the taller of: i. The maximum building height limitation established at the time of creation of the flag lot. The methodology used to calculate the maximum building height permitted by this subsection shall be the same methodology used to at the time of lot creation to establish the maximum building height,or ii. 22 feet(see LOC 50.02.005, "Height of Building" for methodology). The City Manager may execute and record amendments to previously recorded development restrictions,upon the Owner's or adjacent property owner's request,or at the City's discretion, if necessary to reflect a taller building height limitation than previously approved. c. Modification of Approved Building Height. The maximum building height of single family residential structures and accessory structures on a flag lot(whether created prior to or after August 14, 2003) may be modified from that previously determined at the time of creation of the flag lot to the average height of all dwellings on properties abutting the development site. Where there is no dwelling on the abutting property or where a dwelling is located more than 100 feet away from the development site,then the maximum height permitted in the underlying zone shall be used for calculating the average. In cases where the abutting property is zoned to permit a height greater than that allowed on the subject site,then the maximum height for the zone in which the subject site is located shall be substituted and used to calculate the average. Where an existing structure on an abutting lot exceeds the maximum height allowed by the underlying zone,then the maximum height permitted by the underlying zone shall be used for purposes of calculating the average. • An application for modification of maximum building height for a flag lot shall be processed pursuant to LOC 50.86.025 as a new application. The City Manager may execute and record amendments to previously recorded development restrictions. d. Exceptions to Maximum Structure Height. A greater height than otherwise permitted is allowed for roof forms,or architectural features, such as cupolas or dormers provided that these roof forms or features: i. Do not extend more than 6 feet above the maximum specified height, ii. Do not, in total, exceed one-third of the width of the building for an individual roof form or projection or do not exceed one-half of the width of the building for two or more separate roof forms or projections,as measured on any elevation drawing and, iii. Do not, in total,cover more than 20%of the roof area on which they are located,as viewed from directly above for an individual roof form or projection or 30%for multiple roof forms or projections. iv. Examples of permitted exceptions are illustrated in Appendix 50.06-A. 4. Where a flag lot abuts a lot in a residential district of lower density,the greater setback requirements of the more restrictive district shall apply for those yards which have abutting property lines. 5. Access Lane Siting. The access lane shall be located no closer than 5' to any existing structures. • Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 59 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 81 6. Setback Requirements, a. The standard front yard setback of the zone shall be superseded by the following front yardiequirement: A minimum 10' front yard setback is required from the access lane, except that a 20' setback is required from the access lane to the front of a garage or carport when the garage or carport opening faces the access lane. For purposes of this standard the access lane shall include the projected extension of the access lane through the prowty as illustrated in Appendix 50.20.030 (6)(. . 4b. Where a flag lot abuts a lot in a residential district of lower density,the greater setback requirements of the more restrictive district shall apply for those yards which have abutting property lines. c. The side and rear yard setbacks shall be established at the time of flag lot creation, subject to the following requirements; i. The sum of the side and rear yard setbacks on fla• • • , •: •• -; - • • . •. or equal to; (1) 50 feet in R-10 and R-15 zones; and (21 45 feet in re iden ial ones other than R-10 anal R-15 ii. In applyin• the Appendix 50.20.030 (6)(a). flexible standard,provide yard dimensions that are similar to the yard dimensions of primary to structures on abutting properties that are not part of the partition, Front site and that abut the rear or side Yard Yards of the flag lots, but in no • --�► Z� event shall the rear or side yard established under this section be less than 10 feet, 10'setback — ta. with minimum P je etLextension of of for A Front • the access lane parkiktn8 area Yard — c through the property a 20' s s 1. a t, e --� Front Yard Street • Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 60 Revised:02/22/10 1nfi11 Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 82 • 7. Width and Depth Requirements. The standard zoning dimensional requirements for lot depth do not apply to flag lots. No width or depth dimension of a flag lot shalLhe less than the standard width dimension listed for lot under its respective zone. Defintions Related to Flaq Lots Amend Article 50.02 as follows: Net Buildable Acre. The residentially designated land remaining in a gross acre of 43,560 square feet after the following areas have been deducted: a. Area in street right-of-way,private street,or access easements;,excepts For public street,use the actual acreage if known or 20%of the gross site area. For private street use actual acreage if known or 40 feet right-of-way. For access easement use actual acreage of easement. b. Acreage in 100-year floodplain as shown on U.S. Army Corp of Engineers flood maps. c. Acreage of over 25%slope. d. Acreage in known landslide areas. e. Acreage in stream buffer area of major stream corridors including wetlands located therein. f. Acreage in public open space and parks. Lot Area: The area of a lot,defined by the lot lines, less the area of access easements, private streets, and public streets. Driveway. A vehicular accessway that has,as its primary purpose,the provision of a driveable connection between a structure or parking area on pr-ivate-prepet and connecting to the-shared access easement. access lane. private street.or public street system. "Driveway"may include , vehicular access,parking pads,turnaround areas,and parking lot aisles. Flaq Lots - Access Article 50.20 Flag Lots Section 50.20.020 Access. l. For land divisions creating flag lots,the reviewing authority shall require that access to the flag lots shall be consolidated into a single shared tifivewa.faccess lane wherever practicable, including consolidation with the access of the parent lot. Access lanes shall extend through the partition site and be extended to abutting developable property to provide a continuous connecting access lane where practicable. 2. Flag lots shall have access to a public or private street; however, actual street • frontage shall not be required. Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 61 Revised:02/22/10 Inftll Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 83 3. A driveway shall be used to serve a single property. An access lane shall serve no • more than eight properties. a. Driveway widths shall be a minimum of 12 feet. Driveway length, construction standards, and turnaround requirements shall be determined by LOC Article 50.58 "On site Circulation- Driveways and Fire Access Roads". b. See LOC 50.57.020 for width of access lanes. 4. No more than two driveways or access lanes shall be permitted within a distance equal to the minimum lot width of the underlying zone, or within 50 feet of each other if no minimum exists, as measured from the closest edge of each driveway or access lane. 5. All buildings on flag lots must post an address at the beginning of the driveway or access lane. The address shall be no less than 6 inch tall, must be on contrasting background,plainly visible, and must indicate the direction to the building. Section 50.57.015 Standards for Approval. 1. Every lot shall abut a street for a width of at least 25 feet. Exception: The street frontage of a lot created pursuant to approval of a row house development may be reduced to 17 feet in the R-0, D-D, R-2, R-3 and R-5 zones. 2. Access design shall be based on the following five criteria: a. Topography. • b. Traffic volume to be generated by the development. c. Classification of the public street from which the access is taken (residential, collector or arterial). d. Traffic volume presently carried by such street. e. Projected traffic volumes. 3. Direct permanent access from a development to an arterial street is prohibited where an alternate access is either available or is expected to be available. A temporary access may be allowed. 4. Direct access from a development or a structure to a residential street is required unless such access is not available. 5. The City may require shared access with a neighboring site or an extension of residential streets across adjacent properties to provide access to the development if necessary to prevent adverse impacts on traffic flow. 6. If no satisfactory access from a public street to a development is available, the City shall require postponement of the development until such time as a satisfactory access becomes available. 7. Access lanes created by a partition or private streets created by a subdivision shull contemporaneously provide an option of dedication to the City. • Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 62 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 84 • LOC 50.57.020 Standards for Construction (Access) Access lanes shall meet the following minimum standards: i. 20 foot wide easement. ii. Access to 2 to 4 dwelling units - 12 feet of pavement with a 4 foot shoulder on each side. iii. Access to 5 to 8 dwelling units - 16 feet of pavement with a 2 foot shoulder on each side, iv. When providing access for 7 to 8 dwelling units,the access lane shall be designed to provide "on-lane" parking for a minimum of four standard vehicles or provide an"off-lane"parking area for a minimum of four standard vehicles. Street Connectivity Article 50.60 Local Street Connectivity. Section 50.60.005 Applicability. This standard is applicable to: 1. Any development that results in the construction of a street,or 2. Construction of a detached single family dwelling,duplex, zero lot line dwelling, commercial, industrial, institutional,or Public Function structure;and is located on a parcel or parcels of vacant or redevelopable land of€1ve-1.75 acres or larger. Section 50.60.020 Standards for Approval of Development Which Requires the Construction of a Street. 1. Local and neighborhood collector streets, access lanes,and residential accessways shall be designed to connect to the existing transportation system to meet the requirements of this standard as determined by the Review Authority. 2. Local and neighborhood collector street design shall provide for full street connections between through streets with spacing of no more than 530 feet, measured between the center of the intersection of two through streets that provide for vehicle traffic movement in generally the same direction("through street pairs")with the cross street. This requirement shall be applied to all through street pairs which surround the site. If the nearest boundary of the site(or boundaries extended to the street) is more than 100 feet from the intersection of a through street nearest to the site and the cross street, the provisions of this Standard shall be met, except when the provisions of subsection (5) below are met. (See Appendix 50.60-A). 3. Streets shall be designed to connect to all existing or approved stub streets which abut the development site. Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 63 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 85 4. Cul-de-sacs and permanent closed-end streets shall be prohibited except where a) • the requirements of this standard for street and residential accessway spacing are met and b)construction of a through street is found to be impracticable. When cul-de-sacs or closed-end streets are allowed under subsection (5),they shall be limited to 200 feet and shall serve no more than 25 dwellings,except where the Review Authority has determined that this standard is impracticable due the criteria listed in subsection (5), below. 5. Access lanes ma be used to serve up to eight dwellings. The shall be designed to provide connections between properties that develop through thepartition process. 3�. The Review Authority may allow an exception to the review standards of subsections(1)through(41), above, based on findings that the modification is the minimum necessary to address the constraint and the application of the standards is impracticable due to the following: a. Extreme topography(over 15%slope) in the longitudinal direction of a projected automobile route; b. The presence of Sensitive Lands as described in LOC Article 50.16 or floodplains LOC Article 50.44, or other lands protected by City ordinances,where regulations discourage construction of or prescribe different standards for street facilities, unless the nearest through street pairs(See Appendix 50.60-A) surrounding the subject site are more than 'A mile apart. The Review Authority may determine that connectivity is not required under this circumstance, if a benefit/cost analysis shows that the traffic impacts from development are low and do not provide reasonable justification for the estimated costs of a full street connection; c. The presence of freeways, existing development patterns on abutting • property which preclude the logical connection of streets or arterial access restrictions; d. Where requiring a particular location of a road would result in viplation of other city standards,or state or county laws or standards,or a traffic safety issue that can not be resolved;or e. Where requiring streets or accessways would violate provisions of leases, easements, covenants, restrictions or other agreements existing as of May 1, 1995, which preclude required street or accessway connections. 61. If the Review Authority allows an exception to subsection(2) for full street connections, it shall require residential accessway connections on public easements or rights-of-way so that spacing between bicycle and pedestrian connections shall be no more than 330 feet measured from the centerline of the nearest bicycle and pedestrian connection intersection with the cross street. 78. The Review Authority may allow a reduction in the number of residential accessway connections required by subsection (6) based on findings that demonstrate: a. That reducing the number or location of connections would not significantly add to travel time or distance from the proposed development to bus lines or activity centers in the area, such as schools, shopping,or parks; or b. That existing development patterns on abutting properties preclude logical connection of residential accessways;or 411 Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 64 Revised:02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 86 • c. That the traffic impacts from development, redevelopment or both are low and do not provide reasonable justification for the estimated costs of such accessway. [Cross-reference: Section 4 -See also LOC 42.03.085] Section 50.60.025 Standards for Approval of Construction of Structures that Do Not Require Construction of a Street but are Located on a ParceI(s)Five-1.75 Acres or Greater in Size. When an applicant proposes construction of a structure subject to LOC 50.60.005 (2)that does not require the construction of a street, but is located on a parcel or parcels€rve- 1.75 acres or greater in size,the Review Authority shall require: 1. A future connectivity plan to be filed with the City and recorded in the applicable County Clerk records,as a condition of development approval. The future connectivity plan shall show how the location of future streets,access lanes,and accessways will provide for full development of the subject parcel as well as any abutting properties in order to meet the standards of LOC 50.60.020(2)- (7); and 2. Placement of structures in a manner that allows for the future street(s), access lanes. or accessways to be constructed, as well as an area sufficient to meet the required zone setbacks from the future streets. • Section 50.60.035 Standards for Construction. 1. Standards for construction of full street connections shall be those included in LOC Chapter 42. 2. Standards for construction of access lanes shall be those included in LOC 50.57.020, 23.. Standards for construction of residential accessways shall be those included in LOC 50.59.015. • Ordinance 2524-Attachment B Page 65 Revised: 02/22/10 Infill Code Amendments(LU 08-0053) 87 • • • 88 Exhibit B Findings 1111 • • I BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ro 2 OF THE 3 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO APPr°11.4 4 5 6 A REQUEST FOR A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ) LU 08-0053 - 1720 7 CODE AMENDMENT AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ) (CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO) 8 TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO INFILL. ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS& ORDER 9 10 11 NATURE OF APPLICATION 12 13 A legislative amendment to the Lake Oswego Community Development Code and a Comprehensive Plan 14 text amendment adding design standards and a plan policy to promote compatibility of residential infill 15 development with the character of existing development. 16 17 HEARINGS 18 19 The Planning Commission held public hearings and work sessions and considered this application at its 20 meetings of: September 22, 2008; October 27, 2008; January 26, 2009; February 9 and 23, 2009; March 21 9 and 23, 2009; April 13, 2009; May 11 and 27, 2009; June 8 and 22, 2009; July 13 and 27, 2009; August 22 24, 2009; September 14, 2009, October 12 and 26, 2009; November 9, 2009; December 14, 2009 and 23 January 11, 2010. 24 25 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS 26 • 27 A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: 28 Goal 1 Citizen Involvement, Policies 1, 5, and 10 29 Goal 2 Land Use Planning, Section 1, Land Use Policies and Regulations, Policies 4 and 23 30 Goal 10 Housing, Policies 10_, 13, and 17 31 Goal 11 Public Facilities and Services, Section 1 Public Safety, Police and Fire Protection, 32 Policy 5 33 Goal 12 Transportation, Policies 4 and 9 34 35 B. City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code: 36 LOC 50.75.005 Legislative Decision Defined 37 LOC 50.75.010 Criteria for Legislative Decision 38 LOC 50.75.015 Required Notice to DLCD 39 LOC 50.75.020 Planning Commission Recommendation Required 40 LOC 50.75.025 City Council Review and Decision 41 42 C. Statewide Planning Goal or Administrative Rule adopted pursuant to ORS Chapter 197 43 Goal 1 Citizen Involvement 44 Goal 2 Land Use Planning 45 46 CONCLUSION 47 48 The Planning Commission concludes that LU 08-0053 is in compliance with all applicable criteria. 49 50 51 FINDINGS AND REASONS 52 • 53 The Planning Commission incorporates the staff reports and memoranda dated October 20, 2008; 54 January 21, 2009; February 3, 2009; March 4, 2009; April 1, 2009, May 29, 2009; June 5, 2009; June 11, EXHIBIT B-1 LU 08-0053 LU 08-0053 PAGE 1 89 1 2009: July 2, 2009; August 14, 2009; September 3, 2009; October 2, 2009; October 8, 2009: December • 2 1. 2009 and January 6, 2010 on LU 08-0053(with all exhibits attached thereto) as support for its decision 3 supplemented by the further findings and conclusions set forth herein. In the event of any inconsistency 4 between the supplementary matter herein and the staff report, the matter herein controls. To the extent 5 they are consistent with the approval granted herein, the Commission adopts by reference its oral 6 deliberations on this matter. 7 8 Following are the supplementary findings and conclusions of this Commission: 9 10 1. The Planning Commission acknowledges the work of the Infill Task Force and has listened to the 11 concerns of citizens, and concludes that the proposed changes to the development code will promote 12 more compatible infill development in Lake Oswego. 13 14 2. The Planning Commission held its final deliberation sessions on the infill standards and policies on 15 December 14, 2009 and January 11, 2010. Following the deliberation, the Commission voted 6-0 to 16 support the full package of infill standards. Leading up to the final vote, a series of votes on each of the 17 sections was held. These individual votes provided opportunities for Commissioners to express their 18 concerns or support for specific provisions of the proposed ordinances: 19 20 a. During deliberation, the Commission voted 5-1 to recommend a policy amendment in support 21 of using neighborhood overlay zones to provide neighborhood by neighborhood guidance and 22 regulation for infill development (Section 1). The Commission also voted 5-1 to recommend 23 Council support of an infill design handbook. 24 25 The Commission's recommendation did not include a draft policy that would have directed the 26 City to develop a design review program for infill development. The primary concerns expressed 27 by Commissioners were cost and time burdens for the review process. 28 • 29 b. The Commission voted 6-0 to support reductions in allowed floor area and adjustments to the 30 proposed lot coverage requirements (Section 2). The Commission concludes that the floor area 31 reductions would help to keep house size more compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. 32 33 c. The Commission voted 5-1 to support revisions to standards addressing building design and 34 setback planes (Section 3). The Commission concludes the standards would provide better 35 screening options and better help to protect neighbor-to-neighbor privacy. 36 37 d. The Commission voted 6-0 to recommend changes to yard setbacks and setback exceptions 38 (Section 4), The Commission concludes the changes would provide greater privacy and 39 separation between buildings. 40 41 e. The Commission voted 5-0 with one abstension to recommend changes to the way height is 42 measured on lots with sloping topography, The Commission concludes that the change would 43 provide greater flexibility in design. The Commission recommends rejection of a proposal for an 44 increase in building height on steeply sloped lots, concluding that the increased height may 45 create incompatible relationships between adjoining lots. 46 47 f. The Commission voted 5-1 in support of changes to the Residential Design Review (RID) 48 section of the code (Section 6). The Commission concludes that the RID process has provided 49 too much flexibility and has allowed construction of homes that are larger than what would be 50 allowed under the standards of the base zones. 51 52 g. The Commission voted 6-0 to support new setback requirements in planned developments 53 (Section 7). The Commission concludes that increased separation between buildings would 54 provide greater compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods. 55 • LU 08-0053 PAGE 2 90 • 1 h. The Commission voted 6-0 to support amendments to the variance section (Section 8)to 2 provide greater degree of flexibility for minor variances. 3 4 i. The Commission voted 5-0 with one abstension to recommend revising the non-conforming 5 use section of the code(Section 9)to provide greater flexibility for additions and reconstruction of 6 nonconforming buildings. 7 8 j. The Commission voted 6-0 to support code changes to the building design standards for 9 duplex and single family attached dwellings. 10 11 k. The Commission voted 5-1 to support new flag lot and street connectivity standards. The 12 Commission concludes the standards would create a better design relationship between 13 buildings on flag lots resulting in a stronger sense of"neighborhood". 14 15 16 ORDER 17 18 IT IS ORDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of Lake Oswego that: 19 20 1. The Planning Commission recommends that LU 08-0053 be approved by the City Council. 21 22 I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the Planning Commission of the 23 City of Lake Oswego. 24 25 26 DATED this 22nd day of February 2010. 27 O28 29 30 Philip Stewart /s/ 31 Philip Stewart, Chair 32 Planning Commission 33 34 35 36 Iris McCaleb /s/ 37 Iris McCaleb 38 Administrative Support 39 40 41 42 43 ATTEST: 44 45 PRELIMINARY DECISION - Januarv11, 2010 46 47 AYES: Brockman, Gustafson, Johnson, Jones, Paretchan, Stewart 48 NOES: None 49 ABSTAIN: None 50 RECUSE: None 51 EXCUSED: Glisson 52 ABSENT: None 53 54 LU 08-0053 PAGE 3 91 I ADOPTION OF FINDINGS AND ORDER - February 22, 2010 2 3 AYES: Brockman, Glisson, Gustafson, Johnson, Jones, Stewart 4 NOES: None 5 ABSTAIN: None 6 RECUSE: None 7 EXCUSED: Paretchan 8 ABSENT: None i LU 08-0053 PAGE 4 92 Exhibit C Minutes • • O,L_h_K_E OS • �� City of Lake Oswego ,'LN► Pl anning Commission Minutes Vê September 22, 2008 APP oiloos I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Julia Glisson called the Planning Commission meeting of Monday, September 22, 2008 to order at 6:10 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Members present were Chair Glisson, Vice Chair Philip Stewart and Commissioners Adrianne Brockman, Brian Newman, Mary Olson, Scot Siegel and Alison Webster. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Jonna Papaefthimiou, Natural Resources Planner; Sarah Selden, Neighborhood Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris Treinen,Administrative Support. III [11. CITIZEN COMMENT None. IV. PUBLIC 1-IEARING[ ommunity Development Code Amendments Arequest from the City of Lake Oswego for amendments to the Community Development Code(CDC)and an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, as follows: Ordinance 2527, LU 08-0051, CDC - Sensitive Lands Overlay District Amend 1 . s: Amends portions of the Community Development Code Article 50.16. Pro..- . updates pertain to the following topics: consistent usage of terms, permit. • •ses in resource areas (second-story additions, utility tunneling, street or trail s, access to new lots), "wildlife-friendly" fences, "reasonable development" • property totally covered by wetland or stream resources, map corrections, d- • pment procedures, water-dependent uses such as docks along the Willame = and Tualatin Rivers, hazardous materials storage, and ivy removal as a col•' on of development approval. Staff coordinator: Jonna Papaefthimiou,Natur. •esources Planner. Ordinance 25 -, U 08-0052, CDC - General Housekeeping Amendments: Amends portion . the Community Development Code, Chapter 50, for the purpose of c : ication, correction, formatting, and updating sections. Proposed updates pertain to illEXHIBIT C-1 LU 08-0053 Pagel 4co''1O Planning Commission _-.�--- Minutes of September 22, 2008 LU V �VU 3 93 the following topics: definitions, the master plant list, uses, map administration, setbac • structure heights, accessory structures, dwelling design, commerci opment standards and requirements, accessory and temporary uses s, vision clearance, exceptions, special standards, flood manageme , building design, open space, landscaping, access, on-site circul ' , et connectivity, street lights, downtown redevelopment districts s, Old Town neighborhood design standards, West Lake Grove distr. ards, variances, conditional uses, and procedural requirements. Staff ator was Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager. Ordinance 2523, LU 08-0053, Comprehensive Plan —New Infill Policies. Adds policies in support of overlay zones for neighborhood plans and residential design review. Staff Coordinator was Dennis Egner,Long Range Planning Manager. Ordinance 2524, LU 08-0053, CDC — Infill Amendments. Amends portions of the Community Development Code, Chapter 50, for the purpose of enhancing the compatibility of infill development and clarification. Proposed updates pertain to the following topics: lot coverage, maximum floor area, structure design, setback planes, yard setbacks, sloped lots, residential infill design review, variances, non-conforming uses, duplexes and attached dwellings, flag lots, and serial partitions. Staff coordinator was Dennis Egner Long Range Planning Manager. Ordinance 2526, LU 08-0054, CDC — Amendments with Policy Im . ns. Amends portions of the Community Development Code, Chapter 50 e purpose of clarification, correction and updating sections. Proposed pertain to the following 411 topics: definitions, map administration, minimu sity, lot coverage, structure design, lot depth, industrial uses, accessory a porary uses, Greenway management overlay, planned development over lots exceptions, Oswego g P p Lake setback, special street setbacks, home pations, secondary dwelling units, drainage standards, weak found soils, hillside protection, parking, and variances. Staff coordinator was ennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager. Chair Glisson opened the public hearing and asked the Commissioners to declare any conflict of'interest. None were declared. Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager, explained that staff had broken the large package of updates into parts. He recommended that the Planning Commission consider the General Housekeeping and Sensitive Lands Overlay District amendments first and continue the hearings on Infill amendments and amendments with Policy Implications. He explained that would give the Infill Task Force time to finalize infill recommendations and it would give neighborhood associations time to organize their comments regarding the proposed infill and policy changes. He reported that staff had already held or scheduled public open houses regarding all of the amendments and offered to attend neighborhood association meetings to discuss them. Jonna Papaefthimiou, Natural Resources Planner, presented the staff report regarding proposed Sensitive Lands-related amendments. She explained the Sensitive Lands chapter used map-based protection of vegetation and wildlife habitat and also helped S Pag2e6f1O Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-1 Minutes of September 22,2008 P 94 LU ;00513 protect clean water. The map was the Sensitive Lands Atlas. Property owners were 11111 required to protect the mapped resource and a buffer around it. She explained the proposed changes would fulfill Metro requirements, clarify what protection was required, and codify practices staff already used. It offered a ministerial process owners could use to remove an overlay that was actually not there. It would allow owners to do work within ten feet of an existing structure without a permit. It would require a physical marker to mark the resource. It would allow the buffer to be averaged on a constrained lot if there was no other viable site plan. It would require invasive plant removal in an area twice as large as the impacted area when a development was built near protected resources. Ms. Papaefthimiou advised that the City had to allow a legal lot to be developed with one, reasonable, single-family house, even if the lot were completely constrained by the resource. She advised the current code did not define what a "reasonable house" was. She suggested the Commissioners consider four options. Option 1 was the current approach to allow the largest house that could be built on the smallest allowable lot in the underlying zone. She advised this option did not factor in other site improvements, such as driveways, patios and accessory structures. Option 2 limited the size of the "disturbance area" (including the house, landscaping, driveways and other site improvements) to half the size of the zone's minimum lot size, half the size of the actual lot, or 5,000 sq. ft. Option 3 allowed the house to be the size of the biggest house on the smallest lot in the zone, and added 50% additional lot coverage for other disturbances. Option 4 allowed a house the average size and height of the houses around it. • Mr. Egner, summarized the proposed Housekeeping amendments. He said most clarified or reorganized existing code. He recalled the Commissioners had already sorted out changes they decided were policy changes. However, he highlighted key changes in this ordinance that staff felt did have some "substance" to them, such as the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) recommendation to allow general office use in historic structures on arterial streets; clarifying side setbacks for zero lot line dwellings; limiting the height of accessory structures to that of the primary structure; adjusting the height limit for cabanas on Lakewood Bay to make up for the previous change in flood level; clarifying where housing was to be allowed in the downtown commercial area; replacing the term, "leaseable area"with "gross floor area;" allowing daily pet care in the General Commercial District (GC); putting a time limit on temporary canopies and portable outdoor storage units; limiting sidewalk sales in commercial areas to three days; excepting solar panels from height limits; reducing the combined 40% landscaping and open space requirement in the downtown commercial area by eliminating the 20% Open Space requirement; offering a "pass-through" variance to help developments comply with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or federal housing act requirements; requiring a new pre-application conference after a year of inaction; and creating an expiration date and criteria for minor changes to an approved development. • �aget,3c0f40 Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-1 Minutes of September 22, 2008 LU a U b'6395 Public Testimony • David Miller, 846 NE 79th Avenue, Portland, Oregon, 97213, said he was an architect working on a lakefront lot that was fully constrained by the Resource Protection (RP) District. He suggested 100% of an over-hillside deck should not have to be factored into the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) calculation, and there should be Lot Coverage exceptions for permeable decks and driveways. Ian Reid, 4959 Oakridge Road, who lived in Forest Highlands, testified that the proposed Sensitive Lands Overlay (Resource Conservation and Resource Protection District standards) would allow more unnecessary street connections to Carman Drive over Resource Conservation (RC) and RP resources and his neighborhood did not want that impact. Lauren Hughes, 18711 Westview Drive, had submitted written testimony (Exhibit G-1). She said that she had recently learned her property had a Sensitive Lands Overlay on it. She said she resented the fact that would devalue the extra-large, completely landscaped lot she owned, which was her biggest asset. She questioned why the drainage ditch on it was now designated as a protected resource. Staff said they had inserted a statement in the summary that explained that the currently proposed amendments and the upcoming Sensitive Lands Atlas update did not affect properties not currently designated or mapped RC or RP. They said they did not intend the amendments to designate any new protected land, and the amendments were intended to make the code clearer and work better in protecting sensitive lands. However, Ms. • Hughes recalled new maps she had seen in March indicated her property was designated, and she anticipated the City would eventually formalize that designation. Staff explained there would be a public outreach effort at that time, but the currently proposed changes had nothing to do with that - it just addressed mapping errors and inconsistencies. Ms. Hughes confirmed for Commissioner Brockman that she had read the code and discussed it with staff, but she found it so hard to understand she had just hired a land use planner to explain it to her. Commissioner Siegel recalled the City historically applied resource protection to property as it was annexed. He and Commissioner Olson cautioned that the City should be sensitive to the impact on property that was already developed and whose owners might want to remodel or redevelop. Ms. Papaefthimiou advised that the proposed changes would help owners repair and maintain their homes. Mary Turnock, 4745 Oakridge Road, Chair of the Lake Forest Neighborhood Association, said the sensitive lands amendments summary did not adequately explain what the impact would be on her neighborhood's values: She said her Association did not want to allow access through RC areas if there was other access available and they did not want the additional, unnecessary, connectivity they believed the proposed code promoted. She said the Association supported the addition of functions and values definitions, especially those that protected water quality and aesthetics. She said the "A- N list" was not complete and should also list benefits such as air quality and noise • page,LiteMivellO Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-I Minutes of September 22,2008 Lu -it�u g3 96 reduction. She said staff should be directed to clarify the sensitive lands changes and vet • them with neighborhood associations. Ms. Turnock then referred to the housekeeping amendments and opined that the ordinance was too large to be just "housekeeping." changes. She asked that the hearing be continued so the neighborhood association had more time to examine them. She said there were some changes she already knew the Association did not support: zero lot line development in single-family zones, up-zoning in West Lake Grove; height exceptions for solar panels; and removing the lot depth requirement. She asked why the code was to be changed in a manner that would adversely impact the neighborhood without consulting them. She asked that the proposed changes be remanded to staff and that staff be directed to clarify them and conduct outreach to seek public support for them. Sally Moncrieff, 2643 Rivendell Road, Chair of the Palisades Neighborhood Association, agreed with the Lake Forest chair that the proposed ordinances were not understandable and residents could not determine how they would affect them. She said they still did not know how the sensitive lands overlay amendments would affect "remapped"existing residences. She urged Commissioners to do more public outreach to ensure citizens understood, and to try to put the provisions in layman's language. She said residents did not support the wildlife fence provision, because it was ineffective fencing for their dogs. Kirk Smith, 15847 Springbrook Court, an attorney who lived along Springbrook Creek, observed that the code was hard for a non-lawyer to understand, and he worried it • would not adequately protect neighbors or resources. He stressed that setbacks were important for many reasons, and he said he did not want zero lot lines allowed in his neighborhood. He cautioned the City not to allow Planning Department staff to modify setbacks at the planning department counter; he referred to this action as a "counter variance." He said there was too much material being modified, the edit-marked text was hard to follow; and he suggested the Commissioners examine the proposed changes in "bite-sized pieces." Mr. Smith asked what the proposed definition of a "single-family house" was. He recalled that the current code said a property owner was entitled to a single-family home, and it was the current practice of staff to base their recommendations on an informal opinion by the City Attorney of what was a "reasonable" house, Staff explained they were not changing existing code,just suggesting some options the Planning Commission and the City Council could consider using to clarify what was a "single-family house." They explained that what Mr. Smith called a "counter variance" was a separate, minor development procedure that required an application, public notice, and a Class ii Variance-type review. They said the staff decision was appealable to the Development Review Commission (DRC)and the City Council,and an application and appeal fee were required. They said the proposed revisions did not change that existing process. Michael Buck, 3155 Edgemont Road, asked if he would be allowed to rebuild his home if it burned down. He estimated that after 70 feet was deducted from his 110-foot-wide • lot for stream and construction setbacks, there might only be 20' to 30' width left to fit a MitgaiScavit0) Planning Commission EXHIBIT.C-1 Minutes of September 22, 2008 LU 8-O 97 house into. Ms. Papaefthimiou advised that when a non-conforming house was destroyed by any means, its replacement had to conform to the current code. When Mr. Buck • commented that was "scary," staff explained the changes they were proposing did not significantly change existing stream buffering regulations — they just illustrated them better. The only proposed regulation modification would allow a legally filled area to be the top of bank, and that would actually benefit the owner. Mr. Boone advised the current code allowed some adjustment of setbacks to increase the building envelope in a direction away from the resource, and, if that were not enough, the provision that allowed one single-family home on a constrained lot could be used, He said staff was asking the Planning Commission and the City Council to provide guidance on what "single-family house" meant. He advised the adjustment process was not a "variance," but a procedure in the Sensitive Lands Ordinance that allowed exceptions, and that decision could be appealed. Audrey Mattison, 2929 Glen Eagles Road, related that the stream corridor protection area went right through her house. She said she shared Mr. Buck's concerns. She noted that most of the lots around hers were over 20,000 sq. ft., and each of them had the potential to be two building lots. She asked how many properties Sensitive Lands Overlays affected, and she asked for examples of how the new ordinance would be applied. She said most of her neighbors would be shocked to find out they were living on sensitive lands. Carolvne Jones, 2818 Poplar Way, a Glenmorrie Neighborhood Association board member, asked the Commissioners to examine the code changes "line by line" instead of relying on the summaries. She opined that public open houses should not be utilized • because there was no public record of what happened there. She questioned why staff had not explained why the newly mapped designations were not included in the current proposal. She said the City treated owners of property affected by a stream corridor differently than lakefront property owners. The former lost land they could otherwise enjoy, but the latter enjoyed their boat docks on the water. She said the City should compensate stream corridor landowners. She reported that her property was on the market and she had lost prospective buyers after they found out how much of the property was un-buildable because it was in a stream buffer. However, she noted that the City had allowed applicant, Sisters of the Holy Names, to cut many trees and locate a structure 15 feet from a wetland. William Murphy, 49 Briarwood, voiced several objections. He said the notice of Sensitive Lands Ordinance changes was not adequate and should have been mailed to all owners within the Urban Growth Boundary. He said the new regulations should apply to everybody, not just the people who were developing their property. He said the invasive plant removal requirement should not be an ordinance, and he felt all it took was making owners aware of the problem and encouraging them to remove ivy by offering them a discount on storm water management fees. He objected to the prohibition against putting a light in a Sensitive Lands Overlay area, and to the wildlife fence, which he said could not prevent a child from falling into a ravine or keep a dog penned in. Mr. Murphy said the development application fee should not expire after one year because that was not enough time. He also indicated that he had lost buyers after staff had offered different • MinpLGc vt0 Planning Commission EXI�IB T. -1 tes of September 22,2008 a e 98 LU 00- `0 3 interpretations of how the code applied to his property to different potential buyers of his property. He said staff did not keep a record of their advice. Staff clarified that e-mail records were backed up and retained, not discarded. Jeff Kleinman, 1207 SW 6th Avenue, Portland, Oregon, 97204, spoke on behalf of his client, Richard Rasmussen, 1614 Matthew Court, who was concerned about the proposed open space amendments in the General Housekeeping Amendments (Exhibit G- I). He encouraged the Commissioners to recommend keeping the existing definition of open space because it clearly stated its purpose; specified it was to remain in common ownership for use by the general public; and specified it was not to be fenced. He also suggested adding a new enforcement provision related to maintenance. During the questioning period, he explained that his client lived in the Palisades Terrace IV subdivision where a neighbor had tried to landscape and fence off the natural area. Jim Boltand, 804 5th Street, said the amendment summaries were inadequate. lie suggested the Planning Commission address significant policy issues first. He explained that the infill amendments addressed what was to happen when a house burned down, but other amendments confused the issue, because they also addressed demolition. He recalled the lnfill Task Force had to work with Metro maps before the updated Lake Oswego Sensitive Lands Atlas was available, and they spent a lot of time considering how Lake Forest tree groves would be protected. Then, they were surprised to see the Atlas did not include those tree groves because it had determined those groves lacked qualifying understory. He stressed the Commissioners should examine the Atlas and hear • testimony from Lake Forest residents before they recommended the sensitive lands amendments. He said the housekeeping amendments contained a lot of policy-related changes, such as eliminating the 20%open space requirement downtown, and eliminating the lot depth requirement. He said a lot of people would be shocked to learn that all residential zones allowed zero lot line development. He said the code was unintelligible and confusing, and adding more revisions would not change that. lie said testimony highlighted the fact that Chapter 50 needed to be completely rewritten. During the questioning period, he urged the Commissioners to reconsider their approach, hear policy-related changes first, and listen to what the public had to say. The Commissioners described the current approach as picking the "low-hanging fruit" first. Commissioner Siegel suggested the Commissioners attempt to "pare it down" to only those changes that were truly housekeeping issues and try to edit them so they were more logical, understandable, and easier to explain at the Planning Department counter. He suggested after that, they address the most pressing policy issues. Commissioner Brockman recalled the local newspaper had reported the level of complexity of the code was an issue in the community. Commissioner Newman recalled the Planning Commission and staff had already sorted out policy issues. He said codes were typically complicated. He said he could agree to examine it in pieces. Jeannie McGuire, 144 Wilbur Street, had submitted a Citizen Input form, but had left the meeting by the time her name was called. 11111 Isikjelkedf Planning Commission EXIIIBET -1 Minutes of September 22,2008 LV �Ogf3 p 99 I Tia Ross, 1557 Childs Road, former chair of the Historic Resources Advisory Board, asked the Commissioners to recommend a code change that would allow a small "for • profit" business to use an historic structure on an arterial street. She explained the code currently only allowed a "nonprofit" business there. She said the change would help protect the historic Worthington House at 885 McVey. The current occupant was rehabilitating it and wanted to have his office there. Commissioner Brockman thought there might be an alternative way to allow that by modifying the home occupation provisions. Barbara Zeller, 3335 Sabina Court. Chair of the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association. urged the Planning Commission to take Mr. Bolland's advice to clean up and simplify the code and reduce the number of exceptions it allowed. She said she did not feel qualified to explain the code to her Association members. She commented that expert interpretation of the code was a "cottage industry." Commissioner Olson agreed, and said people should not have to hire an expert to help them understand the code. She suggested that now was a good time to rewrite the code since the City was beginning the process of periodic review of the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Brockman agreed that the time had come to put the code in simple, understandable language and address conflicts caused by exceptions. She said when people buy a house they want to know what will happen on their lot and next door to them. Commissioner Stewart said he was intrigued by the challenge to achieve a "readable" code. He remembered someone had provided the Commissioners with the Del Ray Beach code. He cautioned that the Lake Oswego code should be compared with the • codes of other cities with similar characteristics. Commissioners Siegel and Newman confirmed they had experience writing code. Chair Glisson suggested that better •diagrams and case studies would help. Commissioner Brockman agreed it should be broken up into bite-sized pieces and writers should ensure the text was more understandable. She suggested the Commissioners take another look through the Housekeeping amendments to ensure none of them would set new policy. Mr. Egner explained there were some Sensitive Lands changes that needed to be adopted in time to comply with Metro's Title 13 deadline. He offered to separate them out for the Commissioners to address at their next hearing and to also isolate the "easy fixes" General Housekeeping changes for them to examine. He agreed the code was too complex and needed to be rewritten, instead of patched again, but he noted that was a huge project to be started from scratch with a clean framework. Chair Glisson suggested the Commissioners address what had to be done immediately - in smaller pieces - and then consider the larger project. Commissioner Newman suggested the Commissioners utilize a work session to look at all the items before the Planning Commission now to get a sense of it and then decide how to approach periodic review and amendments to Chapter 50. Commissioner Olson agreed. Chair Glisson observed a consensus to slow down a bit, divide the work up, address the things that absolutely needed to be dealt with first, and invite more public involvement. Commissioner Brockman stressed the Planning Commission needed to keep the neighborhood chairs informed so they were all aware of what was going on. III FriveL8,4r540, Planning Commission EXH I BIT,C-1 Minutes of September 22, 2008 LU Ploe L �I 100 The Commissioners wondered if the Sensitive Lands Atlas should be considered at the 411 same time as the Sensitive Lands Overlay District amendments. Mr. Egner suggested that at the time the proposed mapping changes were examined it might be found to be necessary to reopen consideration of the related code. He explained the Goal 5 designation process required a new Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy (ESEE) analysis of each site to resolve conflicts between protection and individual owner uses, and that might necessitate creating some new zone or removing the overlay from a site. For example, the amendments assumed that the RP designation would be applied along the Willamette River, and that water-dependent uses would be allowed in the RP zone. However, the analysis might conclude a new and different type of river-resource zone was warranted. Chair Glisson asked if stream corridor protections should be relaxed on properties that were already developed. Mr. Egner said the ESEE analysis and designation process might conclude that a drainage-way that was clearly intermittent and going through managed ground cover did not require as much regulation. He said the people who testified that they knew the mapping changes the City was considering applied to their property would be included in the mailing of notice of that hearing. Commissioner Brockman indicated it would make sense to give a stream that fed into and floated sediment into the lake a different classification and greater setbacks than a drainage ditch. Commissioner Siegel wanted to see the map and the text changes together, see case studies, and test the code before it was adopted. Mr. Egner explained the sensitive lands code was complex, but it met state and Metro requirements. He offered to provide a list of items in the amendments that would be necessary to comply with Metro Title 13 at the 110 next meeting. Commissioner Siegel suggested looking at the West Linn ordinance. Commissioner Brockman stressed the goal was not necessarily to reduce the number of pages of code, but to make it simpler to read. Commissioner Olson commented that City staff needed to be able to explain it to the public. Chair Glisson asked how the Commissioners wanted to address housekeeping amendments. Commissioner Brockman suggested forming a study group to meet just before the regular Monday Planning Commission meetings, go through the amendments, and serve as an advisory group to the full Commission. Mr. Bolland volunteered to participate in the study group. The Commissioners noted there were still some policy- related changes in the housekeeping portion that should be sorted out and heard later, after more public process. For example, the change to allow for profit business in an historic structure in a residential neighborhood; the "wildlife fence," and how to deal with frontage on a lot that fronted on two streets. Chair Glisson directed staff to report at the next meeting what sensitive lands changes were necessary to comply with Metro Title 13. She urged all Commissioners to take time before the next meeting to study the proposed amendments so the next meeting was productive. Staff offered to send an email to neighborhood associations and people on the City's email contact list to tell them about the September 29th work session. The Commissioners agreed to invite public testimony at that meeting. Chair Glisson observed that the Planning Commission also needed to continue their discussion of the work plan. • ptiagge fw1O Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-1 Minu es of September 22, 2008 LV Pot 3 5 101 Commissioner Newman moved to continue LU 08-0051 (Sensitive Lands Amendments) and LU 08-0052 _(General Housekeeping Amendments) to September 29, 2008: to continue LU 08-0053 (Infill amendments) to October 27. 2008: and to continue LU 08- 0054 (Amendments with Policy Implications) to January 26. 2009. Commissioner Webster seconded the motion and it passed 6:1. Commissioner Siegel voted against because he was not able to attend a meeting on that date. Amendments to Citizen Involvement Guidelines (LU 08-0031) A request from the City of Lake Oswego to approve proposed Ordinance 2512 amendin• the City's Citizen Involvement Guidelines to include new guidelines for neighbor! :od association boundary amendments, clarification on the procedure to r, ove neighborhood association recognition, and clarification on the City's annual eting to review the citizen involvement program. Continued from June 9, 21 i 8. Staff coordinator was Sarah Selden, Neighborhood Planner. Chair Glisson opened the public hearing. Sarah Selden, Nei •orhood Planner, presented the staff report. She pointed out that Craig Stephens ha• raised technical issues in his September 20, 2008 (Exhibit G-2). She recalled th- hair of the Rosewood Neighborhood Association had raised some new issues at e August 5`h work session. She suggested the Planning Commission could reco end the currently proposed amendments and address the new issues at the nex annual Commission for Citizen Involvement (CCI) meeting in February 2009. "' e Commissioners agreed to that • because they felt they had to complete the work t . was already in progress. Ms. Selden reported the newest proposed c nges to the CCI Guidelines reflected what the Commissioners and neighborhood ad suggested. The procedure to remove neighborhood association recognition ncouraged the neighborhood to reactivate. The neighborhood boundary changing p .cess allowed a neighborhood association to ask the Planning Commission for a chan:e any time and called for the Planning Commission to help them work through and to to find an alternative solution to the issues that gave rise to the request. The Plannin: Commission was to review neighborhood boundaries during periodic review. The re ' ed Guidelines expanded CCI meeting notice requirements and encouraged citizens to attend and voice their concerns, Ms. Selden explained the new Guidelines called f• making it clear to citizens they would have an opportunity to raise issues not on e agenda because Commissioner Brockman had heard that some neighborhood epresentatives did not understand they could bring general comments to the meetin::. Corn P ssioncr Webster moved to recommend approval by the Citty Council of LU 08- 00 — Amendments to the Lake Oswe•o Citizen Involvement Guidelines. '.mmissioncr Olson seconded the motion and it passed 7:0. V. OTHER BUSINESS — PLANNING COMMISSION Findings, Conclusions and Order • p yd i_atcpotglplanningCommission EXHIBIT C-1 Mines of September 22, 2008 L� Oe8 q,pou3 102 LU -(! 5 • � E OS City of Lake Oswego APP°Ifed Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2008 CALL TO ORDER Chair Julia Glisson called the Planning Commission meeting of Monday, October 27, 2008 to order at 6:05 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Members present were Chair Julia Glisson, Vice Chair Philip Stewart and Commissioners Adrianne Brockman, Mary Olson and Scot Siegel, Alison Webster was excused. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris Treinen, Administrative Support. III. CITIZEN COMMENT Diana Boom, 557 Evergreen Road, explained Evergreen Neighborhood resident wanted the City to address the problem of zero lot line dwellings on 25-foot wide its. She said they were "out of sync" with adjacent larger homes on wider lots in • R-7.5 zone. She said the Evergreen Neighborhood Association had recently • gotiated a "compromise" with the developer of a project on the block betwee • Avenue and Evergreen, but they still wanted the code changed to disallow zero = line development in a residential neighborhood. During the questioning period missioner Brockman related that other jurisdictions required owners of substa •rd size lots to aggregate them. For example, the owner of three 25' x 100' cony: ous lots was allowed to build one home on the aggregated parcel,and not three ho P S. Carolyne Tones, 2818 Poplar Way. want-- to know if the minutes of each meeting could be made available the following - - so she could prepare her arguments for the next meeting. Staff advised that t audio record was available on the City website within a few days of each meeti •, and the cycle of drafting and staff review of minutes typically took longer than a -• . IV. MINUTES Commissioner rockman moved to approve the Minutes of August 11, 2008. Commissio• Olson seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. Co ' iissioner Brockman moved to approve the Minutes of August 25,2008. Vice Chair ewart seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. Commissioner Siegel abstained. • EXHIBIT C-2 isokieLatessfilgo Planning Commission LU 08-0053 EXHIBIT C-2 Mint tes of October 27,2008 LU 08-0O53 103 V. PUBLIC HEARING • Community Development Code Amendments A request from the City of Lake Oswego for amendments to the Community Development Code (CDC) and an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The following two of the proposed ordinances had been continued from September 22, 2008. Ordinance 2523, LU 08-0053, CDC —New Infill Policies. Adds policies in support of overlay zones for neighborhood plans and residential design review. Ordinance 2524, LU 08-0053, CDC — Infill Amendments. Amends portions of the Community Development Code, Chapter 50, for the purpose of enhancing the compatibility of infill development and clarification. Proposed updates pertain to the following topics: lot coverage, maximum floor area, structure design, setback planes, yard setbacks, sloped lots, residential infill design review, variances, non-conforming uses, duplexes and attached dwellings, flag lots,and serial partitions. Chair Glisson opened the public hearing and explained the procedures and time limits for testimony. She asked the Commissioners to report any bias or conflict of interest. None were declared. When she invited public testimony, no one came forward to testify. Commissioner Brockman moved to continue LU 08-0053 to January 26, 2009 and accept any testimony people wanted to provide at the current hearing. Commissioner Olson seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. • WORK SESSION—INFILL AMENDMENTS Infill Task Force members joined the Commissioners at the table for the work session. Mr. Egner recalled the Infill Task Force had considered what types of standards could be adopted at the neighborhood level; house size; the relationship of new houses to existing property; what technical changes would make the code easier; and how flexibility could be built into it. He showed examples of infill development p that had been built since the first infill code was implemented. Mr. Egner reported the Will Task Force had found that compatibility was not just a function of house size. They had examined houses built under the infill ordinance and found some unattractive houses that conformed to infill size limits. Most were small enough that if the allowable size were reduced by 10% they would still be allowed. That led the Infill Task Force to believe that design standards would help. They suggested new Comprehensive Plan policies that neighborhood plans could use to design overlay districts to make infill development more compatible; and that the City would enact a design review process for new residential development. Staff reported the Infill Task Force was not unanimously in favor of recommending a design review process and the vote to recommend one was 7:5. Mr. Egner reported that the Evergreen Neighborhood Association already had a design overlay, and other neighborhoods were thinking about one. He said the Infill Task Force had decided not to fashion or recommend how the design review process would work until the City Council agreed to the concept, but they • Mtge Lgadf ego Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-2 Minutes of October 27,2008 LU 104 • • had discussed what thresholds might trigger the requirement for design review. Staff presented some of those ideas for thresholds. Commissioner Siegel said it was helpful to learn that house size was not necessarily the issue, but he wanted to know what problems the Infill Task Force was trying to address. He observed that different people had different ideas about what was compatible and attractive. Mr. Egner said that was why it would not be easy to solve the "threshold" issue if the City adopted the concept. Commissioner Brockman said two of the problems related to privacy and scale. She said the community should be involved in the discussion of appropriate i.nfill. Infill Task Force member Emogene Waggoner said the majority of Task Force members and many neighborhood representatives supported the recommendation to establish a design review commission to review residential Infill and remodeling projects. She said residents found there were still problems related to compatibility, size and placement that affected neighborhoods. She said they recommended the City publish and offer design guidelines and examples of compatible designs to people preparing to build or remodel. She submitted the design handbook for Napa, California. Staff advised that a new code section would be necessary if a new review process and a new review commission were established, and a new process would require setting thresholds to trigger design review. They reported that the Development Review Commission (DRC) already had a heavy caseload. They cautioned that thresholds in existing review sections and the new section should not be allowed to overlap. They 11111 advised the new work could be done by a hearings officer. An Infill Task Force member suggested a commission made up entirely of design professionals. Commissioner Brockman recalled that Multnomah County utilized a well-trained staff person to review development applications and it worked well there. She said most applications were decided in a week and the decision was appealable. Jim Bolland explained the problem with the current Residential Infill Development (RID) review process was that staff made the decision. He favored establishing an independent commission. He said in Palo Alto, California the "trigger" to design review was to propose a structure higher than one story. He acknowledged that some people were concerned the new process would make development more difficult and expensive. But he stressed the current standards were not working and the Infill Task Force wanted a "win/win" process. He reported that a particular builder in First Addition/Forest Hills Neighborhood Association (FAN)always built the same style, incompatible, house. One Task Force member related that if he had been at the Infill Task Force meeting when the vote on the new review process was conducted he would have voted against it because he questioned what problem was to be solved. He said single-family house design "infractions" happened on both large and small structures. I-le said he did not favor a process that put the review requirement on only some applicants because he felt if one person's home had to be examined, all homes should be examined. Another Infill Task Force member held that some small, poorly designed existing homes should not he used to measure the compatibility of the new home nearby. He also observed that some prive• 1. torago Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-2 Minutes of October 27,2008 LU dii-0� 3 105 neighborhoods were so big and had so many subdivisions built in different eras that they • would need a multitude of overlay zones. He cautioned that the City had only 120 days to make a development decision. He said the time it took for the residential design review process might be too long to get a building permit to improve an existing home. Staff confirmed the new standards would apply to duplexes. They clarified that the DRC did not currently hear applications for a duplex or an accessory dwelling. An Infill Task Force member anticipated the new design review process would result in more architecturally interesting homes as well as compatible homes. She thought getting those results would be worth the additional time it took for review, She clarified that the small, poorly designed existing house next door was not the kind of "compatibility" the Infill Task Force had talked about. Commissioner Brockman commented that a lot of infill was attractive, but she had recently seen a design that offered the occupants no privacy. She suggested changes in infill standards might prevent a developer from making mistakes like that. Commissioner Siegel asked staff to bring the Planning Commission photographs of examples of what people thought was "attractive" or "unattractive." Commissioner Brockman related she had suggested Lake Oswego Neighborhood Action Coalition (LONAC) members bring pictures to the hearing. Staff reported that although there had been no consensus to recommend a new design review process, the Will Task Force had reached consensus about most of the other recommendations. They explained the proposed standards addressed the issue of house size through lot coverage and floor area limitation revisions. They said the revised code would improve code provisions that shrunk allowable lot coverage as height increased by 4110 "smoothing out" a sudden, large decrease in allowable coverage between 22 and 23 feet in height. They explained that would improve how the code affected houses on sloped lots. They said the proposed revisions similarly smoothed out the scaled relationship of lot size to house size in a two-part formula. The calculation of Floor Area Ratio (FAR) allowed the first 5,000 sq. ft. of the lot to have 3,000 sq. ft. of' floor area, and then multiplied the remaining lot area by .2 FAR to find the remaining sq. ft. of allowable floor area. For example, the allowable floor area on a 10,000 sq. ft. lot would be 3.000 sq. ft., plus 1,000 sq. ft. (.2 FAR x 5,000 sq. ft. of lot) or 4,000 sq. ft. However, since current standards excluded garage area from floor area, which allowed owners to build very large garages and still meet allowable FAR, the Infill Task Force recommended changing how the garage affected FAR. The formula to calculate allowable floor area would then be the total of 3,000 sq. ft.. plus .2 FAR x the remaining lot area, plus the garage area. Commissioner Siegel asked if the FAR limit was necessary when there were so many other standards to relate house size to its lot. Mr. Bolland stressed that it was necessary because there were so many ways to get Class I variances and other exceptions to height and setbacks, which made a house considerably larger. Commissioner Siegel opined that the code was a structural disaster and the proposed revisions would make it even more complicated. Mr. Egner clarified the new formulas would not make new infill any smaller, because they were fixes for a few "glitches" in the current code, including one that gave a builder bonus lot coverage for a detached garage. He reported that in actuality people were building both an attached and a detached garage on lots in FAN. • geL ucifegoPlanningCommission EXHIBIT C-2 Minutes of October 27, 2008 Lu thig463 106 • I lence. one recommended "fix" was to only allow bonus lot coverage if only one garage was built, and it was detached. Mr. Egner recalled that the Infill Task Force had talked a lot about how to reduce house sizes, but ended up recommending design review. Some Infill Task Force members indicated they felt that if the City Council did not accept the design review concept they needed to do more work on FAR limitations. Mr. Bolland agreed, and recalled that some members thought that design review would help get rid of the RID process. Mr. Egner reported the Infill Task Force had noticed that corner lot setbacks were shallower than front setbacks. So they recommended a new corner lot plane standard that was similar to the current front yard plane. He said the intent of both standards was to push the bulk of the structure back from the street. The plane could be pierced within specified ranges by certain elements, such as dormers. Commissioner Siegel asked staff to bring examples to the hearing for the Commissioners to examine. Mr. Egner reported that the Infill Task Force also recommended a side yard setback plane. It was intended to reduce bulk at the property lines the development shared with neighbors. lie said the Infill Task Force recommended allowing landscaping as a way to break up large sidewalls. and allowing a wrap-around porch or balcony to break up the walls on corner lots. Mr. Bolland recalled the Infill Task Force felt it was too easy to use the Class l variance process and they wanted to put more limits on it. They recommended not allowing a less • than five-foot side yard variance in the Class 1 process. The applicant would have to use the Class 2 process where a variance was harder to get. Staff and the Commissioners discussed how the infill changes would apply to sloped lots. Mr. Egner explained the uphill end of a house in FAN would still be limited to 22 feet in height, but the down slope end could have an additional four feet to adjust for the typical four-foot drop on a slightly sloped FAN lot. The Commissioners recalled a case where the builder had sunk a house further into an excavation hole in order to keep the entire structure under 22 feet because if it were any higher the allowable lot coverage would shrink. Mr. Egner said there was a trend for increased lot coverage due to a desire for a master bedroom on the ground floor. Mr. Egner said the recommended change only applied in FAN, but eventually other neighborhoods with small, slightly sloped lots might want to adopt it. Mr. Egner explained the changes to regulations that applied to steeply sloped lots. Ile said they were intended to allow room for a master bedroom on the main floor, which was what an aging population favored. There was a height-to-slope scale that allowed more height on steeper slopes, and for every foot of height over 35 feet, one more foot of setback was required. Mr. Egner explained how the front setback plane would be measured when the lot sloped downhill from the street. The Commissioners examined a house in Mountain Park and considered how the new standards would apply to lots that sloped uphill and downhill from the street. Staff advised the front setback plane standards helped control the relationship to the street, and other dimensional standards controlled the bulk. They advised that the zoning standards in Mountain Park had been • P." L51:casgo Planning Commission Minutesof October 27, 2008 EXHIBIT C-2 LU &Midg3 107 established and set in that development's Planned Development (PD) approval, and the , new infill regulations would not change them. Infill Task Force members anticipated the new standards would apply to other steeply sloped areas in the City where I950s and I960s vintage houses would be replaced in the future. The Infill Task Force recommended eliminating Residential Infi11 Development (RID) review for lot coverage, floor area and height so an applicant had to use the variance process to change them. They said it was too easy to change them using RID. They said the RID process could continue to be used to consider changes in other requirements, and the Class 1 variance process could continue to be used to review minor remodeling changes and correcting survey errors, but they definitely did not want the Class 1 process used to approve especially narrow side yards. Some anticipated that if the City adopted the residential design review process, RID might be eliminated entirely. The Infill Task Force proposed to allow rebuilding of a nonconforming structure within the same envelope if it were destroyed by natural causes or demolished. They explained they believed the existing standard that set a threshold of 50% replacement value had inhibited remodeling activity and resulted in unnecessary demolition of structures. The Infill Task Force proposed to apply infill standards to duplexes. Because they found duplex garages typically took up more than the current limit of 50% of the length of a house front elevation, they recommended allowing duplex garages to take up as much as 60% of'the front facade, and even more of it if certain design features were added. Mr. Egner agreed to research how this standard would apply to a garage on a corner lot. The Infill Task Force recommended flag lot standards to orient houses so they related better to each other and to the access lane. They also recommended stronger street connectivity standards. Commissioner Brockman thanked the Infill Task Force for their work. She observed that most mull houses were of good design, and only a few were not. She was especially concerned about houses that featured especially long walls and created privacy issues. When Commissioner Siegel asked if setbacks might be averaged to improve house-to- house relationships, Mr. Egner anticipated it would be hard to match multiple side yards. An Infill Task Force member explained the proposed regulations offered more flexibility to move a house on its lot to save trees without a variance process. Mr. Egner clarified for Commissioner Siegel that the Task Force had not discussed solar access. Chair Glisson thanked the group for their hard work and for providing examples of development that had occurred since the original infill standards were adopted. Mr. Egner explained a handout he had distributed that differentiated between a house that was accidentally and intentionally destroyed was language suggested by an Infill Task Force subcommittee that met recently and the City Attorney had not yet reviewed it. A Task Force member recalled the Task Force had added a provision to address structures on the Landmark Designation List. 4111 Fikgel.eavirego Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-2 Minutes of October 27,2008 LU de , -Vti "3 108 Mr. Boone observed that the group wanted to preserve the ability to rebuild a nonconforming house, but they had also expressed disfavor of some houses—such as one with especially long walls - that they might not want rebuilt. Commissioner Brockman explained that people who bought property next to such a house knew what they were buying, but people living in existing homes could be surprised by what got built next door to them. Mr. Bolland said the current code was confusing because it was not clear if the 50% replacement value threshold meant assessed or market value. He said the Task Force wanted an owner to be able to remodel even if a part of the house were nonconforming. He recalled that FAN had tried to find a way to prevent creation of flag lots by allowing parcels to be divided into regular lots, but the problem was each lot could not meet minimum street width. The recommended changes would allow more flexibility to make that frontage a little narrower. Commissioner Brockman commented that was why people designed really long houses on narrow lots. Mr. Egner related that the Infill Task Force subcommittee had observed that in the City of Palo Alto driveways along the side setback to the back of the lot served to separate houses, and that might work well on deep,skinny lots. Chair Glisson reopened the public hearing and invited public comments. Diana Boom, 557 Evergreen Road, clarified the development she had referred to during the Public Comment period had been allowed by RID review and she did not think that developer should have been allowed to use the RID process to get around zoning regulations. 110 Carolyn Krebs, 16925 Denney Court, stressed that the Lake Forest Neighborhood did not support the proposed changes regarding flag lots and zero lot line partitions and they had told the !nth! Task Force they did not want to be forced to connect streets through the natural areas in their neighborhood. They did not want the cut through traffic and noise that would result from more connections, and they believed the area was accessible enough now. She clarified they could support allowing accesses that allowed owners to develop their lots, but not through streets through flag lots and tree groves that connected streets like Parker and Kimble. When she was asked how they felt about requiring all houses along a flag lot to be oriented toward a shared, central lane, Ms. Krebs indicated they might agree to that as long as the access was not extended all the way through the back of the property. She referred to the proposed provision to be applied to PDs of 1.75 acres and worried that would impose connectivity that would have to go through areas of natural resources. She asked if the neighborhood plan could be used to "opt out" of the requirement, which she said solved a connectivity problem that Lake Forest did not have. Commissioner Siegel observed Lake Forest had especially long blocks and asked if they wanted to see connecting pedestrian ways to make the walk between streets shorter. Ms. Krebs indicated there was good pedestrian connectivity already and she worried more connecting pathways would impact the natural resources. Commissioner Siegel asked why new development should not be allowed to build new driveways that connected Kimble and Parker streets. He recalled the current code required a new subdivision to , plan an access every 600-800 feet. Ms. Krebs asked why neighborhood residents should not have a voice in that. She said they already had plenty of connectivity. 111 geilktggo Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-2 Minutes of October 27,2008 LU d b6i3 109 Ms. Krebs stressed she had attended many Infill Task Force meetings to convey what her neighborhood wanted and the recommended code was exactly what they did not want. When Commissioner Siegel asked why the flag lot connectivity provisions were proposed, staff recalled they were intended to address the relationship of a flag lot with the other lot and create a desirable pattern that engendered a sense of community. They recalled in Task Force discussions the group had not envisioned the lane system as a throughway, but a private driveway that extended to meet a street. Ms. Krebs questioned how drivers could be prevented from using such a driveway as a shortcut. She said it would destroy her neighborhood. Commissioner Olson agreed it would be tempting to use it when the blocks were so long. Commissioner Siegel recalled fire code provisions that required a driveway that was more than 150 feet long to feature a turnaround. Mr. Egner said if the developer could demonstrate the driveway was supposed to eventually go through the fire department might not require a turnaround. Ms. Krebs said the neighborhood planned to meet to fashion their comments on the infill recommendations. She said they were focused on implementing their neighborhood plan and exploring what a design overlay would help them do in their neighborhood. Mr. Egner reasoned that Lake Forest had not been fully developed yet because parts of it did not yet have access to sewer service and because of the slowing economy. He said because of that they might have time to develop an overlay. Carolvue Jones, 2818 Poplar Way, said she was speaking for herself and on behalf of the Glenmorrie Neighborhood Association. She indicated she was concerned that the City's natural resource designation limited what she and 30 other property owners in her • neighborhood could do with their large lots. She said she had enough land to partition it into two lots, but the City was going to make her property un-buildable. She said she was not sure how she would be allowed to rebuild her house or redevelop her property. She wanted the City to clarify that. The Commissioners asked staff to meet with Ms. Jones to better understand her questions and help clarify what she could do on her property. She said she would bring the report the natural resources coordinator had given her, after a site visit, that talked about regulations that protected the stream corridor and how nonconforming structures would be addressed. She said it was very confusing. Staff advised that the lnfill Task Force recommended allowing an owner to rebuild in the same footprint if a nonconforming house were destroyed, but the current code required him./her to rebuild a house that conformed to current regulations. Ms. Jones said she currently had a smaller house than her neighbors enjoyed and she would want to be allowed to build a house as large as theirs. She stressed that stream corridor property owners should have the same rights as lakefront property owners. Commissioner Brockman moved to continue LU 08-0053 to January 26. 2009 and accept written testimony. Commissioner Olson seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. el.$:eoCago Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-2 Minutes of October 27,2008 LU Vi,E' edd 5 3 110 i- V u►Rr oy w`c (Apr° City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes yed January 26, 2009 *pP' CALL TO ORDER Chair Julia Glisson called the Planning Commission meeting of Monday, January 26, 2009 to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. • Il. ROLL CALL Members present were Chair Glisson, Vice Chair Philip Stewart and Commissioners Adrianne Brockman and Scot Siegel. Commissioner Alison Webster was excused. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Sarah Selden, Neighborhood Planner; Laura Weigel, Neighborhood Planner, Sidaro Sin, Senior Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris Treinen, Administrative Support. Mayor Jack Hoffman thanked the Planning Commission for their hard work. He reported the City Council was almost finished setting new goals. He looked forward to an upcoming joint Planning Commission/Development Review Commission/City Council meeting in which the participants would discuss Comprehensive Plan and land use issues. III. CITIZEN COMMENT None. IV. MINUTES Commissioner Brockman moved to approve the Minutes of •ember 24. 2008. Commissioner Siegel seconded the motion and it passed 3:0 air Glisson recused. Commissioner Brockman moved to approve <• Minutes of December 8. 2008, Commissioner Siegel seconded the motion •. it passed 4:0. V. WORK SESSION Glenmorrie Neighborho, 'Ian Laura Weigel, N ' borhood Planner, presented the staff report. Liz Hartman, Chair of the Glen i' .rrie Neighborhood Association, reported the implementation committee had b.,...egiSing through the neighborhood plan in detail to identify what still needed to be i ptemented and they had fashioned a list of implementation strategies they were about to present at a full Association meeting. They planned to follow up with a neighborhood • EXHIBIT C-3 LU 08-0053 Frite614ktifsio Planning Commission EXHIBIT C Minutes of January 26,2009 LU oc -065'3 111 Chair Glisson reported hearing from other citizens that they had similar fiscal concern S and wanted to utilize the plans and reports the City already had. The . er Commissioners indicated they agreed that the visioning process should sta ith a narrower focus and utilize existing material first, so the City could benefit f .m all that previous effort and identify aspects that were yet to be implemented. Th • recalled they had already discussed comparing those reports and plans to each oth, to find points of agreement and conflict. Commissioner Siegel suggested looking . - at material through the lens of sustainability and neighborhood preservation goals le stressed that the City needed answers to the most pressing community issues so ey could appropriately plan for the population the City would have in the future. V. e Chair Stewart said other cities might have been motivated to spend more of thei esources on visioning because they faced more rapid growth than Lake Oswego ed. Chair Glisson suggested the new committee could consider Mr. Vizzini's •ggestion to start doing the footwork for neighborhood planning right away, whi -xamining existing plans and reports. She said that made sense considering the ti money and staff resources the City had now. Commissioner Siegel suggeste• he flow chart should show the visioning process completed at the end of 2011, Because the Commissioners would use the results of that process to do the implem, tation work. Staff agreed to revise the graphics to show that. Chair Glisson obsery • a consensus that the Commissioners were in agreement with the technical aspects • ' he draft Evaluation/Work Program. Commissi. er Brockman moved to recommend that the City Council adopt PP 08-0012, Comer, ensive Plan U.date Periodic Review/Visionin• .rocess as outlined i the Ja .;ry 21 2009 staff memorandum. She clarified that would be sequencing Option 3. ommissioner Siegel seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. Community Development Code Amendments. A request from the City of Lake Oswego for amendments to the Community Development Code (CDC) and an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Ordinance 2526, LU 08-0054, Community Development Code — Amendments Policy Implications. Amends portions of the Community Development C.. hapter 50, for the purpose of clarification, correction and updating sections oposed updates pertain to the following topics: definitions, map administrat'• , minimum density, lot coverage, structure design, lot depth, industrial use. cessory and temporary uses. Greenway management overlay, planned dev- ..ment overlay, flag lots, exceptions, Oswego Lake setback, special street s- :.c s, home occupations, secondary dwelling units, drainage standards, we. • '.undation soils, hillside protection, parking and variances. The hearing h;• teen continued from September 22,2008. Chair Gli opened the public hearing and explained the applicable criteria and pr. -'tire. She asked the Commissioners to declare any conflict of interest regarding the application. None were declared. I PE 4:ea40Y Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-3 Minutes of January 26, 2009 112 Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager, advised the Planning Com ' ' continue the hearing to allow staff to schedule an open house so 'tne'be ore the next hearing. Chair Glisson invited public testimon , came forward to testify. Commissioner B moved to continue L.0 08-0054 to March 23, 2009. C • ner Siegel seconded the motion and it passed 4:0, *** Ordinance 2523, LU 08-0053, Comprehensive Plan — New Infill Policies. Adds policies in support of overlay zones for neighborhood plans and residential design review. Ordinance 2524, LU 08-0053, Community Development Code—Infill Amendments. Amends portions of the CDC, Chapter 50, for the purpose of enhancing the compatibility of infill development and clarification. Proposed updates pertain to the following topics: lot coverage, maximum floor area, structure design, setback planes, yard setbacks, sloped lots, residential infill design review, variances, non-conforming uses, duplexes and attached dwellings, flag lots, and serial partitions. This hearing had been continued from September 22, and October 27, 2008. Chair Glisson opened the public hearing and explained the applicable criteria and procedure. She asked the Commissioners to declare any conflict of interest regarding the • application. None were declared. Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager, reported the Infill Task Force had reached consensus on almost every issue they considered except the issue of whether there should be a design review process for single-family homes and what the triggers should be, The Task Force decided to forward the general concept to the Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. He recalled the Task Force had talked about applying triggers such as a height threshold and a threshold that related to a percentage of allowable floor area. He said if the Planning Commission agreed there should be single-family residential design review, staff would fashion and propose such a process. He pointed out that the staff report described what other cities, such as Palo Alto, California, did. However, he advised that Oregon law would require the City to also offer a clear and objective alternative process that would allow a single-family house to be developed without design review. He said staff knew of no other community in Oregon that required individual design review, except those that required such review within historic districts. He suggested the Commissioners take testimony focused on design review. During the questioning period, Mr. Egner clarified that the Residential Infill Design (RID) process the City currently used was an alternative process to the clear and objective standards in the code. It was available to developers who wanted exceptions to code standards. The first Infill Task Force had recommended it; the City had adopted it five years ago; and staff found it created mixed results. • FrgoLatirviip Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-3 Minutes of January 26,2009 Lu U Od53 U 113 Public Testimony • Maria Meneahin. 1179 Sunningdale Road, First Addition/Forest Hills; and Carol Ockert, 910 Cumberland Road, Co-Vice Chairs of the First Addition/Forest Hills Neighborhood Association, submitted a written statement from Lisa Shaw Ryan and read it aloud. The Association supported neighborhood overlay zoning; creation of a single-family design review process; specified code amendments, including some that would result in fewer flag lots being created; making it harder to tear down an existing structure; and removing specified adjustments from Residential lnfill Review (RID). They wanted additional changes to include garage area in Floor Area Ratio (FAR); and changes that would better address house-to-house relationships. They supported rewriting the CDC. They advised there were too many exceptions in it and it was interpreted inconsistently. They wanted the City to address the fact that it was not appropriate to allow zero lot line development in a single-family zone; and to consider changes that would reduce the overall size/square footage of new infiil homes on smaller lots. During the questioning period, Commissioner Siegel recalled that the First Addition/Forest Highlands (FAN) Neighborhood Plan discussed using "trade offs" for varying lot width. The neighborhood association representatives said the Association was now ready for a related code change. Ed Spencer, 4036 NE Sandy Blvd., Portland, Oregon, 97212, a building designer, cautioned that a single-family home design review process would make the process longer and more costly for owners who wanted to improve their homes. He said the new thresholds would mean it would apply to many more projects and some owners would decide not to improve their homes. He estimated that the RID process had added six months and thousands of dollars to the cost of a project. He agreed that the proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan made sense and clarified the process. Ernie Platt, Homebuilders Association of Metropolitan Portland, 15555 SW Bang_y Road, said the proposed code amendments would do a good job of making the code clearer and more workable. He cautioned that making single-family home design a discretionary process instead of using a clear and objective process was not reasonable because it substituted someone else's idea of good design for the applicant's. Tim Breedlove, 1281 Tyndall Court, commended the City for trying to improve the code, but he said he strongly opposed a single-family residence design review process because it was too subjective and no consensus had been reached about what standards and thresholds to recommend. He agreed with Mr. Spenser's and Mr. Platt's testimony. Jeff Metke. 3976 Canal Road, wanted to be able to read the code and know what he could do to change his residence without the aid of an attorney or some other professional. He said the proposed code amendments would do that, but not the design review process, which would add more cost and 120 to 160 days to the design process. He said his experience was the RID process cost at least $10,000. Barbara Zeller, 3335 Sabina Court, Chair of the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association, said her Association had originally suggested using residential house review. She said such a review would not be about architectural style, as her Fril • gelQt s4O Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-3 Minutes of January 26,2009 LU _66e3 114 • neighborhood had eclectics le. The review would consider scale, size,ze, setback and compatibility. She said in her neighborhood, compatibility was primarilydefined bythe natural environment. She said they had discussed what should trigger the review and that some other independent body should conduct the review, because the Development Review Commission (DRC) was too busy. She said she hoped Chapter 50 would be rewritten so it was more clear and objective. Dan Vizzini, 13830 Verte Court, Chair of the Lake Oswego Neighborhood Action Coalition (LONAC), reported that LONAC had taken a position on infill. He read aloud the goals and policies document that organization had voted to approve in January. He said LONAC supported the new infill standards and a residential development review process. He said they wanted infill to be compatible with neighborhood character; to respect setbacks, and to protect trees and natural resources in a manner that protected neighborhood character and neighbors privacy. He said they wanted to see a review body created. He agreed the "devil was in the details" of applying triggers and criteria, but he encouraged the Commissioners to seek to make the process as clear and unambiguous possible so there was some predictability in it. He said he personally did not feel the review process should be required of all applicants—just those that exceeded the infill development standards. He said if the code was clear enough a property owner should be able to know what envelope and setbacks were required and what the site restrictions were. Sherry Finnigan, 138 Condolea Drive, an infill Task Force member, encouraged the Planning Commission to recommend a Comprehensive Plan mechanism for local overlay 411 zones and a review process and review body for residential infill development. She submitted a copy of a newspaper article entitled, "Goodbye to those ugly infill houses?" to show the concept was being considered by Portland officials. She agreed with previous testimony that if the City had really clear and objective standards for new houses, then residential infill review would not be an issue. Heather Chrisman, 172 Middlecrest Road, an Will Task Force member, explained that she supported a new residential design review process because a house that was the result of a RID review had not fit her neighborhood. Mr. Boone clarified RID decisions were discretionary. If someone did not want to build to meet the clear and objective zoning code standards, they could ask for a RID review. Ms. Chrisman clarified that she thought anyone who wanted a variance from code standards should be subject to design review. She said the trigger should not just be the size of a lot because a very large house on a small lot created more problems than a very large house on a large lot. She wanted a licensed architect to be a member of the new review body. Sandra Duffy, 5671 SW Hewett Blvd., Portland,Oregon 97221, said she was a former Lake Oswego resident driven out by poorly executed infill. She said she lost her privacy and suffered from drainage problems after two new infill houses were built in Bay Creek Estates on top of 4.5 feet of new fill. She suggested the size threshold for residential design review should be 3,000 sq. ft. because that was the average size of homes in that subdivision. She said she supported allowing neighborhood overlays. She liked the Glenmorrie Neighborhood's suggestions to not allow exceptions to existing height P' i- Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-3 Min n5� �" f�es of January 26,2009 , LU �> -0`653 115 standards; to include setback planes in the standards; and to establish a 50% maximum • hardscape. She stressed that the neighborhood association and affected neighbors should be allowed to participate in the design review process. Gary Mimnaugh, CRM Construction, 17735 Mardee Avenue, a remodeling contractor, related that under current standards an owner spent about$10,000 for permits, fees and engineering and design before construction started. He said the more restrictions put on development., the higher housing costs would rise and less affordable housing would be available. He asked the City to consider the cost and not increase restrictions. He said the City should try to figure out how much revenue it lost because homeowners got around tight restrictions by making improvements without building permits,or because the process turned off people. He said the local newspaper was about to publish an article about homeowners who tried for eight years before they were allowed to remodel. During the questioning period, Commissioner Brockman explained that she thought the majority of in fill was fine, but some was not, and neighbors feared they would be impacted by an infill development that imposed on their privacy. She suggested the building industry propose standards to address the problem. Carolyn Krebs, 16925 Denney Court, Lake Forest Neighborhood Association, said the Association supported allowing neighborhood overlay zones and exploring the idea of residential design review. She recalled the Infill Task Force had discussed language that specified that review was to consider both existing development and planned future development in the area. She cautioned that the Infill Task Force had not discussed any review criteria, thresholds or triggers and that each member had his/her own opinion • about it. She said the Association could not recommend residential design review until they knew what the triggers would be. She stressed the need for a design handbook to guide contractors and remodelers. She said the Association supported changes that would move the bulk of a structure toward its center to improve its relationship to neighbors. She said they did not support the proposed change that would require auto lanes through connecting flag lots on narrow sites in the neighborhood, but they did support connectivity for pedestrian and bike facilities. She asked the Planning Commission to leave the hearing open to comments from neighborhood associations. Jim Bolland, 804 Fifth Street, an infill task force member, supported residential development design review; allowing neighborhoods to have their own design overlay zone; allowing minor reductions in lot width in order to avoid flag lots; limiting the RID process so there could be no adjustment of lot coverage, FAR or height; eliminating the 50% value threshold rule for remodels; making setbacks inviolate; and creating a design handbook. He observed that if residential design review were adopted, RID would become unnecessary. He indicated that Infill Task Force members were concerned about what specific triggers and criteria would be proposed for design review. He advised that such a review would not be an arbitrary, subjective, process because the structure would still have to meet the underlying zoning code. He advised that much of the problem was that the code was unclear and had so many exceptions. He agreed with Ms. Krebs that compatibility had to be with planned future development as well as existing development. He anticipated that eliminating the "50% rule" would make it easier to remodel and would reduce the number of teardowns. • Friagellie61401 Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-3 Minutes of January 26, 2009 +• Lu 6553 116 Ralph Tahran, 13741 Knaus Road, an Infill Task Force member, reported Infill Ta sk ask Force #2 had quickly fulfilled their charge to "tweak" Infill #1 requirements and were then asked to consider planned development, height and residential design review. He reported they had trouble agreeing on exactly what was "bad" design, and they had felt that most infill homes they looked at were okay, but three or four infill houses were problematic. He said he was not sure that was sufficient reason to trigger an entirely new process, but that was up to the community to decide. He said there were many older houses in older neighborhoods with less-than-desirable design and character that he would not want to have to relate a new house to. He reported that of those infill houses that had been built under Infill #1 recommended regulations, most were about 90% of maximum FAR, and he concluded that showed the regulations had worked. For example, Infill #1 rules had reduced the height of infill houses. He recalled Ms. Duffy's testimony about fill. He clarified that both iterations of the Infill Task Force addressed that issue because they required height to be measured from the existing grade. He said if the community wanted to consider the concept of residential design review, it should be in a separate process. He said the design handbook did not have to be elaborate, and it should contain simple diagrams to explain the concepts in the code. Keith Abel, 5757 Ridiaetoo Court, a designer/remodeler, cautioned the City not to regulate architectural style. He said the City was an eclectic mix of styles. He agreed that 2% - 3% of infill was inappropriate, but he advised it was unrealistic to believe the City could achieve 100% compatibility. He said he tried to help his clients follow the 110 code and avoid the RID process, but sometimes that was not possible if they wanted to remodel an older structure. He said he was aware of some fairly good houses that had been torn down instead of remodeled because of the "50% rule." Mr. Abel said as a responsible architect, he sometimes had to tell his clients they were asking for too much house for a small lot. He advised that making the rules more stringent was the problem, not the answer. Chris Robinson, 14000 Goodall Road, Chair of the Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association,encouraged the City to make consideration of neighbors' privacy a criterion in design review or some other process. His experience was that even in a neighborhood of large lots, an infill house had been positioned on its lot in a manner that impacted neighbors' privacy. He saw the real issue as density, not design review. He said bringing in unincorporated areas of his neighborhood as R-7.5 was inappropriate for the neighborhood. He said the City should first determine where density was to go. 111 pgL7kdfs4 Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-3 Minutes of January 26, 2009 Lu ll 117 Commission Discussion Staff confirmed they planned to revise Comprehensive Plan Goal 2, Section 2, Policy 6 to specify that structures were to be compatible with the character and scale of existing or planned future development in the surrounding neighborhood. The Commissioners discussed the idea of residential design review. Commissioner Brockman related that her experience in another jurisdiction was that a process of staff review that was appealable to a design review body worked well. She suggested Lake Oswego use a narrowly tailored process. She saw the real issue as how to protect neighbors' privacy when a long,narrow, high house was positioned on a long, narrow lot. She suggested making a design that was more than 1.5 stories subject to design review. Vice Chair Stewart suggested the problem might stem from how the house was positioned on its site, and that might be solved by finding some other orientation. He hoped that clear and objective code standards and neighborhood plans might eliminate a need for residential design review. Commissioner Brockman observed allowing a local overlay would not solve the problem for a long time because there were only a few adopted neighborhood plans so far. Vice Chair Stewart said his experience was that the scope of the design review needed to be better controlled so it focused on the issue that had brought the applicant to the hearing and was not expanded during the hearing. Commissioner Siegel said he needed more information about what Infill Task Force members saw in the examples of objectionable design that they wanted to prevent from recurring. He recalled hearing they had a hard time nailing that down. He wondered if • clear and objective code standards could be used to address the issue of privacy. He recalled the Evergreen Neighborhood's overlay had worked well. He saw a need for a guidebook that illustrated what the code meant; He asked for more information on what processes other communities used. He said his experience was that the examples from California cities in the hearing packet were not relevant to Lake Oswego because of Oregon state law; the fact that their lot sizes were typically much smaller; and because they had other regulations, such as a limit on the number of toilets in a Carmel, California house, that influenced the development. He recalled a "downside" was that in Carmel it was easy to tell which houses had been through design review during a specific time period because they looked the same. Mr. Egner offered to come back to the Planning Commission to report what aspects of infill the Infill Task Force had examined and found objectionable, and to advise the Commissioners whether those aspects could be addressed through clear and objective code standards. He also planned to research and present options for the design review process and estimate the cost of implementing such a program. He recalled the Infill Task Force had once discussed how to address the privacy issue and their consultant had offered suggestions. Mr. Egner said he would bring that material to the next meeting. He noted that the proposed infill changes included a standard intended to address a long, two-story house on a long, narrow lot. He recalled Task Force members had seen examples of infill that had been "okay" in terms of size and scale, but featured some design features or stylistic elements they did not favor that could not be addressed with peg I$: s4O Planning Commission Minutes of January 26,2009 LUEXHIBLT_G-3 118 clear and objective standards. He said the task force had not come up with a good solution about how to address that. Chair Glisson recalled the Commissioners had heard testimony that indicated the Infill Task Force had not been in agreement about residential design review; and that they felt that only a small percentage of infill that had been built under infill standards was objectionable. Mr. Egner referred to Comprehensive Plan Goal 2, Section 1, proposed Policy 18 that allowed a neighborhood to create a new zoning district or overlay zone. He advised that allowing that was less controversial now that the City Council had allowed the Evergreen Neighborhood Association overlay. This change would simply formalize that policy. He advised that examining housing capacity and addressing how density was to be distributed in the City during periodic review could lead the way to allowing neighborhood associations like Forest Highlands more flexibility to plan for the kind of density they wanted. Commissioner Siegel moved to recommend the City Council adopt Comprehensive Plan Goal 2, Section 1, Policy 18 as proposed in Exhibit F-1. Commissioner Brockman seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. Staff explained they would wait to forward this recommendation with the entire CDC amendment package of Planning Commission recommendations. Commissioner Brockman moved to continue LU 08-0053 to February 9. 2009. Vice Chair Stewart seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. VII. OTHER BUSINESS—PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Egner announced that staff was to present their report on the public ope' ouse regarding Sensitive Lands changes at the next meeting. They were to • -sent their recommendations regarding LOC 50.16.040 dimensional standards a stments at the Planning Commission's February 23`1 meeting. Commissioner S.-:el announced that he would recuse himself from Planning Commission consi• • ation of Sensitive Lands regulation changes due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Egner announced that interviews wo. _ •e held soon to fill the vacant Planning Commission positions. The Deputy • Attorney planned to advise them about conflict of interest, and staff planned to :•-: ge a retreat at which the members could discuss how to work together. Chair Glisson r- ed that the SAB wanted time to make a presentation at a March Planning C• mission meeting. VIII. • ' ER BUSINESS—COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT None. P ig t9 f Planning Commission EXHIBIT,C-3 Minutes of January 26,2009 LU P I 0-18 Od V 119 • • • Page 10 of 10 EXHIBIT C-3 LU 08-0053 120 • too L City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes r o February9, 2009 CALL TO ORDER Chair Julia Glisson called the Planning Commission meeting of February 9, 2009 to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Members present were Chair Julia Glisson, Vice Chair Philip Stewart and Commissioners Adrienne Brockman*, Russell Jones, Lynne Paretchan and Scot Siegel. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Jonna Papaefthimiou, Natural Resources Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris Treinen, Administrative Support. • III. CITIZEN COMMENT Commissioner Brockman addressed allegations that she was using the Pla• • ig Commission to stop a particular remodeling project. She explained that was n •ossible because the application had to be decided based on the code that was in pla - .t the time it had been submitted, the Development Review Commission (DRC) approved it, and nothing the Planning Commission recommended now would a t that decision. She recalled that she had advised concerned neighbors that they •• • no grounds to contest the application because approval criteria in LOC 50.16.04 I ocused solely on positioning a house in a manner that protected the resource — n• is impact on neighbors. She related that she had been advised by legal counsel th• wing in the neighborhood did not create a conflict of interest related to this legisl: ' e matter. However, she recused herself from Planning Commission consideratioi • the Sensitive Lands amendments anyway. Carolvne Jones 2818 S 'o lar Wa said she felt that the record did not adequately reflect the tone and • ent of her testimony. IV. MINUTE Co • issioner Siegel moved to approve the Minutes of January 12, 2009. Commissioner rockman seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. New Commissioners Paretchan and Jones recused themselves from the vote. *Commissioner Brockman then left the meeting. EXHIBIT C-4 • l LU 08-0053 PageieOfv4to Planning Commission EXHIBITC-4 Minutes of February 9, 2009 Lu lOj3 121 r-• V. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS • Community Development Code Amendments A request from the City of Lake Oswego for amendments to the Community Development Code (CDC) and an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Continued from September 22 and 29,2008; October 13, 2008;November 10, 2008;and December 8, 2008. Ordinance 2534,LU 08-0051B—CDC Sensitive Lands Overlay District Amendments (Policy Related) Amends portions of the Community Development Code Article 50.16. Proposed u.+ates pertain to the following topics: "reasonable development' on property totally co -red by wetland or stream resources, development procedures, water-dependent us-. such as docks along the Willamette and Tualatin Rivers and ivy removal as a • .ndition of development approval. Chair Glisson opened the public hearing and explained the applica: e procedures and criteria. She asked the Commissioners to declare any conflict of i rest. Commissioner Siegel declared a conflict of interest and recused himself from p• icipation in the matter of Sensitive Lands amendments. Janina Papaefthimiou, Natural Resources Planner, pre•-nted the staff. She reported that about 45 persons had attended a recent public ope. ouse to discuss issues such as how to protect resources along the rivers; how to cont . invasive species; and what was a reasonable sized house on a resource constrained I► . Their comments were attached to the staff report. i Public Te thrum, Michael. Buck 3155 Ed emont and A rev Mattison, 2929 Glen Ea les Road. had submitted written testimony. They 'Iced the City to suspend all action regarding Sensitive Lands amendments and fo • a task force to ensure that there was a fair balance between protection of natural reso ces and use of residential property. They wanted the task force to be limited to c. sidering only the original amendments proposed in September 2008. They said sensitive Lands Atlas changes should be approved first, before the text amendments ere considered. They believed that not all affected property owners were aware the pr.. .osed changes would affect the use and value of their property. During the question' g period, staff clarified that the current Sensitive Lands Atlas showed protected sources on about 1.750 properties with 300 of them outside the City that could be a . cted when annexed. Staff estimated that 31 of those properties were tally encumb, ed by protected resources. The proposed text amendments would immediate! apply to the properties currently on the map. About 400 more properties would be .roposed to be placed on the map. Some of those were inside the City, but not on the • ap yet because they had been inventoried only recently. The rest were currently outsi , the City limits. Staff was asked to bring the current Sensitive Lands Atlas to the ne • meeting. Mr. Egner recommended that the Planning Commission consider the text endments first, before they considered map amendments. S Pagala bik 40 Planning Commission EX I IT C-4 Minutes of February 9, 2009 P- �i U LU =o053 122 to fashion a proposal and notify affected ro o e was conducted and the motion Ordinance 2535,LU 08-0053 —Comprehensive Plan (New Infill Policies), Proposed amendments pertain to modification of dimensional standards on resource- encumbered lots. Ordinance 2524,LU 08-0053—CDC (Infill Amendments) Amends portions of CDC Chapter 50 for the put-pose of enhancing the compatibility of infill develpment and clarification. Proposed updates pertain to the following topics: lot coverage, maximum floor area, structure design, setback planes, yard setbacks, sloped lots, residential infill design review, variances, non-conforming uses, duplexes and attached dwellings, flag lots, and serial partitions. Continued from September 22, 2008, October 27, 2008, and January 26,2009. Chair Glisson opened the hearing and Commissioner Webster moved to continue LU 08- 0053 Comprehensive Plan and CDC amendments to February 23, 2009. Vice Chair Stewart seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. VI. OTHER BUSINESS—PLANNING COMMISSION None. • VII. OTHER BUSINESS—COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Glisson adjourned the meeting at 10:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Iris Treinen /s/ Iris Treinen Administrative Support • Mimd,i 8fv4o Planning Commission �( es of February 9, 2009 L=j $i�o1534 123 • • Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT C-4 LU 08-0053 124 • moo.��Kos w�� �`' City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes %fed 0 February 23, 2009 APPr CALL TO ORDER Chair Julia Glisson called the Planning Commission meeting of February 23, 2009 to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. 11. ROLL CALL Members present were Chair Glisson, Vice Chair Philip Stewart and Commissioners Adrianne Brockman,Jon Gustafson, Russell Jones, Lynne Paretchan and Scot Siegel. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris Treinen, Administrative Support. 111. CITIZEN COMMENT None. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS LU 08-0059 — Request for Comprehensive Plan map and Zoning text and ma. amendments from Randy Reeves, Heritage Homes; Andrea Marek, RB P. .- in Corporation; and Jerry Offer, OTAK. The applicants were requesting City . ,.royal for the following: • Expansion of the West Lake Grove Design District bounda . including Tax Lot 4300/Map 21 E07DD(a 1.43 acre parcel located at 4855 •er Drive). • Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map amend - s to change the Low Density Residential Designation (R-7.5) to Office .rnmercial/Neighborhood Commercial (OC/NC) on Tax Lot 4300. • Zoning Map Amendments to d• '�nate parking reserves and building areas to be consistent with the propose. . an. • Zoning text amendm • o change appendices found in Article 50,67 (Figure I, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4, 5, 6 a.. ) to achieve consistency with the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zonin, • ap amendments. Sta i ndicated that the applicant had asked for a continuance to have time to address ssues raised in the staff report. Commissioner Brockman moved to continue LU 08- 0059 to April 13,2009. Vice Chair Stewart seconded the motion and it passed 7:0. 1111 EXHIBIT C-5 LU 08-0053 p g Liktasego Planning Commission EXHIBIT C- Minutes of February 23, 2009 LU 0 �L $- Q 125 • Community Development Code Amendments A request from the City of Lake Oswego for amendments to the Community Development Code (CDC)and an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Ordinance 2525 LU 08-0052 — Communi Develo ment Code — Gene Housekeeping Amendments: Amends portions of CDC Chapter 50 for the p .:.se of clarification. correction, formatting and updating sections. Proposed u • pertain to the following topics: definitions, the master plant list, uses, • administration, setbacks, structure heights, accessory structures, dwel ' : design, commercial development standards and requirements, accessory an• porary uses, flag lots, vision clearance, exceptions, special standards, flood m: • .gement area, building design, open space, landscaping, access, on-site cir : ion, street connectivity, street lights, downtown redevelopment district • •: •rds, Old Town neighborhood design standards, West Lake Grove district :ards, variances, conditional uses and procedural requirements. Continued .m September 22 and 29,2008; October 13, 2008; November 10 and 24, 2008; D-• mber 8, 2008;January 12,2009 and February 23, 2009. Comm' -'over Brockman moved to continue LU 08-0052 to May 1 I. 2009. Vice Chair - , art seconded the motion and it passed 7:0. Ordinance 2523. LU 08-0053 — Comprehensive Plan — New hall Policies: Adds • policies in support of overlay zones for neighborhood plans and residential design review. Ordinance 2524, LU 08-0053 — Community Development Code — Infiill Amendments: Amends portions of CDC Chapter 50 for the purpose of enhancing the compatibility of infill development and clarification. Proposed updated pertain to the following topics: lot coverage, maximum floor area, structure design, setback planes, yard setbacks, sloped lots, residential infill design review, variances, non-conforming uses, duplexes and attached dwellings, flag tots, and serial partitions. Continued from September 22, 2008; October 27. 2008; January 26, 2009; and February 9, 2009. Chair Glisson opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedure and criteria. She asked the Commissioners to declare any conflict of interest. None were declared. Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager, presented the staff report. He recalled that the Commissioners had previously discussed the concept of single-family residential design review. They said they wanted to better understand what "objectionable" design was; how infill regulations could protect neighbors' privacy; what kind of single-family house design review process might be used; and the cost and impact on staffing resources. He reported that 2003 infill regulations had not eliminated concern about the size and style of new infill homes in established neighborhoods. He offered to arrange a Pril6Likca`Sgo Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-5 Minutes of February 23, 2009 LU O sO 126 V 1111 field trip to look at examples of"good" and "bad" infill for those Commissioners who could go, and to provide the Commissioners with a list of addresses that notated features people considered "good" or "bad" about them, Commissioner Brockman advised that design review should have a very limited scope. She reported that residents generally found one- to one-and-a-half story houses acceptable, and there were many examples of them. However, the examples of infill that were creating concern were deep, two-story houses on narrow lots that impacted neighbors' privacy. She said design review could help avoid that situation and alleviate neighbors' fears about what would be built next to them. The staff report referred to using a "side yard setback plane" similar to the current "front yard setback plane" to protect neighbors' privacy. The second story would have to be set back farther than the main floor. Staff suggested another way to address privacy might • be to regulate window placement on the upper floor. The mull Task Force had discussed it, but had not made a related recommendation because it might have unintended consequences. Mr. Egner pointed out the staff report suggested options for a review process that ranged from establishing a new commission to hear applications to review by a board of architects; or a Residential Infill Design (RID)-like review by staff with technical advice from architects. He said the current RID process was similar to the variance process and a more flexible alternative to using the code's clear and objective standards. It had been intended to assure the design was compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Egner indicated that currently staff would forward a potentially controversial application to the Development Review Commission (DRC)to decide. The staff decision was made ahead of the notice and after the decision there was an appeal period. He advised that the RID process had turned out to take longer and to be more complicated than originally envisioned. Staff estimated that during the past year at least half of the approximately 20 RID applications had completed the process without complications or concern, but most of the applications had been modified in some way before they were approved. They said some proposals had been dropped before they were filed due to neighbors' concerns. The Commissioners observed it would benefit everyone if the applicant worked out concerns with the neighbors at the start of the process. Staff cautioned that if such activity were formalized, that could lengthen the process and affect the 120-day rule period. Mr. Egner acknowledged that the process had evolved over time and some plans that might have been found to be acceptable earlier were no longer deemed acceptable due to neighborhood input. Mr. Egner noted the Will Task Force recommended removing some standards from the list of standards that could be modified in RID. He said some RID-related issues that had come up were whether only the proposed addition to an existing house or the entire resulting house should be reviewed for compatibility, and how to decide a case where a rear addition was not compatible with the neighborhood but was not visible to the neighborhood. He observed that any new design review process would have some impact on staffing. He said the ministerial review had been set up to speed up the process, but currently, any comment from a neighbor could trigger a formal hearing and extend the process. He advised that the cost of creating a new commission to hear the 4110 pagieL3:eavego Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-5 Minutes of February 23,2009 LU 0i2b6gi 127 applications was higher than the staff level process. Based on a history of about 400 building permits per year (100 new single-family homes/300 additions), and an estimate that 10% to 20% of them would cross the threshold to review, the required resources could range from 1.2 Full Time Equivalent employees(FTEs)to 3.2 FTEs. Chair Glisson and Commissioners Siegel, and Brockman suggested checking in with the City Council to see if the Council would support the concept of a single-family residential design process before the Commission discussed whether to recommend one. Commissioner Paretchan agreed. Commissioner Siegel suggested the Commissioners continue to examine and update existing code and try to make sure that existing standards ensured compatibility of materials; that window, balcony and deck placement protected neighbors' privacy' and that roof shape offered an appropriate transition between houses before they decided what a single-family review process would be needed for. Chair Glisson agreed and added that neighborhood overlay districts could also help ensure compatibility. Vice Chair Stewart observed that whether something was of good design was a subjective determination. Mr. Egner said staff anticipated the Commissioners would examine the infill code first and then consider whether there was a need to recommend a new design review process. He said staff would ask the City Council if they wanted the Planning Commission to consider a new single-family residential design review process. Mr. Egner then explained that the 2003 infill amendments were intended to control house size and create better relationships to the neighbors and the street. He described each of them and the kinds of results the City was seeing as a result of them. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) controlled the relationship between the size of the house and the size of the 411 lot. Allowable lot coverage was more generous for structures less than 22 feet high in order to encourage lower profile houses and allow more room to have a master bedroom on the ground floor. Allowable height had been reduced to 28 feet and a change in the method used to measure height resulted in lower structures. The front setback plane standard controlled the relationship to the street. There was a limit on how much of the garage could dominate the front elevation. The sidewall plane standard improved the relationship to the neighbors. Mr. Egner clarified that the area of the garage was not currently a factor in the FAR calculation, but it was factored into the lot coverage calculation. He observed that as lot size increased, FAR decreased, but it still allowed a big house on a big lot. The R-6 zone allowed 45% lot coverage up to 22 feet in height, but 35%over 22 feet. R-7.5, R-10 and R-15 zones allowed 35% lot coverage up to 22 feet in height and 25% over that. He said staff proposed to smooth out the abrupt change in allowable lot coverage at the 22-foot threshold. He reported the front plane setback standard kept the envelope under 20 feet at the setback line and from there the building could slope back at 6:12 pitch. He reported that necessitated a side-to-side gable orientation that had caused problems for some neighbors. He reported the standard that limited the amount of garage opening on the front elevation had resulted in more side-loading garages that required more pavement in front of the property. He said the sidewall plane standard results had generally been good except for a couple of objectionable examples. i Kag►tccdp$go Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-5 Minutes of February 23,2009 Lu O _Ol 28 U 3 1 • Mr. Egner recalled that both [Mill Task Force 2 and the Planning Commission leaned toward allowing individual neighborhoods to set their own design standards. He clarified that although garage area was not included in FAR calculations, the code offered bonus FAR and lot coverage for a separate garage and for setting the garage back from the front of the house. He showed examples of infill. He explained that First Addition Neighbors/Forest Hills Neighborhood Association (FAN) was the only neighborhood with an R-6 zone and that reflected the typical lotting pattern there was of multiples of 6,000 sq. ft. lots. Commissioner Jones commented that small lots were characteristic of FAN and if someone wanted to build a larger house they should build somewhere else in town. Mr. Egner commented that there were areas of large lots in Lake Grove where a 4,500 sq. ft. new house might be built next to a 1,000 sq. ft. older house. The most recent Infill Task Force had seen a need to tighten infill regulations in order to bring house sizes down further, but they decided the City should explore the concept of applying single- family residential design review to houses above a certain threshold first. Chair Glisson said the City should encourage less lot coverage and homes of one and a half stories or lower. Commissioner Brockman anticipated the City could allow a one and a half story house to have enough lot coverage to be of comparable size to a two- story house. Commissioner Siegel cautioned that might raise issues related to drainage, solar access and space between buildings. Chair Glisson then announced a five-minute break and thereafter reconvened the hearing. Mr. Egner confirmed that he would discuss the height to allowable lot coverage topic with the builders on the Infill Task Force and bring actual examples if he could. • Mr. Egner then discussed the proposal to apply a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) formula. Consultant Ron Kellett had suggested allowing the first 5,000 sq. ft. of the lot to have a certain FAR, but applying a lower FAR to the remainder of the lot,then adding in garage area. For example, on an R-7.5 lot .6 FAR could be applied to the first 5,000 sq. ft. and .2 FAR to the rest. In this case the floor area would be 3,000 sq. ft., plus 500 sq. ft., or 3,500 sq. ft., plus the garage area. He said the issue of how to factor in the garage area had come up when a developer built two similar houses, except one had a two-car garage and the other had a three-car garage. The lot coverage was the same for both houses, but FAR was different, because garage area was not counted in FAR. He said the current code added 200 sq. ft. bonus lot coverage and FAR for a detached garage. Because of that, FAN was seeing developments with both an attached and a detached garage to take advantage of that bonus. The proposed amendments corrected that issue. Commissioner Brockman suggested just setting the overall allowable lot coverage and FAR and not worrying whether the owner would have a two or three car garage. Mr. Egner acknowledged FAR limits had originally only applied to commercial development, and that without them there would still be lot coverage, height and setback limits to control residential houses. He confirmed the bonus had been intended to encourage people to locate their garages in back. The Commissioners observed that some other cities counted the invisible floor area under a vaulted ceiling in their calculations. They said the garage that was not counted when the structure was built might be converted to living space later. Mr. Boone advised that a carport was a "garage"without walls,and if the code were tightened people might decide • l pge15: ggo Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-5 Minutes of February 23,2009 LU 0l '-OO 129 to just use uncovered parking space. Mr. Egner clarified that the proposal was worded in , a manner that allowed additional floor area for the garage, but it did not specify how many cars the garage had to accommodate, or how big the actual garage area had to be. Commissioner Jones observed it would be simpler to just specify one maximum FAR. He asked why add more floor area for a garage? Mr. Egner explained staffs intent was to change the code to factor in the garage area, but match the amount of floor area that was currently allowed on the lot. Chair Glisson saw a need to explain that so people understood it was not just an arbitrary number. Commissioner Paretchan observed the formula was complicated, but Chair Glisson said it was better than the current abrupt change in allowable lot coverage at the 22-foot threshold. The Commissioners said if staff proposed adding a certain amount of floor area just for having a"garage,"was it required to be that size; was it required to be a space a car could fit into; and what if it were converted into living space? Commissioner Siegel related ' that some garages in Cannel, California featured false front doors and were heated spaces. Mr. Boone advised a garage was defined as being used for parking motor vehicles. He and Mr. Egner explained that currently FAR and lot coverage and whether there was a"garage"were determined at the time of construction, and the City would not care if the garage were later converted to living space as long as the house still had off street parking spaces. Mr. Egner suggested the new code could specify that the owner was allowed the full floor area garage allowance as long as he provided at least one vehicle space somewhere in the structure. Chair Glisson and Commissioner Siegel commented that the important thing was to get the lot coverage standard "right," so it did not matter if there were a garage, or an accessory dwelling, or if it were attached or • detached. The Commissioners anticipated the tour of infill they would take would be helpful in studying lot coverage. Commissioner Siegel wondered if a FAR limit was really necessary if the right relationship was set for lot size and height. Commissioner Brockman observed the simpler and more objective the code was the better it would be. Chair Glisson however, was not ready to abandon FAR if it helped control bulk. She asked if the staff could provide illustrations of that. Mr. Egner said he would try to find examples of existing houses, consultant's sketches, and RID-approved adjustments to discuss. Commissioner Siegel said he would prefer not to use FAR, but if it was to be used, he preferred to have a straight-line relationship between house and lot size. He also suggested asking current planning staff for their comments. Public Testimony Barbara Zeller, 3335 Sabina Court, Chair of the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association, said that allowing additional lot coverage because there was a garage just increased the amount of"structure" on the lot; and allowing a garage to be as close as five feet from the neighbor could mean that someday the converted garage would be living space close to the neighbor. She stressed that residents were concerned about the impact of size, scale, setbacks and compatibility of infill to the older homes next door. She stressed that the character of Lake Grove was not defined by the "built" environment - which was a mix of lot sizes and housing sizes and styles - but by its natural landscape. She said Lake Grove was losing its natural environment. Ms. Zeller said the • getetasego Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-5 Minutes of February 23, 2009 LU 130 t3 • Commissioners should keep in mind that Lake Grove residents lived in their back yards and they were most concerned about preserving their privacy when infill homes extended way back on their lots. She said increasing the amount of structure allowed on a lot increased surface water runoff issues. She suggested allowing each neighborhood to define"compatibility" instead of trying to apply a one-size-fits-all code. She reported the Association had held two public meetings to discuss infill issues and about 150 persons had attended. She offered the results of the questionnaire they had completed that demonstrated they were concerned about size, scale, setbacks and compatibility with the natural environment. She advised that a lot of examples referred to as examples of "infill" were actually replacement housing, not additional infill housing. She suggested considering how conditions might change due to the end of the housing bubble. She stressed that a five—foot setback was very close. Brad Beals,541 9th Street,cautioned that design review would only work if good design criteria and design guidelines were provided. He observed that"compatibility"would be hard to determine in areas where the land to house value ratio was 3:1 and lenders did not want to finance houses that were too small. He said very few houses had been remodeled in FAN in the past few years because of that. He suggested a volume limitation could work. He favored neighborhood design overlays that reflected each neighborhood's plan. He confirmed that FAN sloped so house heights there were hard to measure and that was why the Infill Task Force recommended allowing four-foot flexibility. He pointed out a ' street where there were many small, very old houses in a row (some were not worth saving). He asked how a new house that replaced one of them should be made "compatible." He noted that Lake Grove was more about its landscape and FAN was • more about the house to street relationship. He said a neighborhood overlay might work better in older neighborhoods than one-size-fits-all citywide regulations, as long as the neighborhood had a good plan. The Commissioners indicated they wanted more time to review the staff report and the record. Staff was to gather more examples to illustrate what FAR helped accomplish and what would happen if the garage area were included in FAR calculations. Mr. Egner planned to find out what the rationale was for the original FAR limit and email the Commissioners addresses to look at before the next meeting. He agreed to explore the impact of reducing the increase in lot coverage at the highest heights. He explained staff had not pursued a concept of measuring and controlling volume because planners in Aspen, Colorado who had used it had found it too complex to use. Commissioner Siegel observed the front and side yard planes together helped control the volume of the building envelope. Mr. Egner agreed that might work best on smaller lots, but a FAR limit might have to be applied to control bulk on large lots because houses on those lots could get very large in spite of setbacks and lot coverage limitations. He said controlling bulk on all lots was a matter of coming up with the right numbers that would accomplish that. Commissioner Brockman moved to continue LU 08-0053 to the next meeting. Commissioner Jones seconded the motion and it passed 7:0. V. OTHER BUSINESS— • P'a L7kea\$go Planning Commission EXH .BIT Minutes of February 23,2009 i Cr�eJ LU o -bbti 131 • • • Page 8 of 8 EXHIBIT C-5 LU 08-0053 132 io�SAE as >�' \o City of Lake Oswego �'4 Planning Commission Minutes r �: 1 March 9, 2009 °1fed - oRiooN % I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Julia Glisson called the Planning Commission meeting of March 9,2009 to order at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. IL ROLL CALL Members present were Chair Glisson and Commissioners Adrianne Brockman, Jon Gustafson, Russell Jones, Lynne Paretchan and Scot Siegel. Vice Chair Philip Stewart was excused. Council Liaison Bill Tierney also attended. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Sarah Selden, Neighborhood Planner; Johanna Hastay, Associate Planner; Jonna Papaefthimiou, Natural Resources Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris Treinen, Administrative Support. IDill. CITIZEN COMMENT/COUNCIL LIASION COMMENT City Councilor Bill Tierney indicated that he was the new Council liaison to the Planning Commission. He explained his goal was to ensure the directions of the Council and the Planning Commission were in alignment. Commissioners indicted the Planning Commission needed more guidance from the City Council and that the Planning Commission also served as a vehicle for sending messages from the community to the City Council. IV. MINUTES Commissioner Brockman moved to approve the Minutes of January 26, 2009. Commissioner Gustafson seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. Commissioner Jones and Commissioner Paretchan abstained. V. WORK SESSION LU 09-0004 — Institutional Uses. Amendments to Community Develo m e, Chapter 50.08 (Residential — Low Density R-7.5, R-10, and R- s to amend the maximum lot coverage for schools and the a ' i y of the Structure Design standards. Sarah Se , etghborhood Planner, and Johanna Hastay, Associate Planner, ntcd the staff report. They said Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Parish had asked the • I o PlanningCommission EXHIBIT C-6 pA> ' k 4 LU 08-0053 E H1BIT C-6 Mu tes of March 9,2009 _ L 08- -00 3 133 minimum variance necessary to relieve the hardship and allow reasonable development. They observed that the Parish site did not seem to have those issues and they wanted ti - changes so they could be allowed to have the design they wanted. When the Commissioners asked if the church could get the square footage the needed by going higher, staff advised the development was subject to the resid, tial zone's height limit. The church might exceed that now, but property owners o had the right to continue their nonconforming status, not expand it. Chair Gli on observed the Commissioners were interested in considering the lot coverage a - front setback plane issues separately and they wanted to examine some case studies. Staff explained that the front setback plane had been int- led to address single-family residential infill and it currently only applied in the t-5, R-6, R-7.5, RIO, and R-15 zones. However, one of the proposed Community D:'elopment Code (CDC) updates for the R-5 zone would specify that it was restr', ed to residential structures. They confirmed that Our Lady of the Lake Parish as the only entity that had asked the Planning Commission to consider the propo•-d changes. The Commissioners wondered if the Evergreen Neighborhood Associati• would consider amending their overlay so it did not apply to the A Avenue fro ge, especially if a mistake had been made in applying it to nonresidential bui +ings. When asked, staff clarified that overlay regulations "trumped" base code egulations and would continue to be applied if the base code were changed. They al • clarified the ENA overlay did not address lot coverage. The Commissioners agree. o study and consider application of the front setback plane standard to institutiona nfill at the same time they examined the proposed infill code 111111 amendments. Commissioner ` egel moved to continue the discussion of LU 08-0004 to another work session on an 13 2009 at which the Commissioners would discuss how the lot coverage mendment could be applied to K-8 school use. The discussion of the front setbac, plane amendments was to be discussed at the same time the Commissioners con-'dered infill amendments. Commissioner Paretchan seconded the motion and it ►.•ssed 6:0. Chair Glisson announced a five-minute break and thereafter reconvened the meeting. V1. PUBLIC HEARINGS Community Development Code Amendments A request from the City of Lake Oswego for amendments to the Community Development Code (CDC)and an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Ordinance 2534, LU 08-0051 B — CDC Sensitive Lands Overlay Amendments (Policy Related) Amends portions of CDC Article 50.16. updates pertain to the following topics: "reasonable devel on property totally covered by wetland or stream resources, d nt procedures, water-dependent uses such as docks along the ette and Tualatin Rivers and ivy removal as a condition of development approval. • 11:1494 L2k4go Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-6 Minutes of March 9,2009 LU 134 •i 0 Public Testimony Carolvne R. Jones,2818 Poplar Way, agreed it was not a good idea to require an o . r to get his/her neighbors' permission to reduce a setback. She did not b ' ve her neighbor would give her such approval. She said to give that right to a • ghbor was a form of conversion of others' private property to the neighbors' .•. She questioned whether the modification process would work if it required t•, i eveloper to apply for a Class 2 variance because she was worried the City wo • deny it. saying the applicant created the hardship. Mr. Boone advised that v. • ces had been granted because the presence of natural resources and steep hillsi' : presented unique circumstances. Matt Finni•an 128 Condolea 1 e, suggested a steep slope and a view from a park should be protected too. 'e said the owner would have been aware of those circumstances and the • -sence of sensitive lands when he/she bought it. Ile worried the code would enco •ge disturbance of Sensitive Lands. Corn stoner Paretchan moved to continue LU 08-005I B and LU 08-0051C to March . 2009. Commissioner Jones seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. Community Development Amendments (continued) Ordinance 2523, LU 08-0053 — Comprehensive Plan — New Infill Policies: Adds policies in support of overlay zones for neighborhood plans and residential design • review. Ordinance 2524, LU 08-0053 — Community Development Code — Infill Amendments: Amends portions of CDC Chapter 50 for the purpose of enhancing the compatibility of infill development and clarification. Proposed updates pertain to the fallowing topics: lot coverage, maximum floor area, structure design. setback planes, yard setbacks, sloped lots, residential infill design review, variances, non-conforming uses, duplexes and attached dwellings, flag lots, and serial partitions. (Continued from September 22, 2008; October 27, 2008; January 26, 2009; February 9. 2009; and February 23, 2009. *Commissioners Siegel and Brockman rejoined the other Commissioners and Chair Glisson opened the public hearing and invited public testimony. Public Testimony-CDC Infill Standards Infill Task Force members Ralph Tahran, Ted Argo, Brad Beals, and Jim Bolland, discussed what requirements made a difference in house design and why the current standards had been adopted. They recalled the Infill Task Force had examined the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limit the FAN Plan applied in the R-6 zone and decided FAR limits should apply citywide. They saw that the lot coverage limitation by itself could result in a 5,000 sq. ft. house on a 10,000 sq. ft. lot in the R-10 zone. But if FAR limits were applied — and if they were more generous for one-story structures than for two-story structures - the house size would be limited to about 3,900 sq. ft. (a 2,500 sq. ft. main floor and a 1.400 sq. ft. second floor). After that, setback planes and other infill tools III pgI3kfs4go Planning Commission EXHIBITC 6 Minutes of March 9. 2009 LU Oi=OO°55i 135 could further sculpt the structure so its bulk was pushed toward the center. They advised • that if the City adopted standards intended to encourage one-and-a-half story homes they had to factor in the slope in order to reduce the need for more variances. They advised the City to put a restriction on impervious surface to address runoff. They recalled the Infill Task Force had tested the standards on real life examples before they recommended them. They explained the data that seemed to indicate infill (since the infill standards were adopted) was well over 100%maximum FAR was skewed by Planned Development projects, and the actual range for single-family homes was 89% to 90% of maximum FAR. Mr. Tahran cautioned against reducing the 35% lot coverage allowed for a one- story home because it was too hard to build it and get the square footage needed if you counted the garage area and that would force the developer to go to two stories. The group cautioned that it was a challenge to design the roof slope and front setback plane for a 28-foot high house on a gentle slope. Mr. Bolland explained the crux of the compatibility issue was appearance. Compatible development was what appeared to be appropriate next to the surrounding houses and lots. He commented that 35% lot coverage on an R-6 lot in FAN still looked bad when the garage was not counted. He said most infill houses in FAN looked okay, but most of the infill houses that people thought were inappropriate did not "fit" because the design did not relate to the area and the houses were too close together - not because of their size. He indicated it was not just about FAR and square feet, it was the design and the relationship to adjacent development, particularly on slopes. Height had not been as big a factor as design. The Infill Task Force recommended a side yard setback plane to improve the side-to-side • relationship of houses. He discussed the recommendation to not allow FAR, lot coverage and height adjustments in the Residential Infill Design (RID) process. Commissioner Siegel asked if that recommendation had been by unanimous agreement. The group related it had been a close vote. They said RID was not working out as they originally intended. It had been intended to allow a better design than could be achieved under rigid zone standards and outside the variance process hardship test. The Infill Task Force representatives had been asked if some "tweaking" of the code could result in smaller houses. They said Infill Task Force members could not agree to hold that discussion. Mr. Bolland said if the City decided not to adopt a single-family residence design review process he hoped the Planning Commission would discuss how to make houses smaller. The group pointed out they were recommending putting a reasonable limit on garage size, which could help. The Commissioners observed they were to discus RID at their next meeting. Commissioner Brockman moved to continue 1.1.1 08-0053 to March 23, 2009. Commissioner Jones seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. FrageLatedix4goPlanningCommission EXHIBIT C-6 Minutes of March 9,2009 Lu 136 t �$_t Ke oskf\ i j c( :\ City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutest/ \ ) March 23, 2009 _ 0 R Q&/ I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Julia Glisson called the Planning Commission meeting of March 23, 2009 to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Members present were Chair Julia Glisson, Vice Chair Philip Stewart and Commissioners Adrienne Brockman, Jon Gustafson, Russell Jones and Lynne Paretchan. Commissioner Scot Siegel was excused. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager: Jonna Papaefthimiou, Natural Resources Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris Treinen. Administrative Support. III. CITIZEN COMMENT . None. IV. MINUTES Commissioner Brockman moved to approve the Minutes of February 23. 2009. Commissioner Jones seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS Community Development Code Amendments A request from the City of Lake Oswego for amendments to the Community Development Code (CDC) and an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Glisson opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedure and criteria. She asked the Commissioners to declare any conflict of interest regarding the application. Commissioner Brockman had recused herself from hearing the proposed Sensitive Lands amendments. Ordinance 2534, LU 08-0051B — CDC Sensitive Lands--Overlay District Amendments — Policy Related .-------- _---- Staff requested this be continued. f.e Chair Glisson move continue LU 08-0051B to July 13 2009. Commissioner Gustafson ee i ded the motion and it passed 6:0. li III Rage_dieof 8go Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-7 E HIBIT C-7 Minutes of March 23, 2009 & , o LU 08-0053 1. p`p� 137 driveways and pathways, and resource enhancement in LOC 50.16.070 and 060. They • said an owner was allowed to install a driveway access over the resource district if th- •- was no other access alternative. Mr. Buck and Ms. Mattison indicated they felt the amendments were too co • 'Heated and complex and still subject to interpretation by whoever staffed th- planning department counter. They stressed the Planning Commission should be •oking at the "bigger picture" including the constraints of other natural resource prote on provisions. They reported seeing neighbors driving front loaders through the stream corridor, removing trees, and denuding steep slopes. Deliberations Chair Glisson recalled the Planning Commission had previo : y put consideration of how to change LOC 50.16.040 "on hold" and it was unfinished •usiness they wanted to take care of before they addressed other issues. She r_ ailed the Commissioners had previously indicated they were leaning toward the "FI. ible" option; they had eliminated a proposed provision that would have allowed t neighbor to directly approve and consent to the decision; and they had agreed hat Class 1 and 2 provisions were reasonable. She asked staff to explain wh they had inserted 7,000 sq. ft. as a "placeholder." Ms. Papaefthimiou explained at amount of square footage was the size of the largest house in the City she cou : think of and would offer most owners the greatest flexibility and opportunity for •-velopment and amenity parity with neighbors who did not have protected resource on their lots. She explained that was offered in return for the benefit they gave t•- community by protecting a stream. However, development on extraordinarily I--.e lots that might be subdividable in the future could not reduce setbacks to zero • five feet. If some other hardship required that, the developer would have to u - the variance process. She clarified the 7,000 sq. ft. 0 provision would apply in all ones. The Commissioners e- h indicated they agreed that 7,000 sq. ft. was a good benchmark or placeholder to st. with; there were other requirements that could help control the size of developm t; 7.000 sq. ft. was much larger than a typical 4,200 sq. ft. building footprint that v✓ Id fit on a typical, rectangular-shaped 10,000 sq. ft. lot; it was best to err on the sid of flexibility to ensure people had the most opportunity to use a resource constraine ot; and it was a fairly small increment of change from the current code and offered a asonable set of modification guidelines. Co issioner Jones moved to approve LU 08-0051C with the "Flexible Option" and dir ct staff to craft the final draft and related findings. Commissioner Gustafson aeconded the motion and it passed 6:0. Chair Glisson announced a two-minute break nd thereafter reconvened the hearing. Commissioner Brockman then rejoined the other Commissioners. Ordinance 2523, LU 08-0053 — Comprehensive Plan — New Infill Policies Staff requested this be continued. Paget2eClivago Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-7 • Minutes of March 23, 2009 Lu g!,a 3 138 • Ordinance 2524, LU 08-0053 - Community Development Code - Infill Amendments Amends portions of CDC Chapter 50 for the purpose of enhancing the compatibility of infill development and clarification. Proposed updates pertain to the following topics: lot coverage, maximum floor area, structure design, setback planes, yard setbacks, sloped dwellings, flag lots, and serial partitions. The hearing was continued from September 22, 2006; October 27, 2008; January 26, 2009; February 9, 2009 and February 23, 2009 and March 9, 2009. Chair Glisson invited public testimony. Public Testimony Sara Perry, 3110 Douglas Circle, held that incompatibility of infill was mainly due to the size, not the design. She pointed out a 2001 study by Ron Kellett offered examples of "negative" infill that had a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of .24 and .27. She said that Mr. Kellett had concluded that "desirable" infill FAR was .20 or less. She read aloud the allowable and actual FAR of homes built on Douglas Circle since the infill ordinance was passed. She encouraged the Commissioners to watch an American Planning Association video, -Maintaining Neighborhood Character," and to read a book published by the APA, Too Big, Boring or Ucly. Barbara Zeller, 3335 Sabina Court, Chair of the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association, stressed that Goal 10 of the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association plan called for specific design and development standards that ensured compatibility with neighborhood design character. She said they wanted to maintain their eclectic neighborhood where it was the vegetation, trees and separation of houses that created • privacy and character - not a specific style of house. She cited neighborhood surveys that snowed respondents wanted stronger size, height, separation and teardown regulations. She clarified her neighborhood was experiencing replacement of houses as well as infill. She submitted copies of a summary of ideas and comments citizens had offered to the City Council in 2006. She estimated that 30% of them had been concerned about changing privacy, density and house size in their neighborhoods. She urged the Planning Commission to watch the American Planning Association video Ms. Perry had referred to to learn about tools they could use to make infill more compatible before they voted on the amendments. Staff confirmed that they possessed the DVD and they would lend it to the Commissioners. Ms. Zeller stressed compatibility in her neighborhood was not as much about the architecture - it was about mass and scale - and she held that was what a review body should review. Karen Ingels, 12831 Alto Park Road, said she supported "residential privacy review." She described how a developer of land next to hers had worked with the neighbors and done many things to make an infill project work for them. But even he mistakenly placed a window in a position where the view was of the neighbors' backyard and intruded on their privacy. She held that house could have been better positioned on the lot. Deliberations The Commissioners followed the staff suggestion to come to a preliminary decision regarding the proposed lot coverage - FAR relationship before they considered design review. The concept of both the current and proposed regulations was to link lot coverage to allowable height in a way that encouraged lower profile houses by allowing them to have more lot coverage than higher houses. The staff proposal would reduce and "smooth out" an abrupt jump in allowable height in the current code. They had 1111 P..age.a'$eplw8go Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-7 Minutes of March 23. 2009 LU Pd8 dt$63 139 simplified a more detailed (foot-by-foot) table the Infill Task Force recommended. The • Commissioners recalled Infill Task Force representatives had testified there was a need for a little more flexibility to address changes in topography in First Addition Neighbors/Forest Hills Neighborhood Association (FAN). Mr. Egner advised the Commissioners to wait to consider the R-6 zone until they had considered how the proposed relationship table would affect infill in the other low-density zones. He explained the R-6 zone was more complicated and the Infill Task Force recommended an additional sloped lot regulation there that adjusted the height to account for topography. Commissioner Paretchan indicated she did not have enough information to be able to envision and compare development under the current and proposed standards because the staff report did not provide enough information. Commissioner Jones observed most existing houses in FAN were tiny houses that occupied a very small part of their lot, but newer houses were so much bigger and took up so much of their lots that it created an abrupt change. He suggested the new houses should be required to be a little smaller to be compatible. Commissioner Brockman agreed. The Commissioners examined tables in the February 3rd and March 4th staff reports that related FAR to lot size. They observed that whatever table they might recommend would have to be modified to reflect another proposed change to include garage area in the FAR calculation. Chair Glisson favored the progression in the Reduced Lot Coverage Scenario table in the March 4th staff memorandum because it changed in smaller increments. Mr. Egner explained that table slightly shifted what was currently allowed. For example, the threshold to the most restrictive lot coverage in the R-7.5 zone was 28 feet (the current code put it at 26 feet). Vice Chair Stewart suggested the most restrictive lot coverage threshhold be set at a height (26 to 27 feet) that would allow a two-story house. He advised that with that and a FAR limit, the result could be more 1.5 story houses (which was what many Commissioners preferred to see) than two-story houses. Commissioner Gustafson agreed a holistic approach was necessary to get that result. Lot coverage limits alone would not prevent tall houses, so FAR and the sideyard setback plane could be used as well to limit the scale of a house. He said he and Commissioner Brockman had looked at examples of infill that day and agreed that 1.5- story houses were the "most successful" infill. Chair Glisson recalled citizen testimony asking for smaller lot coverage. She said the latest table that staff recommended was a slight enough change from current code it should be tried. Commissioner Brockman agreed and added that this was a first step. She anticipated that the full set of regulatory tools the Planning Commission would recommend would control the size of new houses. The lot coverage limits would control the size of the footprint and the FAR limits would control the size of the second story. Commissioner Gustafson indicated he felt the change would be an improvement that smoothed out the large step changes in the current code that resulted in either a short, sprawling house. or a two-story house. Commissioner Jones indicated he favored reducing lot coverage. Vice Chair Stewart said he could support a smoothed out progression over the current step change. Commissioner Paretchan said she liked the proposed sliding scale, but she still could not visualize and compare the results of the current and proposed code because the staff report did not provide enough information. Commissioner Gustafson said he had done that and found that the proposed changes Pagei_41Eivago Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-7 • Minutes of March 23. 2009 LU P. eoor�0. 140 basically shifted R-10 height limits to R-15 zoned property, R-7.5 limits to R-10 property, and reduced R-7.5 limits. Commissioner Jones said he could agree to the proposed table, but he felt FAR had to also be reduced to prevent massive houses on small lots. Chair Glisson polled the Commissioners to find out if they agreed to accept the most recent Reduced Lot Coverage Scenario table before they moved on to the FAR discussion. The result of a show of hands was that most agreed, but Commissioner Paretchan did not agree and Commissioner Gustafson did not fully agree. Mr. Egner then discussed the lot coverage/height relationship in the R-6 zone. Allowable lot coverage currently ranged between 25% and 45% and "jumped" at the 22- foot height threshold. He said staff proposed a new table that smoothed out the progression and would limit the highest structures to 35% lot coverage. The idea was to ensure that the houses along a FAN street were of similar scale. Commissioner Brockman and Commissioner Paretchan asked him to prepare a chart that compared the current step increments with the proposed progression. The Commissioners also wanted to see a similar chart showing the 'sliding scale" progression staff would apply in the R-5 zone. The Commissioners discussed the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Staff proposed a new formula that would factor a garage allowance into the FAR calculation. This would be a chance because current FAR calculations did not include the garage area. However, garage area was currently factored into the lot coverage calculation. The entire garage allowance would not actually have to be used for a garage. Part of it could be used as living space, but some sort of garage or carport (the definition, Garage, included carport) had to be provided. More square footage than the garage allowance also could be used for a larger garage, but that additional square footage would have to come out of living space. Remodeling to eliminate the garage entirely would be a violation of the code. It could be an attached or detached garage. Staff had come up with a garage allowance for each zone based on their examination of actual examples in each zone. Mr. Egner clarified that the formula staff proposed was intended to account for a garage area, but kept FAR the same as it was now, so the resulting house size would not change. Commissioner Brockman wanted allowable FAR to be reduced so the resulting houses would seem less massive. Mr. Egner suggested they consider reducing allowable floor area by 10%. That was the threshold the Infill Task Force had discussed when they talked about establishing a threshhold for single-family house design review. He estimated that if the Commissioners decided to count the actual garage area. instead of just adding a "garage allowance,- that might make infill development as much as 20% smaller. Commissioner Gustafson said there could be unintended consequences of encouraging developers to have less garage area. They might install bigger driveways and use more on street parking. There would be more cars visible from the street. Commissioner Paretchan noted that the 600 sq. ft. garage allowance for an R-7.5 lot would accommodate two cars, a workshop and a play area or dog area — the kinds of things garages were typically used for. Commissioner Brockman favored simply reducing allowable FAR 10% across the board. She explained that was more floor area than most actual infill used, and such a limit would allay people's fears about what could happen. Commissioner Jones worried that might not reduce the size of new houses enough. Commissioner Gustafson observed that FAR affected how the interior of a house looked more than how its exterior looked. • 5edtw$go Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-7 Minutes of March 23, 2009 LueZd6 141 He thought the other tools the Commissioners were to consider — like a sidewall plane standard - would be more useful. Mr. Egner advised the Commissioners not to rely entirely on FAR limits. He said other form and design tools would be necessary to address the problem and that even houses that were under the "10% line' were often positioned with their bulk close to the street on narrow deep lots. Chair Glisson asked for a show of hands of those who supported using the allowable floor area formula the staff proposed on page 11 of the February 3 staff memorandum, but reducing it by 10%. She said she supported it because smoother increments replaced the current "stair step" increments. Mr. Egner advised staff would have to adjust the formula Commissioner Brockman asked him to do that and then present it to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Jones said he was not sure the 10% reduction would be enough to reduce the size, scale and bulk of new houses. Vice Chair Stewart said he preferred it to change incrementally because he was worried about unintended consequences. If that did not work, he explained, the City could revisit and change it later. Commissioner Paretchan observed that about one third of the infill that had been built in the City under the infill ordinance would not have been allowed if allowable FAR had been 10% less. Others observed those houses could have been built. but smaller. Commissioner Paretchan observed that a house could have been built. but not the "same house." She recalled hearing that a few examples of infill were undesirable. but not one-third of them. She said other tools should be considered before a one-size-fits-all limit on FAR was considered. Vice Chair Stewart suggested using the "sliding scale" might make a difference Mr. Egner clarified the Infill Task Force had only discussed a 10% threshold to design review and they had decided not to recommend reducing allowable FAR by some percentage unless the City did not adopt residential design review. Commissioner Paretchan then agreed to use 5% as a preliminary placeholder so the • Planning Commission could move forward to consider the entire package of tools, including sideyard plane standards, which she thought would have more impact on compatibility, especially on long, narrow lots. Commissioner Jones said his (circa 1965) house and his neighbors' (circa 1980+) houses would fall under the 10% line and seemed to be the right scale for their R-7.5 lots. Commissioner Brockman reported that most infill she saw put the bulk of the upper story in the middle of the house, but the ones she had a problem with put most of it on one side. She suggested that might be made a threshold for a limited scope design review. The Commissioners recalled a house on South Shore that they wanted staff to use as a case study of how FAR could or could not affect the size of the upper story. Commissioner Paretchan and Vice Chair Stewart indicated they could agree to a preliminary decision to use a 5% ("green line") reduction as a placeholder in order to move forward with consideration of other tools. They anticipated that at the end of the discussions of individual tools they could consider the entire set of tools, including whether or not 5% or 10% was the right tool. and whether some other tools better addressed the problem. Commissioner Gustafson observed that FAR had the least to do with the exterior appearance of a house than other tools, and he worried about unintended consequences of applying the `green line." Chair Glisson wanted more input from the Infill Task Force and other citizens. Commissioner Brockman asked staff to study a long, high new house near Heritage House that was next to much smaller houses to see how the proposed changes would have affected it. Commissioner Jones held that allowable FAR had to be reduced in • • Page_$eof%ago Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-7 Minutes of March 23, 2009 Lu 8eg0 142 • order to reduce the size and scale of infill houses. He did not think 5% was enough. Chair Glisson said she wanted to know how the staffs formula would be adjusted to reflect a reduction in the range of 5% - 10%. Mr. Egner confirmed that the basic formula applied to all zones, but the base square footage in FAN's R-6 zone would be smaller than the other zones. He explained the formula was intended to match what was allowed there today. The Commissioners then discussed the issue of garage location. The infill standards for garages were intended to reduce the percentage of garage face visible from the street and encourage side-loading garages. However, as a result, developers were installing more pavement and less vegetation at the frontage. Commissioner Brockman and Commissioner Gustafson had also observed many side-loading garages on Lakeview Boulevard seemed to be right up against the front property line. They asked staff to look at one in particular that was being constructed and report back. Staff had asked the Commissioners to clarify where a garage had to be to be "to the rear of the lot." Such a garage was allowed more lot coverage in FAN, so people were building both attached and detached garages to get that bonus coverage, Staff recommended specifying that a garage that was "to the rear of the lot" was at least ten feet back from the front of the house. They related that the Infill Task Force recommended that the lot coverage bonus only be allowed for attached garages. Mr. Egner said he would research whether staff intended the proposed garage code to only apply in FAN, or to all residential zones. He noted it was a particular issue in FAN because that neighborhood had a lot of small lots. FAN required almost every lot in the neighborhood to access the garage from the alley. He advised that some lake lots were • very deep and the standard that limited the percentage of garage facing the street did not apply there if the garage was more than 50 feet from the street. However. those owners still enjoyed the bonus lot coverage incentive. Chair Glisson observed how late it was and that the Commissioners should continue the discussion to the next meeting. Commissioner Brockman moved to continue LU 08-0053 to April 13. 2009. Commissioner Gustafson seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. Ordinance 2526, LU 08-0054 — Community Development Code — Amendments—wtIh Policy Implications: Staff requested this be continued. Commissioner Paretchan moved to continue LU 08-005 ouaust 10, 2009. Commissioner Gustafson seconded the motion and it pa 6:0. VI. OTHER BUSINESS — PLANNING COMMISS The Commissioners and staff d• ssed how to create a more realistic work plan that gave them time to prepay rfd provide adequate notice to those who wanted to testify. They planned to sc e more time for this discussion. VII. OTHER tdSINESS — COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT one. • I age eOfv8.jo Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-7 Minutes of March 23, 2009 LU pt8 ba 3„ 143 • • Page 8 of 8 EXHIBIT C-7 • LU 08-0053 144 `` �f.LAKE os WECO\. • City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes �''�'`� �y April 13, 2009 APP ye ORF40K� CALL TO ORDER Chair Julia Glisson called the Planning Commission meeting of April 13, 2009 to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Members present were Chair Julia Glisson, Vice Chair Philip Stewart and Commissioners Adrianne Brockman, Jon Gustafson, Russell Jones and Lynne Paretchan. Commissioner Scot Siegel was excused, Staff present: Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris Treinen, Administrative Support. III. CITIZEN COMMENT • None. IV. MINUTES Commissioner Jones moved to approve the Minutes of February 9, 2009. Vice Chair Stewart seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. Commissioner Brockman abstained. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS LU 08-0059 — Retuest for Comprehensive Plan Ma. and Zonin. Text and ► • Amendments from Randy Reeves, Heritage Homes This hearing was continued from February 22, 2009. The applicant requested approval of the following: • Expansion of the West Lake Grove Design •' rict boundary by including Tax Lot 4300/Map 21E07DD (a 1.43 acre parce ated at 4855 Upper Drive). • Comprehensive Plan and Zoni +ap amendment to change the Low Density Residential Designation ( . to Office Commercial/Neighborhood Commercial (OC/NC) on Tax Lot 4 e.. • Zoning Map A •- •ment to designate parking reserves and building areas to be consisten the proposed plan. • Zo ••• ext amendment to change appendices found in Article 50.67 (Figure 1, 2a, sc, 4, 5, 6, and 7) to achieve consistency with the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map amendments. Page 1 of 6 EXHIBIT C-8 EXHIBIT C-8 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission LU 08-0053 Minutes of April 13, 2009 LU) -OQ53 145 Chair Glisson opened the public hearing. Staff explained the owner/a cafit—haa410 - requested a continuance until mid-summer to address issue ff--h raa�""-ised. Commissioner Brockrhaa_n.ov continue LU 08-0059 to August 10, 2009 and re- notice L.ttaese�ent fled to notice. Vice Chair Stewart seconded the motion and it 'passed 6:0. At this point the Commissioners discussed and agreed on the format of work sessions and the rolling agenda. Community Development Code Amendments A request from the City of Lake Oswego for amendments to the Community Development Code (CDC) and an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Ordinance 2523, LU 08-0053— Comprehensive Plan — New Infill Policies Amends the Comprehensive Plan to include a policy encouraging development of neighborhood plans and to include a policy directing the City to enact a residential design review program. Ordinance 2524, LU 08-0053 — Community Development Code — Infill Amendments. Amends portions of the Community Development Code, Chapter 60 for the purpose of enhancing the compatibility of infill development and clarification. Proposed updates pertain to the following topics: lot coverage, maximum floor area, structure design, setback planes. yard setbacks, sloped lots, residential infill design review, variances, • non-conforming uses. duplexes and attached dwellings, flag lots, and serial partitions. The hearing was continued from September 22 and October 27, 2008; January 26, February 9 and 23. and March 9 and 23, 2009. Chair Glisson opened the public hearing. Commissioner Brockman moved to continue LU 08-0053 to June 8, 2009. Commissioner Paretchan seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. Chair Glisson announced a five-minute break and thereafter opened the work session. WORK SESSION Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager, presented the staff report. He pointed out he had revised the lot coverage tables for residential zones as the Commissioners had requested. In those tables, allowable lot coverage was a function of height. The percentages of coverage in the proposed tables was slightly more than the current code allowed but less than what the Infill Task Force had recommended. The proposed tables also smoothed out the current code's "jump" in allowable lot coverage at 22 feet height. The Commissioners first focused on the R-6 zone. The existing code was more complicated than in other residential zones because allowable lot coverage was a function of both height and lot size. The new tables increased lot coverage a couple of percentage ponts over current standards. Commissioners Brockman and Jones questioned whether that was enough of a reduction from what had been proposed by the Task Force. Chair Glisson noticed an inconsistency between zones: The R-6 lot Page 2 of 6 EXHIBIT C-8 41111 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of April 13, 2009 LL A82O J53 146 • I coverage table allowed a 20-foot high house on a 10.000 — 11,500 sq. ft. lot in the First Addition Neighbors/Forest Hills Neighborhood Association (FAN) to cover more of the lot than on an R-10 lot of the same size. Mr. Egner explained the original intent of the tables was to relate lot coverage to height and create an incentive to build lower homes by giving them greater lot coverage. But in actuality, people opted to build upward on a smaller footprint. He clarified that it was unlikely someone could build a two-story house in FAN that was less than 20 feet tall because FAN also required pitched roofs. He added that the proposed adjustments were also supposed to correct a problem on slightly sloped lots in FAN. Some builders had excavated "holes' to put structures in so they were lower than 22 feet and could enjoy more lot coverage. He clarified that height was measured either from the excavated grade or the original grade (if there was fill). Commissioner Gustafson observed a trend to put the master bedroom on the ground floor. Commissioner Brockman said FAR was more important than lot coverage because limiting FAR could result in more 1.5 story houses that could help preserve neighbors' privacy. Chair Glisson observed that side yard setback planes would also help. The Commissioners wanted to better understand the allowed exceptions to lot coverage limits. Staff said that anything over 30 inches tall was a "structure" that was counted in lot coverage, but two feet of the roof overhang was not (this was a practice that would be formalized in the proposed CDC housekeeping updates). Bonus lot coverage of 200 — 400 sq. ft. was offered for a detached garage (the amount depended on the lot size). Commissioner Jones questioned why that kind of incentive was necessary in FAN where most lots were very small and garages were separate and accessed from the alley anyway. He also observed that a 25-inch high deck had the same perceived affect on lot coverage as a 30-inch high deck. Commissioners Paretchan and Gustafson agreed with using incentives to break up mass. Commissioner Brockman suggested reducing allowable lot coverage percentages when bonuses were available. She recalled that new houses appeared to cover much more of their lots than the actual percentage of coverage. Commissioner Paretchan said that the perception of too much lot coverage was a design issue. Mr. Egner advised that FAN already required garage access off the alley when an alley was available. He said that none of the garage was counted in FAR and 200 sq. ft. of the ground floor of a detached garage was not counted in lot coverage (or 400 sq. ft. if the lot was over 10,000 sq. ft.). Commissioner Gustafson observed that was a little over 3% of a typical sized FAN lot. Mr. Egner advised that an accessory structure was counted in lot coverage, and 200 sq. ft. of a habitable accessory structure (perhaps the second story of a garage) was excluded from the FAR calculation. Mr. Egner said the proposed changes reflected the Infill Task Force recommendation to stop people from building both an attached and detached garage to take advantage of the lot coverage bonus. Commissioner Paretchan said she could accept that in FAN - to address a FAN issue - but the rest of the City needed more flexibility. Mr. Egner confirmed that would only apply in FAN. The Commissioners invited an Infill Task Force member to comment. Jim Bolland said the framers of the FAN code wanted to require garage access from the alley but they never anticipated that people would build both attached and detached garages. That needed to be fixed. He reported people were installing breezeways to connect detached garages to the house and still get the bonus coverage. He agreed that infill appeared to cover much more of a lot than the actual measurements indicated. He said a series of Page 3 of 6 EXHIBIT C-8 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of April 13, 2009 L14R83QQ,53 147 tight, tall, new houses with small lawns were out of character with FAN and looked like they belonged in northwest Portland. He urged the Commissioners to address that with FAR and lot coverage limitations. Chair Glisson poled the Commissioners about the proposed R-6 table. Commissioner Jones could agree to it, but he wanted to specifically require a detached garage and not offer any bonus for it. Commissioner Gustafson could agree with the proposed table and the detached garage bonus. Mr. Egner clarified for Vice Chair Stewart that the amount of garage bonus depended on the size of the lot, not the size of the garage. Vice Chair Stewart observed that 200 sq. ft. was about a 3% change in lot coverage. He was not yet ready to agree to the table. Commissioner Brockman said she could agree to keep the bonuses, but she wanted allowable lot coverage to be reduced some amount (yet to be determined) because of the garage bonus. Commissioner Paretchan said she favored allowing the bonuses because they helped break up the mass of a development and she might agree to ratchet the percentages all down and give bigger bonuses for breaking up the mass. Chair Glisson liked using incentives because they encouraged rather than required things. She suggested reducing the 40% allowable lot coverage for a very large lot in R-6 to the 35% that would be allowed on the same size lot in the R-10 zone. Commissioner Paretchan suggested the Commissioners reduce all the percentages in the table to make them comparable to what the R-7.5 zone allowed. Mr. Bolland explained that the original intent of allowing larger FAR and footprints on larger lots had been to encourage builders not to build upward. However, there were not that many really large lots in FAN. Commissioner Brockman stressed that the size of a house was not as important as how it allowed people to function. She said they needed big, private yards that would buffer neighbors from noise. Several Commissioners worried that increasing allowable lot coverage of a 20 foot tall house on a 7,500 sq. ft. lot • would result in more two story houses that would affect others privacy. light and views. Commissioner Paretchan and the other Commissioners went over the proposed R-6 Zone Maximum Lot Coverage Table and explained they would allow the proposed increase in lot coverage for the smallest category of lots (7.000 sq. ft. or less) because that reflected the dense character of R-6 zoning. But they wanted allowable lot coverage in the 7,000 to 8,500 sq. ft. lot size category to be a constant 36% up to 27 feet. They wanted to lower allowable lot coverage for the next two categories of larger lots to 35% for the lower height steps. They left the coverage percentages for lots 11,500 or larger as they had been proposed. When asked, Mr. Egner estimated about one quarter of the lots in FAN were in the 7,000 — 8500 sq. ft. category. Chair Glisson announced a five-minute break until 8:50 p.m. and thereafter reconvened the work session. The Commissioners examined the proposed lot coverage tables for the other zones. When asked, Mr. Boone clarified that an owner could apply for a variance so they could have a reasonable sized house on an undersized existing R-7.5 lot, but they should not expect to be allowed to have the same size house as on normal sized lots. Commissioner Brockman reasoned that the owner chose to purchase a small lot. She said she could agree to the tables in the staff report. Staff advised that outside of FAN there was an area of 6.000 sq. ft. lots in Hallinan that should probably be rezoned to an "R-6-like'' zone and there were also pockets of lots that small scattered around the City. Mr. Bolland explained that FAN had created the R-6 zone after an R-7.5 overlay created a lot of nonconforming houses. The new zone was intended to allow owners of 6.000 Page 4 of 6 EXHIBIT C-8 • City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of April 13, 2009 1-PDPAItOP3 148 • sq. ft lots enough FAR and lot coverage to remodel their homes to as large as 3,000 sq. ft. (the "target" size), but those who fashioned the new zone had not anticipated that people would opt to tear the older houses down and rebuild. He said that was why FAN homes could be larger than Evergreen homes. He worried the proposed R-6 table would allow an even larger house. The Commissioners pointed out the table assumed the garage was now counted in lot coverage. Staff and Commissioners discussed hypothetical lots in FAN and Evergreen with 24-foot tall house on them. The proposed changes to R-6 allowable lot coverage and the new Maximum Floor Area formula would bring FAN R-6 houses closer to the size of Evergreen R-7.5 houses. The proposed changes gave a FAN site a smaller base floor area and a slightly smaller garage allowance. Staff thought it would encourage more 1.5 story houses in FAN. Mr. Egner reported touring dense neighborhoods in Palo Alto, California where set back garages and driveways separated narrow lots and gave the impression there was more space between them. He said the proposed garage standards encouraged the same thing in our single-family zones. The Commissioners noted the lot coverage tables for the other zones had already been reduced the 5% the Commissioners had asked for. Mr. Egner said there was not much developable R-5 land left in the City. Chair Glisson asked and the Commissioners confirmed they were ready to move forward with them. The Commissioners examined the section of the staff report that highlighted actual examples of infill. One example was a Residential Infill Design (RID) approval located at 111 3328 Lakeview Boulevard. Commissioner Paretchan recalled the RID review process had been improved over time and this house would likely not be approved today. Staff noted that a home located at 3712 South Shore had been included in error (it should have been 3820 South Shore). Commissioner Brockman pointed out how long and tall the house at 1075 Chandler Road was. Staff promised to provide the Commissioners with a summary of RID approvals between 2003 and 2007 and the addresses so they could go look at them. Mr Boone explained the RID section of the code had a provision that required the approved design be equal to or better than what could have been built under the standard code, and it also had a provision that called for a design that was compatible with the neighborhood (which might be composed of nonconforming houses). Mr. Bolland said that RID had been intended to be a way to adjust the new infill standards adopted in 2003, but now it was used to adjust any setback. Commissioner Brockman reported that the Lake Oswego Neighborhood Action Coalition (LONAC) monitored applications and Commissioner Paretchan said she monitored all the pre-applications for sites in her neighborhood. Commissioner Brockman cautioned that approving one RID site encouraged the neighbors to want the same thing and that created a pattern in the area. Commissioner Jones wanted to compare houses approved through RID with what could have been allowed through the variance process. Staff explained that they were very different processes that applied different criteria and limitations. The RID process looked at whether the proposed design was compatible with the neighborhood. Most of the RID sites would not be eligible to use the Class 2 variance process, which required the applicant to prove there was a hardship that prevented them from enjoying 4110 Page 5 of 6 EXHIBIT C-8 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of April 13, 2009 Lifla9P Q,Q53 149 reasonable use of the property and that the requested variance was the minimum 11111 necessary to alleviate it. The Commissioners planned to continue this discussion at a future meeting. VI. OTHER BUSINESS — PLANNING COMMISSION • Work Session/Hearing Deliberation Format The Commissioners had previously discussed how to incorporate public comme into their work sessions. Staff advised that public comment was taken for the r cord at hearings, but not at work sessions. Although notes from a recent to building workshop said their agreement regarding work session format was to disc the issue, then take public comment, the Commissioners agreed to allot a few m' utes for public comments at the beginning of a work session and then conduct the. discussion. If at some point in the discussion a Commissioner recognized that a ember of the public might be able to offer the Planning Commission helpful informatie , the chair could offer the citizen a couple of minutes to present it. Mr. Boone advi.e those comments would not be considered official hearing testimony for the recordt was forwarded to the City Council. He also advised the Commissioners not to deliberate and vote at a work session. They could use a work session to "ty/eak° a proposal and poll the Commissioners. Chair Glisson suggested the Plarri(ng Commission take names at the work session so staff could ensure people who offered comments received hearing notices. She planned to poll the Commission s to determine when they were ready to move forward. The public could submit q stions on comment cards during the work session. • Rolling Agenda • The Commissioners discusse their approach to CDC amendments. They had previously planned to vote 9 the entire package at a final meeting in September. However, Commissioner Pyretchan suggested they first focus on completely addressing RID and send it to the/City Council because it would make a big difference in the community. The Corpmissioners generally agreed to do that and then consider other infill related changes'. / They agreed pat at their next meeting they would vote on Sensitive Lands Findings, then hear a, resentation from a Sustainability Advisory Board representative, then hear the Neighborhood Planners' Commission for Citizen Involvement (CCI) report and hear from nprghborhood association representatives, and finally watch an American Planning Ass9 cation (APA) movie regarding maintaining neighborhood character, if there was titer". The Commissioners agreed to meet two days in a row on May 27' and also on A'lay 28`�, which was the follow-up meeting with their team building consultant. / VV. OTHER BUSINESS — COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT See discussion above. Page 6 of 6 EXHIBIT C-8 • City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of April 13, 2009 1-140A44003 150 • S{Ot IAKI 67-4- /r' City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes d � �e May 1'I, 2009ApP" I. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Philip Stewart, called the Planning Commission meeting of May 11, 2009 to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Members present were Vice Chair Philip Stewart and Commissioners Adrienne Brockman, Jon Gustafson, and Lynne Paretchan. Chair Julia Glisson and Commissioners Russell Jones and Scot Siegel were excused. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager: Laura Weigel, Neighborhood Planner: Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Jean Hall, Administrative Support. 1111 Ill. CITIZEN COMMENT Maria Meneghin, 1179 Sunningdale Road. Chair of the First Addition/Forest .1s Neighborhood Association (FAN), submitted her May 11, 2009 letter and read . aloud. She said nothing in the infill recommendations would reduce the overall e of new homes and house size should be proportional to lot size. She did not ee that houses had to be larger to be marketable and said it was their location that ected value. Gary Buford. 5 Camelot Court, said Oswego Lake was -xcluded from the Sensitive Lands Overlay and the Commission should be ashai33e6 of themselves for applying the overlay to other properties and not to lakefront operties. Commissioner Brockman advised him to express his concern to the Ci ouncil. Joel Christenson, 18311 Lothlorien W y, said his property was proposed to be added to the Sensitive Lands Atlas. Hethat would have an adverse affect on its value and his rights. He said curren rdinances were adequate. He wanted to know what the criteria had been fora mg the district so unequally. Ken Gri s. 1 el Prado, said his house was one of seven properties on Del Prado that woul e affected by the proposed sensitive lands overlay. The owners were conce d about the impact on property values. He also questioned the criteria and iod of drawing the resource protection boundaries. A woman in the audience said she was his neighbor and agreed with his comments. • EXHIBIT C-9 LU 08-0053 Page tlaofC2wego Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-9 Mirutes of May 11, 2009 LU O IO55'3 151 At the upcoming joint meeting the Planning Commissioners wanted to hear from the i.ty- • Council what the Councilors saw as their top issues and priorities and atus of visioning, sensitive lands outreach and whether forming a stan - e CCI should be considered. They wanted to arrange another joint work on to discuss larger policy issues. The City Council had already sche !eel eir own work session in June to discuss sensitive lands outreach, b tanning Commission would tell them they were also concerned about e Commissioners agreed to discuss the questions on Ms. Weigel's hand a future meeting when more Planning Commission members were pre . ice Chair Stewart announced a short break and thereafter reconvened eeting. VIII. WORK SESSION Proposed CDC Amendments: Ordinance 2524, LU 08-0053 - Community Development Code/lnfill Amendments. Amends portions of the Community Development Code, Chapter 50 for the purpose of enhancing the compatibility of infill development and clarification. On April 13, 2009 the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to June 22. 2009. This work session was to discuss the following items in depth: • Lot Coverage and Floor Area (Section 2) • Structure Design and Setback Planes (Section 3) • Yard Setbacks (Section 4) Public Comments Richard Reamer, 398 Furnace Street. Chair of the Old Town Neighborhood, questioned • whether the sloped lot change was fair. He said there were many sloped lots on Furnace Street. He asked why a steeply sloped lot could feature a house that was almost a story (10 feet) higher than the normal 35-foot height limit when there could be room underneath for a basement anyway. He also questioned allowing a 4-foot height increase. Mr. Egner clarified that the 4-foot height increase was only allowed in First Addition Neighbors/Forest Hills (FAN's) R-6 zone. It was intended to correct the current situation where builders excavated in order to have a lower profile house that maximized lot coverage. Commissioner Paretchan saw a need to make it clearer to readers that it only applied in the R-6 zone. She saw the need to be clearer about where the other changes applied too. Commissioner Brockman recalled seeing many sloped lots that had enough flat area for a house, she also questioned allowing the extra height. However, Mr. Boone clarified that a "steeply sloped" lot was one where there was a 10-foot change in grade between the foundation walls (not across the lot). Mr. Reamer acknowledged that the neighborhood was primarily concerned about one particular lot that could present a radial change to the neighborhood if the house were 45 feet high. Mr. Egner said staff would include a finding that certain code standards that were adjusted by the infill changes were not applicable in Old Town's Design District zone so future readers would know it had not been overlooked. Staff confirmed that the Old Town Design District overlay and the Evergreen overlay would trump general code. They advised that Old Town was in a separate zone (the Design District) that allowed taller buildings than the general code did. However, the Old Town Design District also applied special design rules and required design review for compatibility. 411 ft9g aaggawego Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-9 Minutes of May 11, 2009 LUF$I .00 3 152 • i',lt Ol lAKl r.q* .\ \� City of Lake Oswego ; ' ill 1 , Planning Commission Minutes O�ell r ______") \ I:_, ApP , May27, 2009 I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Julia Glisson called the Planning Commission meeting of May 27, 2009 to order at approximately 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 380 "A" Avenue: Lake Oswego, Oregon. Members present were Chair Julia Glisson, Vice Chair Philip Stewart and Commissioners Adrianne Brockman, Jon Gustafson, Russell Jones, and Lynne Paretchan. Scott Siegel was excused. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Support. I1. CITIZEN COMMENT None. - fir-- __III. MINUTES • �-- Commissioner Brockman to approve the Minutes of April 27, 2009. Comm� is�s-i-on�L .Jo seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. Commissioner PaFetcrrarl Was not present during the vote. IV. WORK SESSION Ordinance 2524, LU 08-0053 - Community Development Code - Infill Amendments The public hearing had been continued to June 22, 2009 at the April 13. 2009 Planning Commission meeting. This work session was to discuss the following items: • Lot Coverage/Floor Area (Section 2) • Structure Design /setback Planes (Section 3) • Yard Setbacks (Section 4) Motion Commissioner Brockman made the following motion and explained that she made it because she felt the Planning Commission had been too slow to move important recommendations forward to the City Council during the past year and a half. 1. The adopted Residential Infill Development (RID) provisions in the Code be- e. Deleted from the Code as the provisions apply to new development. b. Modified to apply to true remodels (at least 60% of the structure remains), and that Commissioner Gustafson and Vice Chair Stewart bring the Commission some proposals. 11111 Pkqeftlicf®swego Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-10 EXHIBIT C-10 Minutes of May 27, 2009 LU 08-0053 LU b-b53? 153 2. The house sizes as proposed by the Infill Committee be reduced 15% in the R-5, • R-6, R-7.5 and R-10 zones. This means that all standards be reduced 15% except for building height. 3. A very expedited design review process be adopted and applied to the long, narrow, houses that will look into the neighbors' front and rear yards. The Infill Committee did not address this issue. Staff was to put together a proposal that included the review process; the factors that triggered the process; and the criteria for evaluating the proposal,with the emphasis on privacy. 4. Any auxiliary building having a second story that the Code allows must meet the setback requirements of the zone for the primary dwelling, except where the auxiliary building is located on an alley. In that case. the setback abutting the alley can be modified as provided in the proposed Infill Code language. 5. The Planning Commission would continue to look at the building height issue as it applied to sloped lots. Vice Chair Stewart and Commissioner Gustafson would review the proposed Code language with staff and report back to the Planning Commission with any recommendations they found to be necessary. 6. The Planning Commission would look at garages: How they related to Floor Area Ratio (FAR), lot coverage, etc. Commissioner Jones seconded the motion and discussion followed. Commissioner Brockman explained that she had hoped her motion would spur the kind of discussion that would reveal where the Commissioners had a meeting of minds and could begin to dispose of an issue. She recalled that the Commissioners had seen an example of a result of a RID review where 37% lot coverage had been allowed even though the Code limited it to 25%. They had also seen an example of a 120 foot long and 20 foot high house that looked into the neighbors' yard. She stressed the review • process should be very expedited and focused; the "trigger" would be impact on privacy: and the criteria would emphasize privacy. She advised the Commissioners to focus on policy — not manipulating the numbers - so they could get their work done. They should rely on the work the Infill Task Force had already done. Vice Chair Stewart was willing to support all components except the 15% reduction because he wanted more time to think about how to allow houses on very large lots to be a little larger. He agreed the Commissioners should focus more on policy than on `word-smithing." Commissioner Jones was not sure a 15% reduction was enough to address the concern that infill was too large. Commissioner Gustafson said he shared Commissioner Brockman's frustration that things were going so slow, but it was important to take it step-by-step and it was too soon to get rid of RID. He indicated that the Planning Commission should first decide how strict the other standards should be. It was also mentioned that to reduce Infill Task Force recommendations by another 15% might increase the need to have a RID process as a "safety valve." Chair Glisson saw a need to first make decisions that would lead up to the RID discussion. Chair Glisson and Commissioners Gustafson and Jones agreed that Commissioner Brockman had done a good job of highlighting the six biggest infill issues the Planning Commission had to address. Mr. Boone advised that the RID process was already the most "expedited" land use process the City had. Staff made a tentative decision and if there were no public comments during the 15-day comment period, the decision became final. The onus was on the applicant to work with the neighbors ahead of time to ensure there were no public comments. Commissioner Brockman anticipated there would not be much call for the review she proposed because there were only a few houses - about ten, long, skinny, houses — that caused the problem. She wanted a process that gave quick notice limited to those who were truly affected, and any appeal was to be directly to the Land Use • PiNef244 sswego Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-10 Minutes of May 27, 2009 LU itistobt 154 • Board of Appeals (LUBA). She believed that would ease neighbors' fears about what could happen next to them and encourage property owners to create a flaglot instead of two, long, skinny, lots. Commissioner Jones suggested recommending that the City Council place a moratorium on the RID process until the Planning Commission could address it He said the problem might stem from the way the Code language was interpreted. Mr. Egner reported that the number of RID cases per year depended on the level of development activity, and RID was currently being used more for remodeling projects than for new development. Commissioner Brockman reported Lake Oswego Neighborhood Action Coalition (LONAC) was concerned about the number of RID cases. Commissioner Paretchan suggested the Commission table the motion. prioritize addressing the RID issue, and forward a recommendation to the City Council as soon as possible. Chair Glisson asked staff to change the schedule to reflect that. Commissioner Paretchan suggested the Commission direct staff to propose an expedited process to address whatever a long. narrow, house was to be defined as. She wanted them to provide a report that helped her understand how the Code addressed auxiliary buildings. Commissioner Brockman did not want to make exceptions to the setbacks for auxiliary buildings, such as a second story unit over a garage. Mr. Egner clarified that the proposed Code changes were specific to First Addition Neighbors/Forest Hills Neighborhood Association (FAN) secondary accessory structures. FAN had different standards for accessory dwelling units than other zones. How close they could be to the property line depended on the structure's height and how it was • being used. "Accessory structures" included accessory dwellings, garages, and sheds. A very small accessory structure could be as close as three feet from the property line. Commissioner Jones explained he was concerned about "mother-in-law' apartments. Commissioner Gustafson agreed with applying different setbacks. He related that when he designed a garage with an apartment on a lot in FAN he learned that if the structure was higher than 18 feet height it had to meet regular setbacks. The only "break" allowed was for structures like a detached garage or shed that he agreed should be allowed to be closer to the alley. Disposition of Motion Chair Glisson observed the Commissioners were talking about a big shift in approach that she wanted the Commissioners to talk about the following night. She wanted them to think about creating a work plan that would help them make efficient; but careful, work progress. The one exception was to move RID consideration to the next meeting. The consensus was to prioritize work on RID and table the rest of the items in the motion until the Commissioners had reconsidered their work plan. Lot Coverage, Floor Area, Setbacks and Setback Planes The Commissioners examined the Maximum Lot Coverage — R-6 Zone table in Supplemental Report #5, dated May 11, 2009. They corrected the lot coverage for a 24- foot high structure on a 7.000 — 8,500 sq. ft. lot to 36%. Chair Glisson observed a consensus that they were comfortable with the corrected table. It allowed more lot coverage for lower structures in the smallest lot category. That met their goal to allow the owner of a very small, 6,000 sq. ft., lot to enjoy almost as large a footprint as the owner of an 8.000 sq. ft. lot. Pagef3_airE Oswego Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-10 Minutes of May 27, 2009 LU *O5fS 155 Mr. Egner asked the Commissioners if the 15% across the board reduction • Commissioner Brockman had proposed in her motion would apply to this table. Did they want all the lot coverage percentages reduced by another 15%? Chair Glisson said the Planning Commission had taken them down enough already. Vice Chair Stewart calculated that the table would allow a slightly less than 7.000 sq. ft. lot to have more square feet of lot coverage than a lot with slightly more than 7,000 sq. ft. The Commissioners wanted to know if that might create problems in FAN, and how many people would be affected? Mr. Egner confirmed that FAN had been uniformly platted with 60 x 120 lots, but there were some odd-sized lots there too. The Commissioners then examined Supplemental Report #4. Staff explained they had adjusted Floor Area formulas so the resulting houses were 5% smaller than what the Infill Task Force recommended. Commissioner Jones questioned whether 5% was enough to keep houses from being too large. Jim Bolland explained that many people had asked the Infill Task Force to address the issue of infill that was too big. He said the Infill Task Force did not want to reduce the sizes of houses and the Code formula was actually the same as the one the original Infill Task Force had come up with. Chair Glisson suggested not modifying the existing formula until after the Planning Commission had discussed broader policy issues and understood what other Code components such a change would impact. Commissioner Brockman cautioned that was the formula that had failed to control infill that people were objecting to today. Vice Chair Stewart indicated he preferred to apply a formula rather than deal with a lot of different percentages. Commissioner Jones wanted to see graphs that compared the sizes of the houses infill replaced with the proposed sizes of infill before he decided how much allowable infill FAR should be reduced. Commissioner • Brockman recalled that some Infill Task Force members had assumed that all existing houses were potential teardowns. She anticipated the current economic climate would result in more remodeling. Mr. Egner pointed out that R-7.5 zone houses began to exceed 2,000 sq. ft. in the late 1990s. He said there was a wide range of lot sizes and shapes in the R-7.5 and R-10 zones, but the zone's standards applied to them all. Commissioners Jones and Brockman suggested some neighborhoods might want to keep houses small enough to leave yards big enough for kids to play in. Mr. Bolland suggested the Commissioners look at the analysis of Lake Grove neighborhood lots that consultant Ron Kellett had done for the first Infill Task Force. There were many different sizes and shapes of lots in Lake Grove. He recalled there was a time when people had not built their homes as large as the zoning would allow. Chair Glisson announced a short break and thereafter reconvened the work session. Commissioner Jones said he was having a hard time deciding if. or how much. allowable FAR should be reduced. Vice Chair Stewart said that infill should be in context with surrounding houses, so they were neither too large nor too small. and were compatible in terms of volume, scale and mass. Commissioner Gustafson noted that a smaller house could also be of offensive design. Mr. Egner recalled the Infill Task Force had concluded that size was usually not the problem. Mr. Bolland said they had not considered the relationship of infill to the houses around it. Commissioner Brockman thought people had not built as big as they could have in past times because they wanted setbacks. Mr. Bolland agreed the key was sideyard setbacks. He added that some "bizarre' house designs were the result of attempts to meet the clear and objective standards of the Code. He suggested the solution might be to have staff ask each applicant to bring in photographs of surrounding existing homes and use a design handbook to help them • PC ef4Ot Oswego Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-10 Minutes of May 27, 2009 LU o3 156 • understand what would best fit those surroundings. The handbook could even show what designs were appropriate for specific neighborhoods. The Commissioners were not yet ready to specify what FAR would be appropriate. Commissioner Jones wanted to be able to compare the FAR of infill with the FAR the infill had replaced. He said the graphs only showed half the picture. Such data was not readily available, but Commissioner Brockman said she would bring photographs to the next meeting that showed infill and what was around it. The Commissioners were not ready to draw any specific guidelines regarding either side yard setbacks or side yard planes, so Mr. Egner offered to present a slide show at the next meeting to explain design standards. Background material and design concepts related to how to push the building form around on a lot were also described in Supplemental Reports #3 and #4. Mr. Egner related the Infill Task Force had not wanted to preclude someone from building a Cape Cod style house in FAN. Increasing setback requirements might make that a challenge. Mr. Bolland said a builder had built a Cape Cod house in FAN that was smaller than a typical ''spec" house, but it fit the neighborhood. Commissioner Brockman suggested applying tighter controls to structures larger than 1.5 stories. Mr. Bolland and Mr. Egner explained the Code required the combined total of side yard setbacks to be at least 15 feet, but the Infill Task Force recommended increasing the minimum on one side from 5-feet to 7.5 feet so there was more than 10 feet of separation between houses. Mr. Bolland cautioned not to reduce the existing sideyard setback because it could be "automatically" reduced up to 20% more via a Class 1 Variance. Commissioner Paretchan recalled there were exceptions to the side yard setback for things like fireplaces and bay windows. She asked staff to list all the exceptions to setback limits. Mr. Egner pointed out they were in the Housekeeping Amendments reports. • Vice Chair Stewart suggested encouraging houses to be staggered front to back on their lots, but Commissioner Brockman worried that could result in a loss of neighbors' backyard privacy. Commissioner Paretchan recalled that in her neighborhood house placement varied because of factors such as topography and lot shape. Some were not adjacent to any other house. She wanted the standards to be flexible, but she said they should be at least five feet wide so there was room for firefighters to carry equipment around the house. Commissioner Jones advocated for a larger side yard setback — perhaps 10 feet. He said that would address the vast majority of lots, even though it might seem a little restrictive on a few narrow lots. He did not want to fashion code by exception. Chair Glisson supported larger setbacks too, because she had noticed that current setbacks left little room for landscaping and landscaping might give people more privacy. Mr. Bolland reported that some side yards in FAN were too narrow to allow a person to move a trashcan around the house to the alley for garbage pickup. Mr. Egner and Mr. Bolland clarified the only setbacks the Infill Task Force proposed to adjust to 7.5 feet were in the R-6 zone, and the total, combined side yard setback requirement would remain 15 feet. The R-7.5 zone allowed setbacks as small as 5 feet if the building was not over 18 feet high. That standard was not proposed to be changed. Mr. Bolland explained that Forest Hills had found that 29 of their 250 existing lots were subdividable and because they did not want any more flag lots in their neighborhood, they had contemplated allowing new lots to be as much as 20°%o narrower so the owners had an alternative to flag lots. He said the Infill Task Force had also discussed that issue and proposed allowing lots to be a little narrower, so owners were not forced to flag lots. Commissioner Brockman was concerned about creating more long, skinny lots. 4111/ P igef5 Of Oswego Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-10 Minutes of May 27, 2009 LU ollikkbqS 157 The Commissioners then considered sideyard setback planes. Mr. Egner clarified the 11111 Code currently applied a front setback plane, but no side setback plane. The Commissioners were surprised that the current Code had allowed a particular long, skinny, house on South Shore Boulevard to be built. They surmised the designer had created a two-story house with a little notch in it to make it "legal." The Code likely was not strict enough to ensure it would be a true story and a half. They felt the upper story of a two-story house should be stepped back a sufficient enough distance to ensure the house did not seem to tower over its neighbors. Mr. Borland blamed the RID process for problems like that. Commissioner Brockman planned to bring photos to the next meeting that showed what a difference a side setback plane made. The Planning Commission looked forward to seeing Commissioner Brockman's photographs and Commissioner Gustafson's illustrations of side setback to height relationships at the next meeting. The Commissioners discussed setback planes that would apply to the side yards of corner lots. Mr. Egner explained if both street sides were subject to the front setback plane many houses would end up with the same roof form. He noted it might kick in due to an upper floor addition. Commissioner Gustafson and Mr. Egner planned to test the standard on existing infill to see how it would work. Mr. Bolland asked the Planning Commission to eliminate the rule that if remodeling added 50% or more value to the house, the entire house had to comply with current standards. Mr. Boone advised that only the area of construction in the area of nonconformity had to comply. Supplemental Report #3 described proposed alternatives to breaking up a side yard wall 1111 plane on a corner lot. One option was landscaped screening using specified plant units. The Commissioners observed the next owner might put in different landscaping. V. FINDINGS, CONCLUSOINS AND ORDER LU 08-0051-C Commissioner Brockman moved to approve LU 08-0051-C. Findings, Conclusions and Order. Commissioner Gustafson seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. VI. OTHER BUSINESS — PLANNING COMMISSION Rolling Agenda The Commissioners planned to discuss RID at their June 89' meeting. Staff explained that they were waiting to hear how mediation efforts between the Evergreen Neighborhood Association and Our Lady of the Lake Church worked out before they proposed changes to institutional standards related to lot coverage and setbacks from arterial streets. Mr. Bolland reported that the neighborhood felt pressured by the City to settle the matter before there was any application before the Planning Commission. He asked who was paying for the mediator. He related that he was keeping LONAC updated on the matter — particularly about its community wide impact. He said he understood the majority of the neighborhood association members did not support a change. He was concerned about the citywide impact of the changes. He noted the Chamber of Commerce had gotten involved in the matter, and its CEO was a deacon of the church. He advised the Planning Commission to call a "time out." Mr. Egner Rbigef6abf 6swego Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-10 Minutes of May 27, 2009 LU V541653 158 0 1-"E �`° 1714,` City of Lake Oswego 0 ` ' Yp`' Planning Commission Minutes r0 ved ��\ �"�`"- June 8, 2009 APP CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Julia Glisson called the Planning Commission meeting of June 8, 2009 to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 380 "A"Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Members present were Chair Glisson, Vice Chair Philip Stewart and Commissioners Adrianne Brockman, Jon Gustafson, Russell Jones and Lynne Paretchan. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Denise Frisbee, Planning and Building Services Director; Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Support. III. CITIZEN COMMENT None. IV. MINUTES Commissioner Brockman moved to ptareve Ifte —Minutes of May 11, 2009. Commissioner Gustafantied the motion and it passed 4:0. Commissioner Jones abstain . V. WORK SESSION Ordinance 2524, LU 08-0053— Community Development Code—Infill Amendments The public hearing had been continued to June 22, 2009 at the April 13, 2009, Planning Commission meeting. This work session was to discuss the following items: • RID (Section 6) • Lot Coverage/Floor Area (Section 2) • Structure Design/Setback Planes (Section 3) • Yard Setbacks (Section 4) Vice Chair Stewart announced that he had a conflict of interest and recused himself from participating in Planning Commission consideration of the Residential Infill Design (RID) process. On June 2, 2009, staff and a Planning Commission subcommittee drafted an approach to address infill issues. It proposed ten steps, starting with an examination of a staff summary of proposed infill amendments and the background material used by the Infill Task Force. The examination was to help the Commissioners gain a better understanding of the full package of infill amendments and help them be better prepared iMtge ilati¢Owego Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-11 XHIBIT C-11 Minutes of June 8, 2009 VRIEleCiOt3 LU 08-0053 159 to make policy decisions. Then the Planning Commission would identify broad policy • issues, determine what "filters" would be used to review infill issues, and what objectives (such as privacy; sustainability; compatibility; and flexibility) the effort was to try to achieve. What was meant by "sustainability" still had to be determined. Staff reviewed the 'Summary of Proposed Community Development Code Amendments for Infill' (Exhibit F-1) which had been provided to the Planning Commission in September. The Commissioners then discussed the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Brockman wanted assurance that a neighbor could state their case during the RID process and appeal the decision. Staff explained the idea was that the applicant would talk to the neighbors to ensure they did not object, because if someone objected that prolonged the process. If there was no objection, the process was similar to that for a minor development or Class 1 variance. Staff Report Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager, and Debra Andreades, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Egner recalled that the original Infill Task Force had seen a need for a Residential Infill Development (RID) process. He said it was intended to provide an alternative method of allowing construction of a compatible house that did not meet the new Will Code standards. He noted that the second Infill Task Force found RID was being used to allow bigger houses. so they recommended narrowing its scope and not allowing it to be used to adjust Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and lot coverage. Staff had put together a summary of RID cases and decisions from the first case after RID was adopted in 2004 until May 2009. Ms. Andreades talked about her experience with the RID process. She reported that staff had redirected many applicants to the • variance process and had simply discouraged some people from filing applications that were likely to be denied. She said that staff looked at the compatibility of the design of the entire house and not just the proposed addition. She said many RID applicants' houses were already nonconforming (they were in a setback or over allowable lot coverage or FAR) and that staff implemented the criteria by looking at the design of the entire house in determining whether the applicant was proposing better design, thus "legalizing" h g the entire, previouslynonconforminghouse.9 She explained that a RID approval of a 20% exception to lot coverage might actually be legalizing all the existing nonconformities. She said the RID process had "evolved" since it was first used. Staff had tightened up the analysis of compatibility and whether the result was a better design. They worked with applicants to whittle down the number of exceptions. Because of that it had become a longer process, especially when RID advisors recommended modification of the design in an attempt to make it more compatible with a neighborhood. Commissioner omm ssioner Brockman was concerned about RID approval of a specific house se on Lakeview where lot coverage had been allowed to expand to 37%. Ms. Andreades explained this house met the sideyard setbacks when many other houses along Lakeview did not. The bulk of the house was distributed down the hill towards the lake. and was not as close to neighbors. It was close to the street but that was normal for houses on Lakeview. Commissioner Paretchan saw a need to explore that rationale P later. Ms. Andreades noted that the question to be answered was whether it was better to allow the mass of a house on Lakeview Boulevard to be closer to the street or pushed back down the hill. Chair Glisson observed RID decisions that were not consistent in rationale. Ms. Andreades explained each decision considered the particular neighborhood in which the site was located. IntsiefQaisf 6swego Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-11 Minutes of June 8, 2009 Lu teeobS 160 • Commissioner Gustafson talked about the purposes of RID. He indicated it was easy to agree that it was worthwhile to provide an alternative when code standards conflicted with or prevented development that would be compatible with the character of the neighborhood. He said it was easy to agree it was worthwhile to ensure that new development was consistent with the character of and compatible with surrounding development. He said it was harder to understand how to prove that development would be "equal or better than" development that was otherwise allowed under the Code. He offered illustrations of a house that he said would have been allowed without RID, but added the house that was built was more compatible with houses around it because of RID approval. He concluded that it made sense to compare RID houses to adjacent houses. Mr. Boone confirmed that staff did not apply the "equal or better" standard by trying to imagine a hypothetical neighboring structure with the worst design that could be achieved under the clear and objective standards of the code - they compared the proposed design to existing surrounding houses. Commissioner Paretchan suggested the impacted "neighborhood" should include passing drivers who might see the design. When asked, Ms. Andreades reported that the only party who had ever appealed a RID decision had been an applicant (17600 Upper Cherry). She added that in another case, although not appealed, a neighbor had called the City Manager about a RID approval at 3492 Lakeview and that approval had been voided by action of the City Manager. She clarified that the reason the decision was called a tentative decision was because if any comments came in during the public comment period the case would have to be reviewed again. taking the comments into account and a final decision would then be issued. For this reason, an applicant was encouraged to talk to neighbors about the project at the outset of the process. Commissioner Paretchan said she had submitted • comments about a RID project on Cedar Road during the comment period, but she would have preferred to submit them before staff was vested in their decision. She suggested the RID notice radius should be the same as for the variance process, which was 300 feet. Staff clarified that although staff had only used RID for single-family development the code stated that it was applicable to any outright permitted residential dwelling. If the Commissioners wanted to limit it to single-family, detached, houses and duplexes (not townhouses or condos) they needed to specify that. Commissioner Brockman said the proposed approval criteria was a vast improvement, especially because of provisions that called for consideration of the character of neighbors and neighborhood. Mr. Boone clarified that staff would look at how the neighborhood plan described character, and he advised that a neighborhood plan overlay was zoning. f The Commissioners discussed whether accessory structure provisions were too flexible. Commissioner Brockman thought they were. She said the variance process would be better protection for neighbors from impacts like noisy workshops that encroached into setbacks. Commissioner Paretchan was reluctant to put more limits on accessory structures because they helped break up the mass of houses. Commissioner Jones was concerned about what accessory structures would be used for. He said someone might build a garage and then put a rental unit on top of it that would not have met the setbacks for such a unit. Staff explained that there were different standards for accessory buildings and accessory dwelling units. A secondary dwelling unit. whether it was a garage apartment or not, was a residential structure that could be processed via R1D. Commissioner Paretchan noted that differentiation was a policy issue to discuss later. • I gef 331Ofc6wego Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-11 Minutes of June 8, 2009 LU 3 161 Mr. Boone recalled a RID decision that legalized an existing, longstanding, use of a • guesthouse as a secondary dwelling unit. He explained that the original house had a variance to the front yard setback for access purposes and that a new review had been necessary to legalize the secondary dwelling unit. The rationale for approval had been that the proposed use did not change the activity level, parking requirement, design or impact on the street and neighbors, who had become used to that use over 20 years. Mr. Boone advised that infill standards controlled garage appearance. He said a Community Development Code (CDC) update was proposed to define and clarify what was an attached garage: would features like connecting latticework make it an attached garage? Mr. Egner explained the limits on accessory structures. They had to be lower than the primary structure on a residential lot. Accessory structures could be garages, shops and sheds. If they were over 18 feet high they were subject to greater setbacks. Accessory structures and secondary dwelling units were each subject to an 800 sq. ft. limit. Both were allowed as long as the lot coverage was met. Commissioner Jones worried that "mother-in-law" apartments were not subject to the same setbacks as the primary residence was. Mr. Egner advised they were subject to specific standards for such units, including a requirement for a parking space. Chair Glisson announced a short break and thereafter reconvened the work session. Mr. Egner cautioned that limiting the ability to use RID to adjust FAR and lot coverage might discourage people from remodeling and result in more teardowns. Commissioner Brockman suggested also looking into whether the percentage of value threshold discouraged remodeling. Staff clarified the following points: • If code changes suddenly made an existing house "nonconforming," it was • "grandfathered" in. • Subsequent changes to the house could not increase the degree of nonconformity, otherwise the area of change that affected the nonconforming part had to be brought into compliance with the code. • Code compliance could be achieved with a variance or though the RID process. • RID approval legalized more than just the addition — it legalized the entire house when the design was compatible with the neighborhood. • The approved RID design could not be changed without City approval. • Future owners saw the RID conditions of approval on the title. • A proposed Community Development Code (CDC) update would put a three-year time limit on approvals so construction had to be substantially complete within three years. Commissioner Gustafson reasoned that "spec" house builders would opt to build according to the code rather than bear the expense and gamble on an uncertain RID process outcome, so most applicants would use it to add a deck or remodel. Staff pointed out a lot of RID sites were on the lakefront or canal. Staff said the Infill Task Force had not taken a position on whether to allow the garages there to be in the front yard setback. Ms. Andreades differentiated between a variance, which did not consider design, and RID, which did. However, Mr. Boone advised that the mitigation aspect of variance approval did allow the City to look for a design of the garage to minimize impacts on neighbors. P gef4aOf 6swego Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-11 • Minutes of June 8, 2009 LU lime 3 162 Commissioner Gustafson saw some things the Commissioners could agree on: notifying neighbors before the tentative RID decisions were made; notifying a larger radius of owners; and lowering the appeal fee. Mr. Boone advised that there was no appeal fee between the tentative decision and the final decision. Commissioner Paretchan said the 14-day comment period seemed too short. Mr. Boone advised it was the same as in the variance process and the neighborhood association was notified of the preapplication conference. Commissioner Paretchan suggested the rule that neighbors could not attend the preapplication conference unless they had special training should be dropped. Ms. Andreades explained the first preapplication conference was held before the applicant got RID advice, and the neighborhood was invited to that, but the second preapplication conference was essentially a design meeting between the applicant and the architect advisors. When asked, she advised that the fee for appealing a staff decision to a hearing body was $514. Commissioner Jones said that would discourage public comment or dissent. Mr. Boone said it encouraged people to raise their issues right away and not wait until a DRC hearing, however, if someone paid the appeal fee, they did not have to explain why until the DRC hearing. Chair Glisson said it would be best to get the notice out early and let the noticed neighbors and neighborhood association attend the preapplication conference. Commissioner Gustafson suggested inviting anyone who had submitted comments. Mr. Egner clarified the infill advisers were architects who were hired as design consultants and they were considered an extension of staff. He said they were not a hearing body. Staff said that passage of the Infill ordinance in 2003 had created many nonconforming structures. Commissioner Paretchan observed the proposed criteria on page 8 of the Infill Task Force recommendations were subjective, not objective, standards. She indicated she wanted a code that worked without the need to "RID" existing • nonconformity. The Commissioners again discussed whether to remove exceptions to side yard setbacks or even increase the minimum setback from 5 feet to 7.5 feet. Mr. Boone suggested applying any new minimum setback to new construction and offering a special type of exception that would allow an existing, nonconforming house with a zero setback to use RID to ensure the whole house was compatible with the neighborhood and legalize existing nonconformities. He added that "nonconforming" did not necessarily mean 'incompatible." When asked, he clarified that simply having a nonconforming house did not trigger the variance or RID process and owners could expand a nonconforming house in a conforming manner. Ms. Andreades observed that sometimes it made more sense to build a new bathroom on the nonconforming side rather than the conforming side, Mr. Egner added that the Class 1 variance process was relatively easy and it also had a compatibility component. Commissioner Brockman did not want to build a system of exceptions. She said the Commissioners should talk about what standards they wanted to allow to vary, and under what circumstances, and what the tests and limits were to be. She was concerned about the increases in height and lot coverage the City was allowing. Commissioner Gustafson said if houses were all approved in the RID design review process the City would have better-looking houses than those that met clear and objective standards. He liked Commissioner Brockman's idea to differentiate between new and remodeled houses. He thought the fact that there seemed to be just a few bad infill houses showed the process was working. He added that many people were using it to get approval for their additions and it assured they fit. Chair Glisson worried that other owners would want 42% lot coverage after one owner got it. Now that she knew that staff was legalizing nonconformities it seemed even more important to ensure the code • age`5abf awego Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-11 Minutes of June 8, 2009 L U 484415 163 did not allow them to do whatever it took to do that. She said a safety valve was a good thing, but there should be limits on what it could allow. Commissioner Gustafson stressed that the most sustainable building practice was saving existing homes by encouraging remodeling. Commissioner Paretchan asked if something not visible from the street had to be compatible with the neighborhood? Chair Glisson recalled the lake shoreline had changed over the years because houses got closer to the lake. Mr. Boone raised the issue of serial remodeling to get around the 50% threshold trigger. He suggested establishing a time interval between remodels so a project did not become a series of remodeling projects. When Commissioner Gustafson asked, Mr. Egner guessed that over the past ten years there had been 10 new RID houses built out of a total of 500 new houses. Commissioner Paretchan asked staff to report how many variances were approved during the same time period as the RID cases report. Mr. Egner observed the Commissioners wanted to make a distinction between new houses and a relief valve for remodels and make it easier to remodel and not tear down. fvlr. Boone cautioned that might make it easier to get more with a remodeling project than the owner would get with a new house. Chair Glisson suggested there should be such an incentive. Commissioner Brockman said if someone could not remodel their house they should sell it and buy another one, rather than tear it down and impact the whole neighborhood. VI. OTHER BUSINESS — PLANNING COMMISSION • Rolling Agenda The Commissioners discussed the upcoming agenda. Staff had provided the Sumry • of Proposed Community Development Code amendments for Infill and wanted JO know what additional material the Commissioners wanted. Chair Glisson observed the Commissioners wanted to look at and understand the big picture befor they started fashioning details. Until that evening she had not known the extent R�was being used for remodels. Commissioner Gustafson agreed they should disc ss general concepts such as whether infill houses should be smaller. Chair Gil on and Commissioner Paretchan asked staff to explain in more detail how was used to address nonconformity. Commissioner Paretchan asked if staff uld offer a better method of showing changes so she would know what had been ranged as they issued each new draft version of the Rolling Agenda. Ms. Frisbee id staff would find a way to highlight changes. The Planning Commission was sche ed to discuss the question of allowable lot coverage for institutional uses on Ju 137 Ms. Frisbee confirmed that staff was in the process of identifying and listing/al the related issues, including some raised at a recent Lake Oswego Neighborhoodpction Coalition (LONAC) meeting. Mr. Boone explained that federal laws required,-t e City to apply land use regulations the same way for religious and non-religp s institutions, but the Code did not do that. He advised the Planning Commiss to consider why or why not allowable lot coverage should be different for a religious school than for a public school. He needed direction in order to know what theCity's position was if a religious institution applicant took the issue to court. CQfnmissioner Gustafson suggested a ''stop-gap" measure to simply lower allow: lot coverage for public schools in the Public Function Zone to 25% until the Planing Commission had more time to address the issue. Staff clarified that existing „pdblic schools used less than 25% lot coverage, but it was possible that two of them that P of6af 6swego Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-11 • Minutes of June 8, 2009 LU lifeActiad 164 0 ` LAKE p SWfC- (' i;101► �► � City of Lake Oswegoed Planning Commission Minutes rO' IsmosINIP June 22, 2009 AP 0RFGON CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Julia Glisson called the Planning Commission meeting of June 22, 2009 to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 380 "A' Avenue, Lake Oswego. Oregon. Members present were Chair Julia Glisson, Vice Chair Philip Stewart and Commissioners Adrianne Brockman, Jon Gustafson, Russell Jones and Lynne Paretchan. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Support. II. CITIZEN COMMENT Jerry Offer. OTAK Inc.. 17355 Boones Ferry Road; and Michael Du n, 2 ana Place. Portland. Oregon. 97225, owner of R & M Ma ' epair, submitted a letter from 19 owners of property in th iat Park (IP) District around the Boones Ferry RoadfPilkin to eeseC n. They asked the Planning Commission to initiate an 111 -appfic -ion to create a subdistrict of the IP zone there that would allow more uses. III. PUBLIC HEARING AND WORK SESSION LU 08-0053, Ordinance 2523 — Comprehensive Plan — Infill Amendments LU 08-0053, Ordinance 2524 - Community Development Code— Infill Amendments This public hearing had been continued to June 22, 2009 at the April 13, 2009 Planning Commission meeting, Chair Glisson opened the hearing and moved to continue LU 08-0053, Ordinances 2523 and 2524 to October 12, 2009. Commissioner Paretchan seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. Work Session — Infill Work Plan Staff had given the Commissioners copies of the background material that had been used by the Infill Task Force. The Commissioners generally agreed to consider the broader issues first; before they got into the details of infill amendments. Staff said a subcommittee had suggested an approach and objectives to use as filters. The suggested objectives were Privacy, Sustainability; Compatibility; and Flexibility. The Commissioners generally agreed to compare each of the Infill Task Force recommended amendments with the objectives. But first, they discussed whether the proposed objectives were relevant. EXHIBIT C-12 • LU 08-0053 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of June 22. 2009 Page 1 of 6 Page 1 of 6 EXHIBIT C-12 LU 08-0053 165 Privacy: This was more of an issue on smaller lots than on larger lots and for taller • houses than ranch style houses. Height and side plane controls might ensure windows did not allow views that intruded on neighbors . Landscaping and topography were factors too. Commissioner Gustafson said the best way to assure privacy was site- specific design review. Sustainability: The proposed amendments did not address this at all, but the Commissioners would keep sustainability in mind when they considered things like how the typically larger paved area necessary for a side-loading garage affected drainage. Mr. Boone advised that existing building regulations called for addressing runoff on site as much as possible. The Commissioners suggested offering bonus-like incentives for using sustainable practices and limiting the amount of allowable permeable surface. Commissioner Gustafson suggested making it easier to remodel a house than to tear it down and considering "green" building standards like those used in Boulder, Colorado. Compatibility: This was hard to define. It might be achieved by buffering houses with vegetation, but perhaps using landscaping was just mitigating bad design. The Bay Creek development showed that the way side planes were shaped helped. A change of siding materials (instead of an offset) might help break up a sidewall plane. Commissioner Jones wanted to avoid basing the compatibility of an infill house on how it related to other infill. He said it should be compared to existing smaller neighborhood houses. He suggested requiring design review of houses over a certain lot coverage or floor area. Chair Glisson suggested the neighborhood overlay could control compatibility. Commissioner Gustafson suggested keeping the Residential Infill Design (RID) process to assure compatibility. The Commissioners looked at the summary of proposed infill amendments staff had prepared for them. They went over each category of amendments and tried to prioritize them with the goal to address priority issues first. In the end, they decided to try to use their time as efficiently as possible and work their way through all the amendments. Flexibility: Neighborhood overlay zones might increase compatibility, but not flexibility, unless neighborhoods made their overlays more flexible. Infill Overview: Mr. Egner said the Commissioners had modified the tables linking height to allowable lot coverage and FAR in a manner that was a bit tighter than what the Infill Task Force recommended. Their goal was to achieve a 10% overall reduction in the floor areas allowed. The Commissioners generally supported the concept of using side setback planes, but they planned to take more time to examine whether the results would increase privacy and compatibility. Side yards were important to have between houses for compatibility and privacy, so they wanted to learn what kind of exceptions the current code allowed. They questioned whether there should be enough room to grow buffering foliage and if skinny lots should be treated differently. Commissioner Gustafson said he would provide graphic examples of houses on sloped lots when the Commissioners considered how to tweak that group of amendments. Mr. Boone clarified that a "sloped lot" had a change in elevation from one side of the footprint to the other - not from one side of the lot to the other. Commissioner Brockman wanted to avoid changes that would encourage people to build on the sloped part of the lot instead of a flat spot on their lot. The Commissioners did not discuss the RID review process category of amendments. They recalled they had tentatively agreed to take the category, Planned Developments/Open Space Dedications, off the list. Variance code amendments were City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of June 22. 2009 Page 2 of 6 Page 2 of 6 EXHIBIT C-12 LU 08-0053 166 • proposed that would make it easier to remodel a nonconforming structure. The Commissioners planned to discuss in more depth how to deal with surveyors' errors that made a house a nonconforming structure. There was a terminology-related loophole in the 2003 Infill code that meant some standards did not apply to duplexes or single-family attached homes. The amendments would apply the standards to them. The Flag Lot/Serial Partition amendments might increase the sense of community by creating more connectivity, but there might be some drawbacks to consider when they discussed this category of proposed changes. Work Session —Section 6— Residential Infill Design (RID) Review Vice Chair Stewart declared a potential conflict of interest in the RID process and recused himself. Ms. Andreades said that since RID was adopted in 2003, statistics showed the RID process had not been used very much relative to the total number of permits issued in the City. She said data showed the requested exceptions to lot coverage and FAR ranged between 5% and 17% and averaged 10%. She had compiled a RID Discussion sheet based on questions the Commissioners had posed at their previous meeting. She noted that one question was if the structure was already incompatible with the neighborhood, should a proposed addition that was compatible with the structure be approved? The Commissioners wanted to know who decided and how it was decided whether a structure was "compatible." Staff said they used compatibility criteria: the size of the structure and its relationship to the street and the neighbors. They said it was a discretionary decision. The Commissioners wanted to know what staff meant when • they said RID could "legalize' the entire structure. Mr. Boone explained that a nonconforming house was "legal," but its nonconformities could not be expanded without a review and approval. The RID approval "legalized" them. Ms. Andreades explained that the reviewers usually needed to analyze the entire house to determine if the house fit the neighborhood. There was usually more than one facade affected. She said if the whole house fit, then why not legalize the nonconformities with RID approval of changes that made it a better design? Commissioner Paretchan questioned why it was necessary to "legalize" a house that had been built years ago in compliance with the code that was in place at that time. Mr. Boone explained subsequent code changes had rendered it "nonconforming" and RID approval could make it conforming. Commissioner Brockman suggested the Commissioners should focus on the proposed criteria and determine if they would effectively ensure a compatible design. The Commissioners discussed the size of the notice area for RID applications. Staff said the Infill Task Force proposed to expand it from 100 to 200 feet which fit the code definition that a "neighborhood" consisted of properties within 200 feet. That was how far the reviewers were to look to determine if the structure was compatible with the character of the neighborhood and the street. Staff added that the Infill Task Force had decided 200 feet was an appropriate range of neighbors the applicant was required to talk to. Staff asked if notice and the definition of`neighborhood" should be expanded to properties within 300 feet; houses across the street: the entire block; or the entire street? One perspective was that the farther away they were the less likely it might be that neighbor would be affected by incompatibility. Another perspective was that the larger the area to compare to, the harder it would be to define what the structure was to be 4110 compatible with. Another perspective was that the impacted 'neighborhood' included City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of June 22, 2009 Page 3 of 6 Page 3 of 6 EXHIBIT C-12 LU 08-0053 167 people who drove by the site. Commission members said it might not be enough to just look at the two immediate neighbors if the subject site and the two neighbors were closer to Lakeview Boulevard than other houses in the area. It was noted that Lakeview might be an "oddity" and not like many other City streets, but a lot of RID applications had been for houses on lakefront lots. Staff said some of the property lines were under water; the lots were oddly shaped; the topography was a factor; and some enjoyed use of a backyard that was actually on property owned by the Lake Oswego Corporation. Mr. Boone clarified that the variance process could relieve constraints like topography and lot size and shape, but RID looked at whether the house fit the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Paretchan was especially concerned about allowing reduced front yard setbacks. She wanted expanded notice requirements for that, so more people would know about the application. She recalled a case where the owners got RID approval to bump out their house in front. That reduced the front yard area, so their kids played in the street. Other Commissioners observed that reduced front yard setbacks could shorten the vehicle back out area and did not accommodate parking of boats and trailers. The Commissioners asked if the RID applicant had to post a sign so those who drove by would see it. Staff advised they did not, because a RID development was a minor development. Notice had to be mailed, but no sign was required when there was no hearing to announce. The variance process did not require a sign either if no hearing was scheduled. When asked, Mr. Boone clarified that to have legal `standing" in the process, a contesting party had to show they were "aggrieved" in some manner. It might not be enough to say that they drove by every day and were offended by the look of it. The Commissioners planned to discuss this further, later. They recalled even a tree • removal permit process called for a sign. They also planned to discuss Commissioner Paretchan's suggestion to expand the notice area to 300 feet. Commissioner Brockman agreed that expanded notice for an adjustment to front yard setbacks would be appropriate, but she pointed out the Infill Task Force wanted to eliminate the ability to use RID to modify side yard setbacks, FAR and lot coverage. Commissioner Paretchan asked if they had left front yard setbacks off that list in error? Jim Bolland clarified that the Infill Task Force wanted to eliminate the ability to adjust side yard setbacks, but they had not talked about front yard setbacks. The Commissioners discussed whether to allow more flexibility to modify setbacks for a remodeling project than new construction. Staff said this may allow an owner to construct a new house and then come back for RID approval of something else they wanted as a remodeling project? Mr. Egner did not think it made a difference because in each case the house had to meet the compatibility criteria, and if the house was already built the reviewers would have a better sense of compatibility than from looking at plans and a vacant lot. Commissioner Gustafson observed only a few new homes had been approved under RID out of a total of 416 building permits for new homes. The rest of the RID cases were remodels, and 92% of them were changes to existing, nonconforming, houses. He concluded the problem was not a large one and the Commissioners just needed to ensure the RID process used the right criteria to ensure compatibility of both new and remodeling projects. Commissioner Brockman suggested new construction should "play by the rules" and comply with required setbacks and that allowing adjustments for remodels might keep owners from tearing existing houses down. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission • Minutes of June 22, 2009 Page 4 of 6 Page 4 of 6 EXHIBIT C-12 LU 08-0053 168 • Staff clarified for the Commissioners that a site was subject to base standards and the variance and RID processes were simply two different ways of modifying those base standards. They also related that even if a change could not be seen from the street it might be visible to one or two neighbors, the determination was site specific. Commissioner Gustafson suggested lot coverage, FAR and height should be modifiable via RID. It was fairer to allow owners of existing houses to increase the size of their ground floor kitchen. The Commissioners planned to continue to discuss this issue later, IV. OTHER BUSINESS — PLANNING COMMISSION • Rolling Agenda The Commissioners did not want to lose their infill memory and momentum. ' ey examined and changed the draft Rolling Agenda so it allowed them to focus on f ishing the infill work by September 28, 2009. They planned a "reality check" at the e of their August 10th meeting. • Council Update Councilor Bill Tierney reported that the City Council had focu d on facilities and finances in June. They had set up a program to maintain City b. dings and decided to try to keep the West End Building and replace the interest-* ly loan with permanent financing. The City Council had adopted a one-year bud.- and balanced it by using $175,000 in reserves to pay for operations. The Council +as scheduled to consider the Urban Forestry Plan and the Sensitive Lands proces . They planned a `field visit" to Palisades, which featured properties that woul• be affected by the proposed amendments to the Sensitive Lands Atlas, to 'ear from the owners. During the • questioning period. Commissioner Brockman r called that the Mayor planned to ask boards and commissions to better explain wwt their proposals to the City Council were needed. She observed it would be be to know early on what the City Council expected than to work a long time on roposal that the Council would decide not to consider. Councilor Tierney agreed t a gap in expectations was not beneficial. Mr. Egner related that the Co cil was about to consider forming a `Second Look Committee" to examine the S sitive Lands process. He suggested staff could present "Sensitive Lands 101" to bo that Committee and the Planning Commission at the same time. The Commissioner asked him to keep them updated on Planning Commission issues the City Council as also working on. • Election of Off ers Chair Glisson urinated Philip Stewart to serve as Chair of the Planning Commission. Commissio r Brockman seconded the motion and Philip Stewart was elected by unanimou vote. Com rssioner Brockman nominated Julie Glisson to serve as Vice Chair of the PI f1ninq Commission. Vice Chair Stewart seconded the motion and Julia Glisson was fected by unanimous vote. V. ' OTHER BUSINESS - COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVMENT None. • City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of June 22, 2009 Page 5 of 6 Page 5 of 6 EXHIBIT C-12 LU 08-0053 169 • • • Page 6 of 6 EXHIBIT C-12 LU 08-0053 170 • LAKE osk�. City of Lake Oswego (I f101PP `� Planning Commission Minutes � dr �e., • , , a ' July 13, 2009 APP CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Philip Stewart called the Planning Commission meeting of July 13, 2009 to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. Members present were Chair Philip Stewart, Vice Chair Julia Glisson, Adrienne Brockman, Russell Jones and Lynne Paretchan. Jon Gustafson was excused. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Support. II. CITIZEN COMMENT Carol n Krebs. 16925 Denne Court Che I Uchida 15790 Quar Road and Darce • Eaton. 16134 White Oaks Drive, asked the Planning Commission to initiate work o e Lake Grove Village Center style handbook. The handbook was part • the implementation strategy for the Lake Grove Village Center Plan. They h.• read in a local newspaper that the Lake Grove Business Association had app.' ed a design committee as part of a Main Street program. They objected to - owing a private business association to get ahead of the public process. Ms. - ida was concerned that the owner of a veterinary clinic development just off oones Ferry Road was focused more on fitting the clinic and required parking o. e lot than its design (which neighbors objected to). During the questioning period, Ms. Krebs cla ' ed she had not talked with the business association about her concerns. Staff w-: not aware of what the business association was doing, but they advised that "M-'• Street" was a national program to coordinate a business area. Mr. Egner ciarif-. that it was anticipated the handbook would offer illustrations of expected style , • architecture and streetscape to help explain the code. He indicated that the Ci oudget funded the first phases of the Boones Ferry Road project that implemen -• the Plan, but not a separate handbook project. He said staff could look for gran money. Ms. Krebs suggested holding a design competition. The Commissione observed that the Planning Commission still had a backlog of projects and staffi r, resources were limited and primarily focused on achieving City Council priori •oals. They suggested the three citizens ask the City Council to find the resources necessary to accomplish the handbook project. III. MINUTES Commissioner Brockman moved to approve the Minutes of May 27, 2009. Commissioner Jones seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of July 13, 2009 EXHIBIT C-13 Pa e 1 of 7 Page 1 of 6 LU 08-0053 El,I;HIBIT C-13 I.1 08-0053 171 I\/. PUBLIC HEARING/WORK SESSION i LU 08-0053, Ordinance 2523 — Comprehensive Plan — Infill Amendments LU 08-0053, Ordinance 2524 - Community Development Code — Infill Amendments This public hearing had been continued to October 12, 2009 at the June 22, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. Work Session: Residential Infill Design (RID) Review (building design setbacks, setback exceptions, setback planes and variances) Chair Stewart declared a potential conflict of interest and recused himself from the discussion. Vice Chair Glisson opened the work session. Commissioner Gustafson had submitted written comments. Staff had distributed Planning and Building Services Department Supplemental Report#9, which suggested discussion topics by category. RID Review The Commissioners generally agreed the RID process should mirror other minor development processes. Public notice was to be sent prior to a preliminary staff decision and the notice area was to be expanded to 300 feet. They also wanted a sign posted. The Commissioners generally agreed that RID should not be used to increase Floor Area Ratio (FAR), lot coverage, and height, or to reduce the side setbacks of new construction, because new development should respect neighbors' privacy and carry out the Comprehensive Plan. However, Commissioner Brockman reasoned that allowing more flexibility for remodels would benefit the community because it would maintain the existing variety of housing stock; help people stay in their houses; and maintain a sustainable community. The Commissioners generally agreed "remodels" should be eligible for RID when most of the original house remained. They seemed to favor the staff recommendation that a remodel was when at least 50% of the original house remained. Anything less than 50% would make it a ''tear down." They asked staff to come up with a specific definition for them to consider later. The Commissioners discussed how much flexibility to offer remodels under RID, Commissioner Brockman suggested allowing them to increase ground floor lot coverage by 20% but limiting the second floor to 50°'0 of ground floor area. She thought that would result in more 1.5-story than 2-story houses. She suggested allowing applicants to use RID to decrease front and rear setbacks by a combined total of 20%. They could use the entire 20% to change one yard or the other, or allocate the 20% between the front and rear yard. To address a concern that an applicant would apply for a 20% decrease each year, she specified that 20% was to be the cumulative total limit. RID could not be used to increase FAR for remodels. She suggested allowing an applicant to expand an existing room (it might be their kitchen) into a setback. The Commissioners discussed whether RID should be allowed to increase height. Ms. Andreades related that staff generally steered an applicant away from asking for increased height. The Commissioners examined the report of RID approvals for exceptions to height and found that two had been granted for houses in the Cabana zone (WR). Staff explained that RID had been used to resolve a conflict related to the method of measuring height in the Cabana zone, which is measured from the water, even for the uphill portion of a lot. Since then they had proposed a housekeeping amendment to clarify that. A controversial approval of a new house on Cherry Lane had City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of July 13, 2009 Page 2 of 7 Page 2 of 6 EXHIBIT C-13 LU 08-0053 172 • used RID to legalize its height due to a mistake in its construction. Correcting it would have resulted in removing part of the house. Commissioner Brockman said new projects should not be allowed to seek exceptions to zone standards. Staff and Commissioners discussed the "equal or better" design criteria. Was "equal" what someone got by simply following the Code, and "better" what RID could allow for a better design than what could be built under the Code? Should a RID approval have to show that the community was getting some measurable benefit from it? Staff had struggled with those questions and concluded the goal was compatibility with the neighborhood because the Infill regulations had been intended to ensure that new development was compatible with development around it. They explained that a 'better design" might not blend with an existing neighborhood of nonconforming houses — it might actually stick out. So the Infill Task Force recommendations proposed to use "compatible" as the criteria instead of"equal or better design." Vice Chair Glisson recalled people felt that side setbacks were important because they. and the vegetation in them, protected neighbors' privacy. The Commissioners agreed not to allow any adjustment of side yard setbacks for new construction. Commissioner Paretchan had concerns about a Lakeview Boulevard house which had been granted RID approval of a significantly reduced front yard. She thought approval left too small a front yard. She advocated setting a minimum front yard setback — perhaps 20 feet. The Commissioners generally agreed that setbacks were important for compatibility and privacy between houses, but if the rear yard abutted the lake or designated public open space it could be reduced to zero through RID and the entire 20% decrease could be used in front. Commissioner Brockman and Vice Chair Glisson explained why they could agree to allow people to build out to the street. They observed that this helped utilize "underutilized" front property. Vice Chair Glisson recalled that building to the sidewalk did not diminish the pedestrian experience in Washington, DC and Chicago. Commissioner Brockman suggested a 10-foot limit on front yards, but Commissioner Paretchan said that was not enough. She worried about driveway visibility. Commissioner Jones recalled property on steep lots often had less than ten feet in front for a driveway. Commissioner Paretchan said they could get a variance in that case, but she felt that RID should require a larger front yard. Mr. Boone clarified that RID decisions focused on compatibility, and the variance process was to alleviate a hardship. The variance process did not look at design, except for mitigating the variance. RID might allow a smaller front yard if other houses along the street had smaller front yards. The variance process might require the house to be smaller so the owner had reasonable use and the hardship was alleviated. Commissioner Brockman suggested the applicant might be able to shift the house further back on the lot using their 20% front/back setback adjustment. Staff calculated that when the code required a total of 55 feet of setbacks (a 25-foot front setback and a 30-foot rear setback), the applicant might be able to reconfigure the footprint of the remodeled building by 20%, or 11 feet. The Commissioners agreed by consensus with Commissioner Brockman's suggestion. Commissioner Brockman talked about her idea to allow a remodeler to expand a room into the setback. She said they might want to enlarge an existing kitchen or expand the ground floor area for a handicapped family member rather than tear house down. She observed that if the original house was very small there might be room on the lot to expand it under the Code without using RID. She expiained they would be able to use RID to increase the lot coverage by 20% over what the Code allowed and they could add City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of July 13, 2009 Paae 3 of 7 Page 3 of 6 EXHIBIT C-13 LU 08-0053 173 a second floor up to 50% of the main floor area. She said they could not exceed FAR because she wanted to encourage 1.5 story houses, not 2-story houses. She suggested not allowing any change of side yard setbacks unless they wanted to expand a room into the setback. Staff advised that since the code related lot coverage to height and FAR it would not allow more than a one-story building at maximum lot coverage. Commissioner Brockman agreed the 50% limit on the upper story was not necessary. Mr. Boone discussed the suggestion to allow one room to be expanded into the setback. He said the RID process did not consider the motivation for asking for the expansion — it only considered the design and compatibility of the exterior. Mr. Egner suggested using the variance process for a room expansion. The Commissioners discussed accessory buildings. The Infill Task Force recommended allowing owners to use the RID process for an accessory building. Commissioner Brockman worried they would use it so they did not have to meet the setbacks when they built a second story studio apartment or office. She said they would be right on the property line and imposing on a neighbor's privacy. Mr. Egner advised that staff proposed related changes in the Community Development Code (CDC) updates, but not in the infill amendments. He said the setback of an accessory structure depended on its size and the zone it was in. In the First Addition Neighbors/Forest Hills Neighborhood Association (FAN) the garage could be back on the alley. In the R-10 zone a separate, front accessed garage had to meet front and side yard setbacks. Infill Task Force recommended language in Exhibit F-13 allowed an accessory structure to be three feet from the property line if it was less than ten feet high and 600 sq. ft. or less, except in the R-6 zone, which had different standards. On a flag lot the minimum setback was six feet. However, that was for a flat roofed structure, and anything with a peaked roof had to meet the full setbacks. Vice Chair Glisson announced a short break and thereafter reconvened the meeting. Mr. Boone had considered the limits the Commissioners wanted to place on new construction in the light of the compatibility test. If the Commissioners "froze" the side yard and limited the reduction in front/back setbacks to a cumulative total of 20% the resulting house might have to be much smaller than larger, older, nonconforming, surrounding homes. In that case, RID could not be used to build a house that looked like the neighbors, even though the primary purpose of RID was compatibility. In that case staff would expect the applicant to comply with the zone standards. Commissioner Brockman asked staff to identify areas where that might happen. She suspected those might be areas the City had zoned inappropriately. The Commissioners discussed how to define, "neighborhood" under RID. Should it be to the radius of 300 feet required for public notice? What if the area's lots were really wide? Should it be the neighborhood plan boundaries? Palisades had a wide variety of housing types. Should it be the block? It might be a very long block with a huge variety of house styles, like those along Upper Drive. Ms. Andreades explained that staff currently looked at houses within a 200-foot radius and found that was usually helpful. The applicant was asked to submit photos and staff looked at the pattern of development they showed. Commissioner Paretchan said 200 feet was not enough in her neighborhood. She suggested looking at five houses on each side and ten houses across the street, so there was a total of 20 houses to compare to. Vacant lots did not count. The Commissioners generally agreed with that suggestion. The applicant was to provide photographs of those 20 houses. The Commissioners generally agreed that staff should continue to use the "whole house test" when applying RID criteria. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of July 13, 2009 Pace 4 of 7 Page 4 of 6 EXHIBIT C-13 LU 08-0053 174 The Commissioners discussed the fee to appeal RID decisions. Although they had agreed to change the process so notice was sent out 300 feet from the site and prior to and not after a tentative staff decision, they were still concerned that the City limited the number of neighborhood representatives at the pre-application conference: and they wanted to facilitate more input before the staff was vested in their decision. Staff advised the neighborhood chair would get notice and any interested party could call the planner to get more details. They said the current process encouraged the applicant to gain agreement from his/her neighbors ahead of the process because if any one commented on a tentative staff decision, that delayed the process. Staff recalled the current process had been originally created to offer a simpler, faster process than the variance process. The Commissioners felt the current $514 fee was too high to offer a reasonable avenue for citizens to express their positions. Commissioner Brockman suggested that $150 was appropriate because it more accurately reflected the City's cost to process RID applications. She and Commissioner Paretchan suggested it should be easier to determine compatibility in RID than to process a variance. The Commissioners generally agreed to recommend lowering the fee to $150. Structure Design/Setback Planes Chair Stewart rejoined the other Commissioners at 9:10 p.m. The RID process allowed side yard planes to be modified for both remodels and new construction. The Commissioners and staff examined and discussed the Side Setback Plane graphic illustration on page 5 of the May 4, 2009 staff report (Supplemental Report #3). It outlined and compared what was currently allowed and what was proposed. They recalled Commissioner Gustafson had suggested requiring a step-in at the second floor to mitigate high walls. Commissioner Brockman observed a side plane requirement would encourage more use of skylights and improve privacy of neighbors. Mr. Egner recalled the Infill Task Force had modeled this requirement to ensure people would still be able to build Cape Cod style houses in FAN. He said the builder still needed to take advantage of the height exceptions in the infill code in order to build a Cape Cod style house. The Commissioners imagined how a shallower roof slant angle and/or a lower starting height would affect the result. Chair Stewart advised them not to start any lower than ten feet. The Commissioners observed that if the builder set it back into the lot far enough there was still room for a straight walled, two story salt box. They recalled seeing examples of infill in the City that benefited from a similar sidewall plane design. Commissioner Paretchan and Vice Chair Glisson saw a potential need to address long, skinny. lots separately. Commissioner Paretchan related that she had toured a tall house on South Shore that had a modern, mostly rectangular, design. It was on a slope so only the top level could be seen from the street. She worried the new standard the Commissioners were considering might not allow such a house. Mr. Egner explained the side yard plane started at the same level as the street elevation — not at the part below the street. Vice Chair Glisson observed the proposed standard would require a house on a small lot to have a pitched roof, but would not allow garden roofs that might be considered desirable or useful in 20 years. Commissioner Brockman indicated that the side setback plane was important for assuring the privacy and compatibility people wanted. Commissioner Paretchan observed the change was simply eliminating little notches. Chair Stewart indicated it meant the building had to go in a couple more feet before the wall started upward again. Vice Chair Glisson said the positive outweighed the negative. • City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of July 13, 2009 Paae 5 of 7 Page 5 of 6 EXHIBIT C-13 LU 08-0053 175 There might be some owners of smaller lots who would be challenged because they did • not want a pitched roof. Commissioner Brockman said if they complied with the setbacks required by the Code they would not have to have a pitched roof and they could have a modern style house. She supported the side setback plane standard. The Commissioners clarified for Mr. Egner that they wanted to leave the starting height at 12 feet. At 9:35 p.m. the Commissioners ended the work session before they got to Yard Setbacks and Variances. V. OTHER BUSINESS — PLANNING COMMISSION • Rolling Agenda At their last meeting the Commissioners had extended the Rolling Agend to four months. Chair Stewart wanted it to be one of the first items on the age a so the Commissioners could focus on their work from 7:00 p.m. on. He said h would meet with staff before each meeting and then describe what they talked abo in an email to the other Commissioners. The Commissioners asked for quicker turn- ound of minutes. Mr. Egner asked when the Commissioners wanted to discuss the .ssue of institutional uses. Did they want to discuss it when they discussed infill struc re design planes? He explained that Infill front setback planes applied to nonresid: tial uses in low-density residential zones. The Commissioners generally agreed to -e what progress they were able to make on infill in a few more meetings before the decided that. Commissioner Brockman offered to work with staff and brainstorm c•t ion s to circulate to the other Commissioners for review. The Planning Commis :•n agreed to consider whether to address a requested industrial area rezone after t - first of next year, when they would have a better idea of how much of their currer work plan was left; the availability of staffing resources; and what priority the City Council gave the matter. ill • Council Update Staff reported that the City Counci vas about to hear the Economic Development Director present options for Footh s area planning. The City Council was to consider creating a "Second Look Task Force" due to public concern about the Sensitive Lands program. Because of that, tall had not yet presented the Planning Commission recommendation regarding edification of Sensitive Lands Dimensional Standards. The Commissioners wanted t see the status of items they had forwarded to the City Council listed on their rolling a nda as "pending," or "on hold" so they could track them. • Staff Recom ndation to Withdraw LU 08-0051(B) The staff rec,mended that the Planning Commission withdraw LU 08-0051(B), Sensitive L nds Code changes, from further consideration and public hearings because the City uncil was talking about creating a Second Look Task Force that would look at the Se itive Lands program. Cmmissioner Brockman moved to withdraw LU 08-0051 (B). Vice Chair Glisson izs'econded the motion and it passed 5:0. VI/ OTHER BUSINESS - COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVMENT None. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission • Minutes of July 13, 2009 Page 6 of 7 Page 6 of 6 EXHIBIT C-13 LU 08-0053 176 O`BARE OS • 6,6 O City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes Ved mioiser July 27, 2009 �o+�ecoN Appr0v CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Philip Stewart called the Planning Commission meeting of July 27, 2009 to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. Il. ROLL CALL Members present were Chair Philip Stewart, Vice Chair Julie Glisson and Commissioners Adrianne Brockman, Jon Gustafson, Jim Johnson, Russell Jones and Lynne Paretchan. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Denise Frisbee, Planning and Building Department Director; Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; David Powell, City Attorney and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Support. Mayor Jack Hoffman also attended. III. CITIZEN COMMENT Diana Boom. 557 Evergreen Road, was concerned that information on the Plan.' g Commission website regarding when they were to consider institutional uses •-d not been correct. Staff said they would research the problem and fix it. C Stewart clarified that the public hearing was scheduled for August 10th and the . ly 27th work session was to help the Commissioners better understand the issue a r: pose questions. Paden Prichard, 204 6th Street, reported that the Evergreen -'ghborhood Association board had voted unanimously to oppose changing reside '•I zoning to permit 35% lot coverage and 35-foot height for institutional use. He - • ained they did not believe the conditional use process by itself was enough to - : ure impacts to the neighborhood were minimized. IV. COUNCIL UPDATE Ms. Frisbee reported that the C . Council had met that day to assess their progress toward achieving City goals - d found they were making progress on most of them. They wanted the Plannin. 'ommission to look into how the City could make it easier to create secondary dw: ng units. In an upcoming study session, the Council was scheduled to talk . :.ut City facilities and hear a report from the neighborhood planning work group. T• - City Attorney and staff had explained to the Councilors, the City's efforts to c•- ply with Metro Titles 3 and 13. The Council had then decided to hold off sendin. : compliance report to Metro and wait until they heard from the Second Look (tec cal advisory) Task Force. They asked the Planning Commission to appoint a - son to the task force. The Councilors invited everyone to an August 8th roundtable to offer comments on Sensitive Lands. There was keen interest in the issue. Almost 80 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of July 27, 2009 Page 1 of 7 Page 1 of 6 EXHIBIT C-14 E HIBIT C-14 LU 08-0053 L 08-0053 177 persons had attended their last Sensitive Lands study session. The Council al • 0 planned to schedule a session to talk about urban reserves. The Mayor and Mr. I. er were attending county meetings related to the question of urban reserves. Th= ayor served on the Metro Steering Committee that would be making an urb. • reserves recommendation to the Metro Council in the fall. It was reported that t - City Council had recently adopted an aspiration statement that said Stafford had rur. character and if it was to be urbanized it should urbanize from the freeway wh= there was transit available along the freeway. V. GENERAL ORGANIZATION/SCHEDULE REVIEW Rolling Agenda The Commissioners' goal was to hold the . blic hearing on infill amendments in October. They had been asking for guid- ce from the City Council. Mayor Hoffman explained the City Council wanted to --t jointly with the Planning Commission so the Councilors could gain a better under anding of the policies and concepts that would be behind Planning Commission inf recommendations. That meeting would likely be in September. VI. MINUTES Commissioner ckman moved to approve the Minutes of June 8. 2009. Commissioner ustafson seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. Commissioner Johnson a ained. Co issioner Brockman moved to approve the Minutes of June 22. 2009. iyefmissioner Gustafson seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. Commissioner J411 ohnson abstained. VII. PUBLIC HEARING AND WORK SESSION LU 08-0053, Ordinance 2523 — Comprehensive Plan — Infill Amendments LU 08-0053, Ordinance 2524— Community Development Code — Infill Amendments The public hearing had been continued to October 12, 2009 at the June 22, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. Work Session • Building Design — Setback Planes • Setbacks and Setback Exceptions • Variances Structure Design and Setback Planes Chair Stewart opened the work session and the Commissioners resumed their discussion of infill amendments. The Infill Task Force recommended a new side setback plane to reduce the perception of height. It started at 12 feet above the property line and slanted up to a 12:12 pitch. The Commissioners had seen an example of infill that met the existing infill code's front setback plane standards by just barely stepping in the second floor and it looked too tall. At their last meeting they considered how to change the side setback plane so it might be more effective. They previously considered lowering the starting point to 10 feet, but had left it at 12 feet. as the Infill Task Force City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission • Minutes of July 27, 2C09 Page 2 of 7 Page 2 of 6 EXHIBIT C-14 LU 08-0053 178 • proposed. The Commission also questioned how adopting a side setback plane would impact very contemporary house designs and if the 12:12 pitch requirement was too steep for some architectural styles. Staff circulated some of the graphic illustrations the Infill Task Force had used as models when they decided to start the side setback plane at the property line instead of at the setback line. Commissioner Gustafson advised that starting the slant at 10 feet above the property line or increasing the setback were more effective than changing the required pitch. Starting at 10 feet above the property line, the house could be 15 feet high at the 5-foot setback line, and 20 feet high at the 10-foot setback line, and the plane would push the second floor a couple of feet further in than the existing front setback plane did. Staff recalled the Infill Task Force felt the Cape Cod (saltbox) style house was appropriate in the First Addition Neighbors/Forest Hill Neighborhood Association (FAN). They had carefully examined models to ensure the new standards would still allow such a shape. They had found such a house could fit within the plane they recommended as long as the code still allowed certain exceptions for roof features that pierced the top of the envelope. The Commissioners observed that starting the slant of the side setback plane at 10 feet rather than 12 feet high resulted in a smaller envelope. They noted that the saltbox house would have to be smaller, because its tall walls could not be as close to the property line and that the side setback plane might cut into a house on a narrow (50 foot wide) lot enough to create a hardship. The City had many long, skinny, lots and some R-10 lots could be divided into narrow lots. Commissioner Brockman held that the side setback plane was important for achieving compatibility between houses. She recalled the Commissioners had already generally agreed to allow the Residential Infill Design (RID) process to be a "safety valve," that • could be used to adjust side yard planes of both new and remodeled houses and they might also eventually decide to create a simplified design review process just for houses on long, skinny, lots. Commissioner Gustafson recalled the "worst offenders" were infill with tall walls on skinny lots that did not fit the neighborhood. The way to address that was to force the second floor even farther back from the property line than the ground floor was or to reduce the envelope by lowering the height of the starting point of the slant. He indicated that a possible unintended consequence of tightening lot coverage and setbacks too much was that it would force the mass on every small lot into the same shape. It would also be a challenge to fit a garage on a narrow lot. Staff clarified that garage location and appearance standards did not apply when a lot was less than 50 feet wide or when a skinny lot was deep enough to place the garage at least 60 feet back on the lot. Staff clarified that the front setback plane started at the front setback line, but the side setback plane slant would start at the property line. If the house was on a lot that sloped downward from the street, the slant would begin at the property line at a point 12 feet above the elevation of the street. That would control the relationship of an infill house to the street. The Commissioners recalled they had questioned if reducing the starting point to 10 feet would 'crimp" a modern, vertical style, house design or prevent eco- friendly buildings with roof gardens that the City might eventually want. Commissioner Gustafson explained that people could still have their two-story wall, but it either had to be pushed back a couple more feet from the neighbors or the second story would have to be pushed in a couple more feet than the ground floor. Commissioner Brockman did not think another two feet would make much difference — there would still be a long, tall, house. Commissioner Gustafson clarified that he thought that compatibility was more a function of design than application of the standards the Commissioners were talking • about and standards that made infill step down as it approached the neighbors would City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of July 27, 2009 Pa e 3 of 7 Page 3 of 6 EXHIBIT C-14 LU 08-0053 179 help. He said the Infill Task Force had spent a lot of time examining the issue and he • would defer to their recommendation. Chair Stewart did not see a big difference in the results of using 10 feet or 12 feet as the starting height. Commissioner Paretchan suggested there might have to be more options for skinnier lots so they did not all look alike. The Commissioners agreed to move the Infill Task Force recommendation (12:12 pitch, 12-foot starting height) forward to a public hearing and listen to what the public had to say about it. Chair Stewart announced a five-minute break in the meeting and thereafter reconvened it. Side Yard Appearance and Screening The Commissioners discussed the proposed options for breaking up a sidewall. Commissioner Brockman did not think requiring a "bump out" to break up a large sidewall plane had been effective. It also added to the cost of the house. The proposed standards offered a landscaping option. Commissioner Brockman and Vice Chair Glisson agreed that landscaping softened the walls and contributed to privacy, compatibility and sustainability. Commissioner Paretchan did not want the code to prescribe exactly what to plant. Commissioner Jones did not want to have to rely on landscaping to camouflage bad design and he worried it was too temporary and might not survive. Staff indicated that enforcement of a landscaping provision connected to a building permit would be "complaint driven" because the City did not have the resources to monitor it. Chair Stewart advised that windows also helped break up a sidewall plane should be appropriately placed for privacy. Commissioner Gustafson favored leaving the landscape option in the proposed amendments. Commissioner Johnson agreed and held that landscaping was not "temporary." Vegetation was a dominant feature of the City that made houses more compatible with their neighborhood. In the end the • Commissioners agreed to forward the entire set of sidewall plane appearance and screening options the Infill Task Force recommended to the pubic hearing to hear what ft the public had to say about them. Corner Lots Staff described how the proposed standards would work on a corner lot. There would be a front setback plane on one street and a street side setback plane on the other street. The difference between the street side setback plane and the side setback plane was that the street side setback plane began at the setback line, not at the property line. A wrap-around porch or balcony could be used to break up the mass. The Commissioners commented that helped give the street side elevation more of a "front' look and that porches and balconies should conform to the setbacks. Staff confirmed that generally, corner lots were wider lots, except in FAN and that FAN featured wide right-of-ways that would never be improved that separated a house from the street pavement. The street side setback plane would become the third type of setback plane. While the side setback plane was measured from 12 feet above the property line and slanted inward at a 12:12 pitch, the street side setback plane was measured from the 20-foot setback line and slanted inward at a 12:12 pitch. The Commissioners asked staff to create a matrix for the public to refer to at the pubic hearing that differentiated between the types of planes. Commissioner Brockman saw fewer "house-to-house privacy and compatibility issues" to be addressed on a corner lot. The Commissioners agreed to move this section forward to the public hearing. •City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of July 27, 2009 Pa e 4 of 7 Page 4 of 6 EXHIBIT C-14 LU 08-0053 180 0 Wall Plane Length The proposed amendments applied standards to break up sidewall planes. but they also F proposed additional requirements to mitigate for an especially long wall (70 feet long or longer). The problem to be addressed had been created by a few houses that were thought to be too long and tall, including a house behind Heritage House; a house on Douglas Way; and a house on South Shore Boulevard. Commissioner Brockman said they were the kind of houses that people feared would be built next to them and impact their privacy. She held that requiring little indentations in the wall did nothing to address that issue. She suggested the Commissioners consider whether especially long and tall houses merited special design review. Commissioner Gustafson noted that the other wall plane controls also applied to a very long wall, and an especially long wall had to have four-foot bump-outs instead of two-foot bump-outs. Commissioner Brockman did not think that would address the privacy issue. Vice Chair Glisson suggested adding a requirement to landscape such a long wall. Commissioner Paretchan did not want the code to be that prescriptive. She said people should be allowed to use the existing vegetation on their lot. Staff reported the Infill Task Force had started out with a more stringent approach, and the proposed language was a compromise. The proposed language called for the landscape screening described in the Side Yard Appearance and Screening section. Mr. Egner said the Infill Task Force had proposed exempting properties that were setback 100 feet from the property line. Commissioner Paretchan suggested changing it to require a 20-foot setback for both side yards. She related that long houses in her neighborhood did not affect neighbors' privacy because of the topography; the way they were positioned; and because they were buffered by trees and vegetation. Chair Glisson liked that idea better than allowing people to build all the way out to the setback line if they offset the wall. She noted it left more room to plant • buffering vegetation. The Commissioners generally indicated they could agree to change the language so it required 20-foot side setbacks and the landscaping requirement. Then they would listen to what the public wanted at the public hearing. Yard Setbacks The Infill Task Force had made a few changes to yard setback requirements. The R-7.5 street side yard setback was increased from 10 to 15 feet along a local street. In FAN the unimproved parts of the wide right-of-way offered enough separation that the R-6 street side setback could be only 7.5 feet. Commissioner Paretchan was concerned about the impact on owners of smaller lots who wanted to fit a new house on their lot or expand their existing house. Commissioner Brockman recalled the Commissioners had agreed they could use the RID process to expand a room into the setback. When Mr. Egner assured the Commissioners that Brad Beals and Jim Boland had supported the changes to required setbacks for accessory structures, the Commissioners agreed to accept the 7.5 foot setbacks for the time being, but they might revisit them later. At the next meeting the Commissioners anticipated they would examine the allowable exceptions to the side yard setback and variances. Chair Stewart announced a five- minute break and thereafter reconvened the meeting. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of July 27, 2009 Pace 5 of Page 5 of 6 EXHIBIT C-14 LU 08-0053 181 • 0 • Page 6 of 6 EXHIBIT C-14 LU 08-0053 182 Air "01 I AKf cps;,---..,` 0 rt /1 I AP Wif1 City of Lake Oswego ifPlanning Commission Minutes de \,0,Ecos / , ° August 24, 2009 APP I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Philip Stewart called the Planning Commission meeting of August 24, 2009 to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Members present were Chair Philip Stewart and Commissioners Adrienne Brockman, Jon Gustafson, and Russell Jones. Vice Chair Julie Glisson and Commissioner Lynne Paretchan were excused. Jim Johnson was absent. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Support. Mayor Jack Hoffman was also present. III. CITIZEN COMMENT 0 Barbara Zeller, Chair of the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association, referenced a pu. hearing for a zone change amendment on Upper Drive (LU 08-0059) that was sc -.uled for Monday, November 23' . She asked the Commissioners to reschedule e public hearing because it was too close to the Thanksgiving holiday. The . missioners agreed that the item could be moved. Staff was to check with applica IV. GENERAL ORGANIZATION/SCHEDULE REVIEW Rolling Agenda Commissioner Brockman suggested organizing -e infill hearing by taking testimony by topic at each meeting. Instead of mailing - ether citywide, Measure 56 notice (which the staff advised would be very expen -) the Commissioners suggested putting the notice in Hello LO! which was ma' -a to everyone in the City. The Commissioners agreed to reschedule their Se. -tuber 28th meeting (which was on Yom Kippur) to September 30th Skyland ' equest to be officially recognized as a neighborhood association was to be he d on September 30`h. Chair Stewart thanked the Lake Grove Neighborhood Assoc- ion for submitting copies of other jurisdictions' landscaping codes after they hear. ommissioner Paretchan's concern that the currently proposed landscape s -ening option might be too restrictive. Staff clarified the City Council had not yet eduled a hearing to consider the Planning Commission recommendation regar.- g institutional uses. They planned to package the entire Planning Commission r-- .rd with the findings for the Council to examine. EXHIBIT C-15 1111 LU 08-0053 CRyageta?V6iNeego Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-15 Minutes of August 24, 2009 LU 0830053 8 183 VI. MINUTES Commissioner Brockman__rnoMed_.—to--approve the Minutes of—July 27, 2009. CaramissiorrerGUst'aTson seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. VII. , WORK SESSION LU 08-0053, Ordinance 2523 — Comprehensive Plan — Infill Amendments LU 08-0053, Ordinance 2524 — Community Development Code — Infill Amendments The public hearing had been continued to October 12, 2009 at the June 22, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. This work session was to discuss the following items: • Setback Exceptions • Variances • Miscellaneous Provisions • Sloped Lots The Commissioners examined Supplemental Staff Report #10. dated August 13, 2009 and the draft code that reflected Infill Task Force recommendations (Attachment B — Ordinance 2524). Sloped Lots • Proposal to allow increased height on sloped lots Mr. Egner explained that after the original infill regulations had been adopted and the method for measuring height was changed; people told them they had a problem achieving appropriate floor area on steeply sloped lots because the structure could not be more than 35 feet high at any point on the slope. Not having enough main floor area was a particular problem for an aging population. After looking at examples of houses on slopes in Mountain Park the planners thought there could be reasonable exceptions to the height standard. However, staff had not heard any more complaints about the existing standard for a few years. Mr. Egner explained that a height adjustment was proposed for First Addition Neighbors/Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association (FAN) lots because the entire neighborhood sloped enough to create a four-foot difference in elevation across each lot. He explained that the current FAN height limit was 28 feet, measured from all points of the structure, so when the rear grade was lower than the front grade. the rear of the house had to be lower than the front. The proposed language addressed that and allowed the height in the rear to be measured from a plane created by the front grade elevation. Mr. Egner reminded the Commissioners that FAN was subject to the front setback plane requirement too. and lots there were also separated from other houses by alleyways. When asked, he confirmed that both Jim Bolland and Brad Beals had agreed to this change, and the Infill Task Force had considered applying this concept in other neighborhoods with similar, consistent, lots, such as Hallinan, but had limited it to FAN. Commissioner Brockman had no problem with the height adjustment. Commissioner Gustafson observed it would be more easily applied to the R-6 zone in FAN than in Hallinan, which had more variety of R-7.5 lots. Commissioner Jones wondered how it would be applied in areas where the elevation change was more than four feet, Commissioner Brockman worried about the unintended consequences of applying it elsewhere. Mr. Egner said the problem the Task Force had been trying to "fix" was in • FAN, where developers excavated to lower a house so they could maximize lot CP#9 Z6 ego Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-15 Minutes of August 24. 2009 LU Oba0033S 8 184 coverage. Commissioner Jones suggested just applying it to FAN, Chair Stewart and • Commissioner Brockman agreed. Chair Stewart wondered if the problem demonstrated an inherent problem with how height was measured. Commissioner Brockman questioned whether the code needed to allow so many height exceptions. Chair Stewart announced the Commissioners would continue to consider sloped lots at their next meeting. • Proposal to not require support structures to be enclosed The Commissioners considered whether support structures should be enclosed, or buffered from view. Commissioner Jones said that would make them seem more massive. Mr. Egner planned to review the record to find out what the Planning Commission reasoning had been when they made their original recommendation to enclose them. He said the Infill Task Force believed the structures should be airy and open and buffered by landscaping. He advised that the current code required an owner who wanted to take advantage of special height exceptions to make the setbacks larger. The Commissioners planned to continue this discussion at their next meeting. Variances • Class 1 Variance for continuation of nonconforming building walls Mr. Egner pointed out that the proposed code would allow nonconforming exterior walls to be extended to where they intersected to create enclosed space. Commissioner Brockman reasoned that if the Residential Infill Design (RID) process allowed a room of a nonconforming house to be expanded into the side yard setback the variance process should allow that too. She said it should only be one room, and not the entire house • wall. Commissioner Jones said he thought the Commissioners had generally agreed to allow a wall to be extended to fill a "notch" in the wall. He reasoned that an owner should be allowed to fully extend a partial wall of a nonconforming house because that would have been allowed by the code in place at the time the house been built. Mr. Boone reminded the Commissioners of the difference between the RID process and the variance process. The Class 1 Variance process allowed small changes if they had no material impact on adjacent property. The Class 2 Variance process required the applicant to demonstrate that without the variance they would suffer a hardship because they would not have reasonable use of their property. It would be hard to prove that having a nonconforming house that had been there for years did not allow reasonable use. The RID process could approve a change based on the design and did not require the applicant to show a hardship. Mr. Boone advised the Class 1 variance was not 'automatic" and could not be granted if it resulted in "material injury" to adjacent property. Whether it did or not was determined by a fact-based, case-by-case, analysis and privacy issues were considered. Commissioner Brockman saw a need to be consistent between variances and RID so no one could "game the system." Commissioner Gustafson doubted many applicants would choose the RID process over the Class 1 Variance process because the RID process scrutinized their design. Commissioner Brockman recalled the Commissioners gave RID the ability to flex front and back yard setbacks. Commissioner Jones recalled that was for remodels. Chair Stewart observed that a request to reduce the side setback to less than five feet had to be processed as a Class 2 Variance instead of a Class 1 Variance and the sidewall plane standard would also control the side elevation. CRagealkdifs&go Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-15 Minutes of August 24, 2009 LU 0iP8®tl 8 185 Staff recalled the Infill Task Force wanted the Class 1 Variance process to allow owners • to make small changes that made it easier to remodel their house instead of tearing it down. Class 1 Variance criteria were simple: granting the variance could not be detrimental to public health or safety; it could not inflict material injury on properties or improvements within 300 feet; and it could not adversely affect existing physical or natural systems, such as traffic, drainage, the lake, hillsides, sensitive lands, historic resources, parks or the potential for solar energy. Commissioner Brockman suggested revising the language to clarify that material injury included loss of privacy. Mr. Boone advised that privacy had been the key element in Class 1 Variance decisions and none had been appealed. He said it was likely because the neighbors had to work out the issues before the application was processed. Commissioner Brockman explained that she had heard from people who were concerned about privacy. Chair Stewart asked staff to draft the change for the Planning Commission to consider. • Class 1 Variance to address survey error The staff report suggested this variance. Commissioner Gustafson observed it was needed in FAN, where an entire neighborhood of similar lots had been originally laid out according to a slightly incorrect survey line. He termed it a "nonconforming survey" because it had been that way for many years and development in the area had been based on it. In one area he was aware of each lot being off by two feet, making the houses nonconforming because they were too close to the side lot lines which also made it a challenge to remodel them. He questioned making everyone correct that now. Commissioner Jones asked how often staff encountered this type of problem. Mr. Boone said it had come up twice in the past year and a half, but not before that. Perhaps that was because surveyors equipment was more precise and because some consolidated lots were being split into the original lots of record and the owners were finding they were not 50 feet wide, as they were supposed to be. He indicated that it • had happened in FAN and one other neighborhood. Mr. Boone confirmed that if an owner did not know about the survey error and inadvertently expanded beyond the Class 1 variance, 20% limitations, based on the incorrect survey, they would have to apply for a Class 2 variance. Commissioner Jones suggested that if all the houses had been a little bit "off' for many years, it might raise the issue of adverse possession. Mr. Boone observed it might be impractical and expensive for one owner to try to use the court system to correct the situation when many other owners had no problem living with it. The Commissioners generally agreed to wait to hear public testimony about this issue. • Class 1 Variance to preserve a tree Commissioner Brockman suggested when such a variance was granted to allow a building to be constructed, the conditions of approval should prohibit the owner from applying again for a permit to remove the tree after the house was constructed. Mr. Boone advised the current code allowed imposing conditions related to mitigating a negative impact on "natural features" (defined as a "significant" tree or trees). Commissioner Gustafson observed that this variance should apply to the types of trees that an owner would have to get a permit to cut down anyway. The Commission took a short break and then reconvened. Yard Exceptions • Bay Windows Staff explained that yard exceptions were addressed in both Infill Task Force recommendations and Code updates. The Commissioners agreed to postpone most of their discussion of yard exceptions so Commissioner Paretchan could participate, but C#I!y$geatktd +ego Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-15 Minutes of August 24, 2009 LU O8 8 186 • they did discuss bay windows. The current code allowed a bay window to encroach into the side setback up to two feet. The Code updates defined a "bay window' and its dimensions and allowed it to intrude. The Task Force recommendation meant that when a bay window was used to break up a sidewall plane, it could not encroach into the side yard setback at all. Commissioner Brockman agreed there should be no situation in which a bay window was allowed to encroach because that impacted neighbors with loss of privacy and noise. Commissioner Jones said allowing a bay window to take up two feet of a five-foot setback did not leave enough setback room, but it might be acceptable if the setback were 10 feet deep. The Commissioners then asked staff to draft language that would ensure that a bay window could not be closer than five feet from the sideline. The Commissioners agreed to schedule a discussion of exceptions for accessory dwellings on their next agenda. Miscellaneous Provisions • Permitted adjustments of ministerial developments The lnfill Task Force recommended ordinance listed permitted adjustments to ministerial developments. One of them allowed up to 2.5% adjustment to lot area. FAR and lot coverage. Another allowed up to six inches adjustment to dimensional standards. Staff said that was leeway to address survey or construction mistakes. The Commissioners calculated that 2.5% of a 3,000 sq. ft. house was 75 sq. ft. Commissioner Brockman questioned why the Planning Commission should allow adding 2.5% back after they had generally agreed to reduce infill across the board by 10% via controls on allowable lot coverage and FAR. Staff observed that the "inches" adjustment made sense because it could help satisfy the listed applicable criteria (to address survey or construction errors, tree protection, or allow a project to align with the existing portion of the structure), but a percentage reduction to lot area, FAR and lot coverage did not. They could not recall why the Task Force had added it. The Commissioners tentatively agreed to remove the 2.5% adjustment provision. Mr. Boone planned to move the entire set of criteria to another place in the code where other exceptions were listed, and where it was more likely that applicants would find it. • Rebuilding a nonconforming structure after it was destroyed Mr. Egner distributed revised draft language related to rebuilding a nonconforming structure after it was destroyed. He said the lnfill Task Force had approached the question with the assumption that the code addressing nonconforming use provisions was encouraging teardowns, although he indicated there was no evidence of that. The Task Force wanted tc allow an owner to reconstruct a structure without being "penalized" for it. The Task Force recommendation had been fashioned by a subcommittee — not the full Task Force - hut no task force member had objected to what the subcommittee proposed. Staff advised the Commissioners to decide if the code should treat "voluntary" destruction (e.g., intentional demolition) and "involuntary" destruction (e.g., accidental destruction) differently. For example, if a nonconforming building across a setback burned down, the current code required it to be rebuilt in a conforming manner that did not encroach. The Infill Task Force wanted to allow it to be rebuilt with the same encroachment. Staff edits offered the Commissioners the opportunity to alter the language if they wanted the two types of destruction treated differently. • cfkagea5ecils6ego Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-15 Minutes of August 24, 2009 LU 08.O053`8 187 Mr. Boone said it might not be very clear and there might not be much proof how the • structure was destroyed. He advised that to treat intentional demolition differently would require a public, evidence-based, process to determine it was intentional demolition. The decision could be appealed to LUBA It was unlikely staff could make this decision at the Planning counter when the owner applied for a Building Permit. He recommended making no distinction. Staff confirmed that the Infill Task Force draft version would allow a rebuilt foundation to extend to the outer edge of a previously cantilevered section. The Commissioners observed the City had aerial and other kinds of photographs to use to determine what had been there before the destruction. Chair Stewart and Commissioner Gustafson did not favor allowing a nonconforming structure to be rebuilt in a nonconforming manner if the destruction had been voluntary. Commissioner Brockman said rebuilding that way should be limited to destruction by fire and natural disaster. She advised that traditionally, the intent of nonconforming use provisions was to eventually get rid of nonconforming uses — not allow them to be rebuilt. The draft set a one-year time period for rebuilding a destroyed, nonconforming structure. The Commissioners wondered if it should be longer, to allow an owner time to negotiate value with their insurance company, or litigate. Commissioner Gustafson reasoned that setting a time limit encouraged the owner to act quickly to replace a nonconforming structure that the community had become used to seeing. To allow too much time to go by would mean the public was no longer used to seeing it that way. The Commissioners considered extending the time limit if the owner could demonstrate they were 'moving forward in good faith" toward rebuilding. Mr. Boone advised them to avoid using phrases that necessitated fashioning related standards and required a minor development review and decision. He said the time limit was intended to encourage the owner to act quickly if they wanted to rebuild without going through a longer process. He advised that the current code required the owner to rebuild in a conforming manner when more than 50°/0 of the value of a nonconforming structure was destroyed. Past that threshold, the owners' options were to rebuild it in a conforming manner or seek exceptions and variances to rebuild it in its original position. When asked, staff clarified that the value threshold triggered the requirement to bring the affected portion of the building up to code - not the entire structure. The Commissioners then tentatively agreed to the one- year time limit for rebuilding after involuntary destruction. Mr. Boone clarified the proposed changes would not apply to multi-family, commercial or institutional structures. If they were destroyed the existing code required them to be rebuilt in a conforming manner, but there were Community Development Code (CDC) updates to address them the Commissioners would consider later. VIII. OTHER BUSINESS — PLANNING COMMISSION f�- Chair Stewart had been meeting with staff every other T y to discuss the agenda and emailing agenda updates to the Comm rs. He had also been updating a matrix the Commissioners could jefe-r at tracked the preliminary decisions they had made and would take t u lic hearing. IX. BUSINESS - COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVMENT None. I CRagea&o8go Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-15 Minutes of August 24. 2009 LU 0BQWY S 8 188 • O_SE ps` LAK 4. ' ,� City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes l >' APP I ifOV /' September 14, 2009 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Philip Stewart called the Planning Commission meeting of September 14, 2009 to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Members present were Chair Stewart, Vice Chair Julia Glisson and Commissioners Adrienne Brockman, Jon Gustafson, Jim Johnson, Russell Jones and Lynne Paretchan. Staff present were Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Support. ill. CITIZEN COMMENT Bob Barman, 1445 Oak Terrace, asked the Commissioners to approve the Cornmunit III Development Code (CDC) "housekeeping" amendments that would allow low feat s, such as barbeques and pools, to span the 25-foot Oswego Lake setbacks that"existed between Lake Oswego Corporation property that constitute Oswego Lake an lakefront lots (typically backyards), He said it was a non-controversial matter a the change should be made soon so lakefront residents could install features w ' e the lake was drawn down in September 2010. The Commissioners advised the vould likely not get to the CDC updates until early 2010, but Mr. Barman sho ask staff to plan to introduce this amendment whenever they had a window of ti N in which to consider it. Barbara Zeller, 3335 Sabena Court. Lake Grove Ne. borhood Association, invited the Commissioners to the annual neighborhood mee g on September 28`". There was to be a presentation on radon. She stated that sts showed that many households were experiencing high radon exposure. IV. COUNCIL UPDATE Chair Stewart announced th7City Council was to hold a public forum on Sensitive Lands the following Monday. Gustafson planned to find out if the notice had been distributed cityw or just to affected property owners. V. GENERAL ORGANIZATION AND SCHEDULE REVIEW ZZ Rolling Agenda Th ommissioners agreed the Planning Commission was more productive when all the ommissioners were there to participate, and given the Commissioner absences that • ,- occur at the regular Sept. 28 meeting, they decided their next meeting was to be City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 14, 2009 Page 1 of 11 Page 1 of 12 EXHIBIT C-16 EXHIBIT C-16 LU 08-0053 LU 08-0053 189 Wednesday, September 30th. They also agreed to extend the entire infill e to give staff time to prepare for the October 12th hearing. VI. MINUTES Commissioner Brockm ved to approve the Minutes of August 10. 2009. Commissions s seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. Vice Chair Glisson and Co loner Johnson abstained. VII. WORK SESSION LU 08-0053, Ordinance 2523 — Comprehensive Plan — Infill Amendments LU 08-0053, Ordinance 2524— Community Development Code — Infill Amendments The public hearing had been continued to October 12, 2009. The purpose of the work session was to discuss certain items in depth. Yard Exceptions (Section 3 and Exhibit F-3) Chair Stewart recalled that Commissioner Paretchan had not been present at the last meeting when the Commissioners talked about bay window yard exceptions. Staff had highlighted the code provisions that allowed yard exceptions in Supplemental Report #9 (see Exhibit F-13, Code Exceptions, Planned Developments and Variances). Commissioner Paretchan suggested not allowing any exceptions to the side yard setback or specifying that exceptions could not reduce a side yard setback to less than five feet. She wanted staff to advise the Commissioners if there was any reason to allow any exception. Commissioner Brockman explained the impact of allowing houses to be • too close together. One impact was noise complaints. Commissioner Jones recalled the Commissioners had already agreed to establish a minimum five-foot side setback in a Sensitive Lands District. He suggested that should apply to other places as well. Commissioner Gustafson and Vice Chair Glisson agreed. Commissioner Paretchan pointed out that Exhibit F-13 highlighted General Exceptions for Building Projections, Decks, Walkways and Pathways to Setbacks (page 13). It listed exceptions to setbacks and specified they could not project more than two feet into a required yard. She suggested adding, "provided. however, no side yard setback can be reduced to be smaller than five feet.' Commissioner Gustafson agreed the net result should be a side yard setback that was at least five feet. Mr. Boone pointed out that on- grade patios and low decks (under 30 inches high) were allowed to project into a required yard as long as they stayed three feet away from the property line. He indicated that higher features used on them, such as swing sets and basketball courts, would need to be addressed. Commissioner Brockman suggested looking at that when the Commissioners looked at the CDC updates. The Commissioners discussed whether overhangs and eaves should be allowed to encroach within the five foot setback. They were currently allowed to go two feet into the required setback; should that exception not be allowed if it would reduce the setback there to less than five feet? Vice Chair Glisson did not want the eaves exception to be so extensive they prevented rainwater from getting to plantings in a narrow side yard. Commissioner Johnson and Chair Stewart observed that when two overhangs were close together they blocked natural light. Commissioner Jones calculated that if adjacent houses each had a five-foot side setback and eaves that encroached two feet, the house roofs would only be six feet apart. Commissioner Paretchan saw eaves as an architectural enhancement that helped break up the bulk of a house. Commissioner • City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 14, 2009 1 Page2of12 EX1 1 i-eft�16 LU 08-0053 190 • Brockman advised that projecting eaves kept a house cooler in the summer. Chair Stewart suggested setting a minimum five-foot setback across the board so the standards were easier to enforce. Commissioner Gustafson agreed and observed that even in the R-6 zone the five-foot limit would not have much affect on new structures in First Addition Neighbors/Forest Hills Neighborhood Association (FAN) because the R-6 zone's minimum side yard was to become 7.5 feet. Commissioner Paretchan and Commissioner Brockman agreed. Chair Stewart observed there was consensus. Variances (Section 8) Several Commissioners did not think the new 50.79.040(d) language suggested in Supplemental Report #11 reflected their intent that if a variance were granted for the purpose of preserving a tree, the owner should not be allowed to remove it later. They asked staff to revise the draft language. Miscellaneous Provisions (Section 9) The current code allowed reconstruction of a nonconforming structure if it were damaged or destroyed by any means as long as the cost of rebuilding the damaged portion did not exceed 50°%0 of the replacement cost of the entire building. The Infill Task Force thought that was too limiting and recommended that a nonconforming structure should be allowed to be reconstructed if it occupied the same, pre-destruction, building envelope, regardless of the replacement cost. Chair Stewart observed a consensus to support that. Mr. Boone advised this change would apply to single-family homes, duplexes and landmarks, but the 50% value threshold would still apply to other uses. Staff asked whether voluntary and involuntary destruction should be treated the same. If • voluntary and involuntary destruction is treated differently, then, for example, the owner would have to rebuild in conformance with the code when a project was more than just filling holes in the wall and became replacing the entire frame of the wall. The drafted language considered it `voluntary destruction" when lack of structural maintenance resulted in a wall that was entirely rotten and had to be removed. In that case the nonconforming wall could not be rebuilt. They asked if an owner who intentionally took out a wall to rebuild it in the same place should be allowed to rebuild it just as an owner who lost it due to fire could. Commissioner Brockman thought owners were less likely to let an entire wall fall down and more likely to replace some rotten beams and a dry rotted area. She observed an owner might take individual beams out one at a time as part of a serial reconstruction project. Mr. Boone confirmed an owner could replace individual beams as long as they still had a frame left. Commissioner Paretchan recalled a house on Lakeview Boulevard was being almost entirely replaced in stages over time. Commissioner Brockman recalled seeing it too and that the part over the garage was now higher than it had been. The Commissioners did not know if it was a nonconforming house. They wondered if the project had been approved via Residential Infill Design (RID). Mr. Boone recalled the Commissioners had been inclined to allow owners to continue nonconformity when they repaired their structures. Commissioner Brockman and Commissioner Gustafson agreed. Commissioner Gustafson explained the point was to cause no harm. He thought owners should be able to take down rotted walls and put them back, or even remove the house down to the foundation and rebuild the same house if they wanted to. The result would be what had been there before and what the neighbors were used to. Chair Stewart agreed as long as the rebuilt house did not increase nonconformity. He said rebuilding benefited the community but letting the • house rot away did not. Commissioner Jones said if one wall was completely rotten, the City of Lake Oswego Planning Commissior< Minutes of September 14. 2009 Paae 3 of '1 Page 3 of 12 EXHIBIT C-16 LU 08-0053 191 owner should be allowed to fix it. The Commissioners confirmed for Mr. Boone that they I agreed that where there was a wall before, the owner was allowed to replace it within a specified period of time. When he raised the issue of how an owner would prove exactly where the wall had been when he came in for a building permit, the Commissioners indicated they did not think it would be hard to find evidence of where it had been and Commissioner Gustafson said the owner would likely have had to obtain a structural alteration permit (that described the wall) to remove the wall. Chair Stewart said the burden of proof was on applicants and if they could not prove where the wall had been they would not be allowed to rebuild it. Chair Stewart announced a short break in the work session and then reconvened it. Sloped Lots (Section Allow a four-foot height increase in FAN? Chair Stewart recalled the Commissioners had previously agreed to move this change forward to the public hearing. Commissioner Paretchan suggested it should apply in all zones, not just the R-6 zone. Chair Stewart observed the original Infill Task Force proposal applied it to R-5 and R-7.5 lots as well, but the Task Force had limited the change to the R-6 zone when they finalized their recommendation. He said they must have had some good reason for that. Commissioner Paretchan indicated that she supported making the change in FAN, but she advised the Planning Commission to advocate for the entire City, not just give FAN special treatment. She said the R-7.5 zone had many small, sloped, lots too. Those owners had the same issues as owners of FAN lots. It would be fair to apply it to them, too. Commissioner Brockman observed there were sloped lots throughout the City and she did not want all the houses on them to be even taller and bigger than they were now. She saw no need to apply the change to other zones if no one there had complained. She said the problem to be addressed in FAN was known. Developers were digging into the grade in order to build there. Commissioner Gustafson said it was easy to apply the change and solve the problem in FAN because their lots were consistently smaller and tighter: the slope was consistent across many lots; and the slope change had greater impact on them because of the height to lot coverage ratio. He indicated that developers were under pressure to stay under the height threshold so they could have bigger lot coverage and that the proposed change would be most useful there. He said it might have unintended consequences in other zones and that in other zones the pressure was not as great because the lot coverage limits did not make them so tight. Chair Stewart agreed the slope in R-6 was more consistent than the slope in other zones. He said there were likely some areas of R-7.5 that could benefit from the change, but there were also areas that did not need it. Commissioner Brockman recalled FAN was different because it was to be a higher density. urban, neighborhood and R-7.5 areas were more "suburban." Commissioner Gustafson agreed with Commissioner Paretchan that a 7,500 sq. ft. lot in the R-7.5 zone could be almost as tight as an R-6 lot. but he observed the R-7.5 zone had many larger sized lots. Commissioner Paretchan observed there were also many smaller lots than 7,500 sq. ft. in the R-7.5 zone. She suggested applying the change to R-7.5 lots that were 7,500 sq. ft. or smaller. She said that would be fair and it would allow them to have more lot coverage and encourage more one-story houses (instead of two story houses), which was what the Commissioners wanted. She said it was the 'trade-off' in the R-6 zone, so why not allow it in R-7.5? Vice Chair Glisson said there was no evidence of a problem to be solved in the R-7.5 zone, but there was evidence of . City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 14, 2009 Pa e 4 of 11 Page 4 of 12 EXHIBIT C-16 LU 08-0053 192 a problem to be solved in the R-6 zone. Commissioner Johnson suggested the Planning Commission defer to the Infill Task Force recommendation because the Task Force must have had good reason for it and the Planning Commission currently had no proof there was a problem in the other zones. He recalled that the focus of the infill regulatory process had been on FAN from the start, because that neighborhood was being impacted by infill. Commissioners Johnson and Gustafson agreed with adopting special rules for FAN. Commissioner Gustafson said it was very late in the process to change the proposal and Commissioner Paretchan conceded, but commented that she felt there had been a lot of effort put into special rules for FAN and that was wrong. There were many small lots in the R-7.5 zone that did not get the same attention from the Infill Task Force, but that did not mean the issue was not as great in that zone. Chair Stewart observed a majority of Commissioners wanted to carry forward the amendment the 1nfi11 Task Force recommended and ask for public comments at the hearing. Does the support structure need to be enclosed? The Commissioners had tentatively agreed at the previous work session that the support structure did not need to be enclosed. Commissioner Brockman said covering it would make the mass seem even more massive. She hoped owners would use vegetation to buffer it. Should the front setback plane be adjusted? Allow height to be increased from 35 feet to 45 feet under certain conditions? Commissioner Brockman did not want to allow houses on sloped lots to be even bigger than they were now, so she did not want to increase the height limit. She asked the architect Commissioners for their advice about the front setback plane. Commissioner • Gustafson said it was complicated and each specific change would have to be analyzed, so he would trust that the Infill Task Force had done that. He advised the Commissioners to gain a general understanding of what the Task Force proposed before they invited public comment. Chair Stewart advised that the upslope provision offered a means of limiting the amount of cut into the slope. The house would not have to be pushed as far into the hillside. He said that was important because excavation cuts had to be balanced with fill. The more excavation, the harder it was to find places to fill. He said he supported the upslope and downslope provisions. He added that if the Commissioners did not want the height limit raised to 45 feet they could recommend a lower cap. Commissioner Jones wanted to know how many houses on steeply sloped lots had been built to 45 feet. Chair Stewart recalled seeing some in Palisades that looked that tall, but he did not know exactly how tall they were. Mr. Boone said if they were that tall it was likely they had been approved via a variance; or, they were nonconforming houses built before the City tightened zoning regulations in the 1960s; or, they had been built during the "midpoint to gable" period when the City measured height differently; or, they had been approved as exceptions in a planned development approval process for developments like Mountain Park. Chair Stewart said the large void under them was what made them see so massive. Vice Chair Glisson recalled that houses that reached 35 feet in front and then followed the line of the slope up the hill looked massive. She and Commissioner Brockman suggested leaving the height limit at 35 feet and not raising it to 45 feet. Commissioner Gustafson advised the visual impact from the front would be similar, whether the house was 35 feet or 45 feet. But he agreed with Commissioner Brockman that the poles of houses that were ten feet taller would look that much higher from the downslope side. Chair Stewart added that side was visible from more perspectives and from farther away than the front yard was. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 14, 2009 Ex�9 5. id-16 Page 5 of 12 til LU 08-0053 193 Commissioner Gustafson said the Planning Commission should ask the public if they supported the proposed changes. Until then they should trust the Infill Task Force. Commissioner Johnson agreed. Commissioner Brockman did not want to enter the public hearing proposing an increase to 45 feet, but she said she could agree to start the hearing with the Infill Task Force recommendations regarding how uphill and downhill setback planes were measured. Chair Stewart then observed that some Commissioners had reservations about increasing the height limit. Allow an 18-foot Minimum Setback on Steeply sloped lots? Mr. Boone agreed to check with Mr. Egner to find out if staff intended to allow the proposed 18-foot setback to override a Special Street Setback, if there were one. Planned Developments (Exhibit F-3, Infill Task Force Final Recommendation) The Commissioners examined the Infill Task Force recommended language that changed the setback requirements for Planned Developments (PD). The required separation between houses was 16 to 20 feet, depending on the height of the structures. Staff confirmed that these provisions could prevent one owner from adding on to his/her house if there was no room to expand because the adjacent house was closer to the shared property line and adding on would reduce the amount of separation to under the limit. Mr. Boone said when a Planned Development was approved it usually had no structures on it and it was its own "floating" zone. Under the recommendation, once the first structure was built that set the zone standard, including the allowable setback for the next house. If the required separation was set by the earliest house at 16 feet, and that house was located 6-feet from the joint property line, the next house would be required to have a 10-foot setback. Mr. Boone advised an owner could seek a modification of the 411 PD approval in order to change the setback on a particular lot, but it was an arduous process that required notice to all the other PD property owners and a demonstration that the modification did not impact privacy. Vice Chair Glisson said she was ok with that, but Commissioner Paretchan questioned why this provision was necessary. Commissioner Johnson said the developer of a PD should have the whole layout figured out before the plan was approved. Commissioner Gustafson said the developer could simply lay out the entire PD so houses centered on their lots, but then all the houses might end up with two, unusable-sized, side yards. So, instead, all the houses could be shifted so each house was closer to one side of its lot. The result would be that the separation between houses would be the same. but each house would have one. useable-sized, side yard. Chair Stewart said that would look better, too, but sometimes houses had to be positioned to avoid trees. The Commissioners agreed to forward this Infill Task Force recommendation to the hearing, but Commissioners Brockman and Gustafson wanted to be sure the provisions would be clearly understood by owners who might want to put an addition on their house. There was probably a good reason to have the provisions, but the Commissioners hoped the developer would lay out the PD in a way that was beneficial to all those who would live there. Duplexes and Single Family Attached (Section 10) Should the in fill design standards apply to duplexes and attached dwellings in the high and medium density zones? Should garage appearance standards be more flexible for duplexes and attached dwellings? Commissioner Brockman said the standards should apply but the garage standards should be more flexible because it was better to have cars in garages than parked along the street. Chair Stewart and Vice Chair Glisson agreed. Vice Chair Glisson pointed out that the garage standards language in the actual code specified the garage was limited • City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 14, 2009 Paolie 6 of 11 Page 6 of 12 EXHIIT C-16 LU 08-0053 194 to a certain percentage of the "structure facade width," but the staff report said the garage could occupy up to 75% of the "lot width." She clarified that the amendments the Commissioners were considering should refer to structure facade width — not lot width. The Commissioners wanted to know how the lot coverage standard would be applied to rowhouses. Did it apply to the individual units? Mr. Boone explained the proposed amendments would apply infill standards to duplexes and single family attached housing. Infill ordinance standards were standards such as front setback planes, side setback planes. allowable height of structures, allowable exceptions to height, and garage location and appearance requirements. But he clarified that lot coverage was a zone standard, not an infill standard. When a multi-unit, zero lot line, project was developed under a single. unified. site plan in the R-0, R-2, R-3 and R-5 zones lot coverage was what the entire project covered, not what individual units covered. Chair Stewart announced a short break and thereafter reconvened the work session. Commissioner Paretchan observed that in Supplemental Staff Report #11. page 7, staff proposed a few small changes to the Infill Task Force final recommendations on pages 52-57 related to "enclosed outdoor living space." She saw a lot of red text on those pages staff had not yet guided the Commissioners through. The Commissioners then agreed to wait for Mr. Egner to return and explain Section 10 to them. They also wanted staff to explain the fence and gate provisions and related illustration. Flaq Lots/Serial Partitions (Section 111 Commissioner Brockman said she felt that flag lots should be larger than the zone • minimum lot size in order to ensure more privacy. Chair Stewart said the changes related to the relative position of the houses and accessway would have a spatially harmonious result. Commissioner Brockman agreed it would result in nicer flag lot arrangement than many she had seen. Commissioner Paretchan saw it as a "one size fits all" provision that assumed all parcels were rectangular in shape. It might work fine on a five-acre parcel, but it was too restrictive for someone creating just one flag lot on a smaller, irregular-shaped, parcel. Commissioner Gustafson observed the requirement to share the access lane actually freed up space on a small parcel. Vice Chair Glisson observed it offered a better sense of backyard. Commissioner Johnson also liked the site arrangement. The Commissioners discussed the connectivity requirement, which they noted would apply to smaller parcels (1.75 acre or greater) than the current threshold of five acres. Vice Chair Glisson wanted to hear more from staff before making such a big change. Commissioner Brockman said her experience in another jurisdiction was they planned future roads ahead of time to assure connectivity and fire protection. Vice Chair Glisson noted this provision would affect some large parcels in the middle of established neighborhoods, The developers would have to set aside land for potential access that might never be needed, She suggested the Commissioners pull this proposed change out and spend more time on it later. Commissioner Brockman and Chair Stewart agreed to that. He wanted to know what the thought process leading up to it had been. Commissioner Paretchan said it was too restrictive and took away the option to be creative. She observed the draft assumed it was a bad thing to live on flag lots that were isolated from the surrounding neighborhood, but some people preferred that. Mr. Boone explained that current connectivity standards allowed the connectivity requirement to be reduced to just pedestrian connectivity, or waived entirely. when the existing abutting development pattern or topography precluded logical connection of streets. • City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 14, 2009 E ��Z�f 6-16 Page 7 of 12 LU 08-0053 195 Commissioner Paretchan asked if that decision was left to staff discretion. Mr. Boone i said the staff decision could be appealed to the Development Review Commission (DRC), and staffs practice was to let the DRC decide a subdivision application. Commissioner Jones said he saw no compelling reason for applying it to parcels as small as 1.75 acres and creating more roads (which created more traffic and density). He wanted to hear a good reason from staff before he agreed to apply it to parcels that were less than five acres. Commissioner Paretchan questioned staff justification that the provision would create stronger neighborhoods and neighborhood character. Commissioner Gustafson said it at least enabled the City to look at whether some connectivity was needed each time a smaller parcel was developed. He predicted the City would see more PDs proposed on 1.5 to 2-acre parcels. Commissioner Brockman wanted them to feature adequate space for a fire truck to turn around. Mr. Boone advised the City would require the developer to provide a temporary turnaround adequate for fire access until connectivity happened. Commissioner Brockman wanted to know how that affected lot size. Mr. Boone said the extra, temporary, turnaround part of the accessway would likely be an easement that would not affect lot size. Commissioner Paretchan pointed out language that said that the access lanes or private streets themselves that were created by a subdivision were to be offered to the City as dedicated right-of-way. She questioned why they had to become public right-of-way that the City had to maintain. Commissioner Paretchan did not favor the proposal that required the front of the lot to be the side from which access was taken or the proposal that required a "connecting lane," with houses fronting on the lane. She said sometimes the owners might want a driveway that went towards the back of a house or they might want to orient houses so they faced some natural feature. Chair Stewart said it would avoid a situation where the front of one house faced the backyard of another house. Mr. Boone clarified that the • provision set the "front of the lot" (not necessarily the front of the house or the front door) parallel to the access lane. That way there was enough reserved yard area when the street eventually did go through to make the houses look appropriately aligned to the street, which was what the Infill Task Force wanted. Commissioner Johnson said he lived in an area of many flag lots and the 1.75-acre threshold and orientation requirement made sense. If the lane became a street the houses' front yards would be aligned the right distance from the street. He predicted that many parcels in Rivergrove would request annexation in the future because they needed a sewer connection. Many had very narrow frontage and would likely be partitioned into flag lots with three to five houses on them. The houses would likely be built one at a time over time, like infill. For that reason they should be reviewed one by one to see if exceptions were warranted. When Vice Chair Glisson observed an accessway might dead-end due to the existing surrounding development pattern, Mr. Boone said in that case an exception could be granted. He pointed out the proposed regulations applied to serial partitions too. Commissioner Jones did not favor reducing the street connectivity requirement threshold from five acres to 1.75 acres. Commissioner Gustafson said he did not feel the proposed requirements were more restrictive than the current code. Commissioner Paretchan held an analysis of how they would affect irregular lots was needed. Commissioner Gustafson said the shared access lane was actually more beneficial there than having to create two accesses. Mr. Boone explained a flag lot used to be considered more of a privilege and it was not encouraged. That had changed, but flag lot standards imposed greater setback requirements in order to protect neighbors' privacy. He advised that some irregular lots might not be developable as flag lots because they could not meet those standards. Commissioner Johnson agreed that the provisions should not guarantee that every lot was allowed to be partitioned into a flag • Ciy of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 14. 2009 Pa e 8 of 11 Page 8 of 12 EXHIBIT C-16 LU 08-0053 196 • lot. Commissioner Paretchan said owners of small parcels should not be required to coordinate access to provide a connective lane. There was no consensus so Chair Stewart observed the Commissioners wanted more staff clarification and direction. He suggested the Commissioners take time in the interim before the next meeting to read and understand the proposed language and get ready to address the idea of single family home design review. The Commissioners generally agreed they needed more staff explanation and guidance regarding Sections 10 and 11. Design Review Commissioner Brockman stressed the community feared there would be more infill that seriously encroached on neighbors' privacy. She said it had not happened very often, but she had found three or four examples of long, skinny, houses on narrow, deep, lots that looked into the neighbors' house and yard. She advocated requiring design review for such a house. She said neither the Infill Task Force recommended standards nor the tighter standards the Planning Commission had fashioned solved the problem. She suggested the design review process should be an expedited process that involved notice to the neighbors. If they did not object, no hearing would be required. Mr. Boone observed that was similar to the current RID process: if no one objected, it was approved. Commissioner Brockman suggested the trigger to design review would be a long, skinny, two-story, house that took up a certain proportion of a narrow, deep, lot. Staff could advise the Commissioners exactly what the size and proportionality triggers should • be. She said second story windows looked into the neighbors' skylights and back and front yards in one particularly egregious case she knew of. In another case a parcel had been split into two, very long, skinny, lots. She stressed the community needed protection from that kind of infill. She clarified that a single story house would not pose a problem so no design review would be necessary. There were only a few egregious examples, so the process would be not be used very often. But it was important to have the review process because the four examples stuck out like sore thumbs in the community and people feared someone would build one like them next to their house. Commissioner Gustafson did not favor using design review for this. He believed clear and objective general standards could be fashioned to prevent examples like those. He reasoned that if design review would require guidelines anyway, why not put them in the general code as standards? Mice Chair Glisson noted that the Planning Commission had improved the RID process. Commissioner Brockman clarified that she did not believe the proposed setback planes and regulations to break up a large facade would solve the problem. She recalled the Infill Task Force had applied their standards to these examples of undesirable infill and they had not improved them. She said that even though the Commissioners had tentatively agreed to require a long-walled house to be well set back from each side property line and screened by heavy landscaping that did not prevent views of the neighbors' private spaces from the second story windows. When asked what a reviewing body could require to avoid that, she said for one thing they could require the windows to be very high. She clarified that if the Planning Commission could come up with standards that would address the situation, she would agree to that. She suggested the approach should be to look at the bad examples of infill and figure out how to solve the problems they posed with clear and objective standards. She indicated that if they agreed to use design review, it should be a very • City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 14, 2009 Page 9 of 11 Page 9 of 12 EXHIBIT C-16 LU 08-0053 197 narrow scope review with a specific trigger. The trigger would be a long, skinny, two 1111 - story, house that impacted every bit of the privacy of the adjacent house. Commissioner Paretchan advised the reality was that the Planning Commission could not fashion code to solve every problem and Commissioner Gustafson agreed. Vice Chair Glisson saw the need for a design solution. Commissioner Paretchan said part of the problem with one example of undesirable infill on South Shore was that it was next to what was now a nonconforming house — it was too far forward. That house could not be built today that close to the road. Another example of undesirable infill had been forced to move back to meet the current front yard setback. She suggested applying the code adjustments the Infill Task Force and Commissioners had fashioned so far to the four "problem" houses to see if they would be made less problematic. Vice Chair Glisson said one would likely have never been allowed to be built if it had to have 20-foot side setbacks. Commissioner Brockman said the problem would not be solved by wide setbacks because the occupants could still see into the neighbors' back yard. Commissioner Paretchan suggested addressing that with a rule that they could not have views into somebody's backyard. When the Commissioners discussed what the next step was, Commissioner Brockman suggested they ask staff to apply all the Infill Task Force and Planning Commission- proposed standards to the problematic examples of infill and advise the Commissioners about what they found. Commissioner Johnson said his experience working with the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area was that design review worked with the right guidelines, and it worked in other jurisdictions around the country. He said that sometimes general standards like setbacks were not the solution and that infill regulations were the City's response to huge infill houses that were totally out of 4111 character with the neighborhood they were in. He indicated that the City needed to try to address that or it would continue to be an issue. He suggested analyzing the four problematic houses to identify what made them problematic and use that knowledge to set the "trigger" and guidelines. Vice Chair Glisson did not think the City needed design review yet because the proposed amendments set all kinds of new limits on development and they had not yet been tested. She was willing to consider design review if only a very narrow set of circumstances triggered it. Commissioner Jones said he favored the concept of design review and he would like to explore it. He commented that Lake Oswego neighborhoods were going through drastic change from small houses on larger lots to large houses on smaller lots and it created a lot of anxiety. Commissioner Gustafson reasoned that if the Planning Commission was able to identify what the triggers should be and what the guidelines should be they could incorporate them into the code as standards. He observed they had already tightened up the regulations and design review would be like "hitting the same problem with two different hammers." Commissioner Brockman stressed this was a communitywide issue to be addressed and the Planning Commission needed to address it. Commissioner Paretchan questioned whether the Planning Commission needed to wrestle with fashioning a design review process at this time. She would not oppose it, but she was not sure that analyzing undesirable infill examples was how the Commissioners and staff should be spending their time when they had other things to deal with right now. Chair Stewart observed the Commissioners were split on the issue. He asked staff to apply the newly proposed standards to the four "bad" examples of infill as case studies and try to identify any common traits that made them undesirable. Commissioner Brockman offered to provide the addresses. At the October 12th meeting the City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 14, 2009 Page 10 of 11 Page 10 of 12 EXHIBIT C-16 LU 08-0053 198 • Commissioners were to decide if they needed additional building design standards, or a design review process. Mr. Boone said he was hearing from the discussion that some Commissioners favored full design review relative to the neighborhood. But he had also heard from some Commissioners in the discussion that window placement or the length of wall planes or some specific standards like that could address abutting neighbor privacy concerns. Commissioner Johnson did not want to get that specific yet. He wanted to first find out what attributes made the undesirable examples of infiil sore thumbs in the neighborhood. He said the Commissioners might find that clear and objective standards would change that, or that design review was necessary. VIII. OTHER BUSINESS — PLANNING COMMISSION Findings, Conclusions and Order LU 09-0004 — Institutional Uses (Lot Coverage Related to Schools) Commissioner Brockman recalled the Planning Commission had eard testimony that increased lot coverage generated increased noise and air pollu n and institutional uses might even need to acquire adjoining properties so they ha nough room for things like parking. Ail schools, public and private, had tho impacts and they affected neighborhood character and compatibility. Commissioner Brockman moved to a rov U 09-0004-1709 Findin s. Conclusions and Order. with the words, "noise and a. ollution" inserted into the list of impacts on Line 24 Commissioner Jones s"onded the motion and discussion followed. Commissioner Johnson explaineat he had reviewed the record and would vote on • the findings. He clarified that a would have advocated either the conditional use option or reducing the acreage. a vote was then conducted and the motion passed 5:0. Vice Chair Glisson abs ned. Mr. Boone advised the City Council hearing was not yet scheduled, and inte ested parties should check with Iris McCaleb later to learn when it was set. IX. OTHER SINESS - COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVMENT X. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stewart adjourned the meeting at 9:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Iris McCaleb lsl Iris McCaleb Administrative Support City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 14, 2009 Pa e 11 of 11 Page 11 of 12 EXHIBIT C-16 LU 08-0053 199 • • • Page 12 of 12 EXHIBIT C-16 LU 08-0053 200 ``�.,OE LAKE OS,,,e, • City'of Lake Oswego rovedPlanning Commission Minutes _�`-`- October 12, 2009 OREGO$ APP I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Philip Stewart called the Planning Commission meeting of October 12, 2009 to order at 6:40 p.m. at the Main Fire Station, 300"B" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. The meeting was moved to the Main Fire Station as a result of City Hall being evacuated by Police due to an emergency. II. ROLL CALL Members present were Chair Stewart, Vice Chair Julia Glisson and Commissioners Adrianne Brockman, Jon Gustafson, Jim Johnson and Lynne Paretchan. Commissioner Russell Jones was excused. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Support. EDIll. CITIZEN COMMENT None. IV. COUNCIL UPDATE Mr. Egner indicated that the Council had adopted the supple - tal budget and they also received an update on the Boones Ferry Road Refineme tudy. V. GENERAL ORGANIZATION AND SCHEDULE ' - fIEW Rolling Agenda The Planning Commission agre-. that at the meeting on October 26th they would discuss goals for 2010. Mr. .s er indicated that he would hand out the infill staff report and spend about 30 tes reviewing it, He said an open house on the infill amendments was sc -•uled for December 10th VI. MINUTES C•• missioner Brockman moved to approve the Minutes of September 14, 2009. ommissioner Gustafson seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. Ill Page 1 of 4 EXHIBIT C-17 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission LU 0B-0053 Minutes of October 12, 2009 vage 1 ot 4 201 VII PUBLIC HEARING/WORK SESSION LU 08-0053, Ordinance 2523 — Comprehensive Plan — Infill Amendments 1111 LU 08-0053, Ordinance 2524 — Community Development Code — Infill Amendments Commissioner Brockman moved to continue the public hearing for LU 08-0053, Ordinances 2523 and 2524 to December 14, 2009. Commissioner Gustafson seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. Chair Stewart then opened the work session to discuss certain items in depth. Duplexes and Attached Dwellings The Commission discussed the requirement that outdoor living space be provided in the front of the structure if a wider garage were allowed. No changes were proposed. Flag Lots Mr. Egner explained that the proposed flag lot standards were intended to encourage a better sense of neighborhood and privacy. Commissioner Paretchan commented that there was more than one way to have a neighborhood and that there were lots of people who liked to live on flag lots, away from the street or not facing the street. People found houses that fit them. Commissioner Gustafson commented that shifting setbacks would offer more flexibility. Commissioner Johnson agreed it was more about setbacks than design and said that they needed to hear what the public had to say. • Commissioner Paretchan commented that the Infill Task Force made recommendations and the Commission was reviewing them and making their own recommendations. She said the public would have an opportunity to comment on the changes. Mr. Egner said the hearing was an opportunity for the public to hear about the changes made to the Infill Task Force recommendations in addition to the rest of the proposed amendments. Sherry Finnigan, a former member of the Infill Task Force, commented that there had been no meeting with the Infill Task Force to discuss what was learned from the October 2009 public hearing. Mr. Egner said he would highlight areas where the Commission stated they wanted to hear more from the public. Commissioner Johnson said that the City needed to legislate what was most common then have a way of dealing with exceptions. He said the code needed to address the bigger issues. Jim Bolland, a former member of the Infill Task Force, recalled that they had received public testimony and looked at multiple flag lots that were on lanes or access driveways and saw good and bad examples. They were trying to come up with a standard of how to plan for multiple flag lots and leave the access way open. Orientation would be determined based on existing homes on both sides of street. Mr. Egner said the parent lot was not the flag lot. It was generally the lot to the rear. • Page 2 of 4 EXHIBIT C-17 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission LU 08-0Qz53 Minutes of October 12, 2009 age Ot 4 202 The Commission had further discussion on orientation and setbacks. They took a break at 8:05 p.m. and Chair Stewart reconvened the meeting at 8:17 p.m. Chair Stewart asked each of the Commissioner to share their concerns. Commissioner Gustafson said the objectives were good. Commissioner Brockman said building height was a concern and that there should be no more than one and a half stories regardless of orientation. Vice Chair Glisson said she had some concern about house orientation for single flag lots. She said there needed to be more flexibility. Commissioner Johnson said if there was an issue, put it in the staff report and ask for input. Commissioner Paretchan commented that the wording was not clear and she would like to see something easier to understand and that it would be worth going through and cleaning up the language. She said access lanes were not always needed and they had heard differing opinions. She indicated that there were a lot of "shalls" being used, there was no discretion and it needed to be more flexible. Chair Stewart said the concepts made sense to him and he agreed with Vice Chair Glisson that there needed to be more flexibility for single lot flag lots. Design Review and Long Lots Mr. Egner mentioned that the Task Force had considered the concept (developed by consultant Ron Kellett) for a horizontal angle setback but rejected it as being too 11111 complicated. Commissioner Gustafson commented that if triggers could be identified then criteria for design review could be established. Commissioner Brockman wanted to see code language written that placed strip windows up high that provided light, but gave privacy. Vice Chair Glisson said there would need to be a window for an emergency exit. She indicated that design review should not be broad, it should have a very narrow trigger and the more clear and objective language the better. Commissioner Brockman agreed it needed to be narrowly written. Commissioner Johnson commented that design review was for infill, not full scale development and you were looking at 10 to 20 a year, which wouldn't be a burden to staff. He said that we shouldn't be developing design standards for the odd circumstances that may occur only once or twice in the City. Commissioner Johnson suggested that single-family homes could be an administrative review/staff decision that was appealable and that multi-family and land divisions could be reviewed by the Development Review Commission. Commissioners Gustafson and Paretchan agreed that there needed to be clear and objective standards. Chair Stewart commented that if a long house exceeded certain minimum proportions • that could trigger design review. Page 3 of 4 EXHIBIT C-17 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission LU OR-00�53 Minutes of October 12, 2009 aye ot 4 203 Commissioner Gustafson said he didn't know of anyone that would voluntarily go through design review if it could be avoided. Mr. Bolland said the Task Forces intention was for the Planning Commission and City Council to have a discussion about design review and the range of options that would trigger it. He said compatibility was the issue. He suggested looking at how design review was being used in California. Vice Chair Glisson commented that designs had been changing for decades and that only a handful of houses were left that had been built in the era of her home. She said she understood wanting to save old designs, but sometimes newer designs were better. She referred to Glenmorrie neighbors wanting to create a design manual for their neighborhood. Mr. Egner provided the following summary of issues: • Design review — identify triggers, administrative approach (i.e.: long 2-story houses). • The need for a design guideline/handbook (include window placement and landscaping). • Standards — 50-foot depth to house with a 20 foot setback and 2-story houses. The Commission discussed what they would be forwarding to the Council. They said that the recommendation should be what the Commission wants, and not necessarily what they think the Council would adopt. Additional options could include: • No design review. • Light design review. • • Full design review. • A design handbook. VIII. OTHER BUSINESS — PLANNING COMMISSION None. IX. OTHER BUSINESS - COMMISSION FO• ZEN INVOLVMENT None. X. ADJOURNME - being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stewart adjourned the meeting at 9:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Iris McCaleb /s/ Iris McCaleb Administrative Support 11, Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT C-17 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission LU 0e-0053 Minutes of October 12, 2009 Hage 4 of 4 204 • 04}AKEp ,itisiir --Nici):. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes rOVed _,),, `' - October 26, 2009 APP oREGOK_ 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Philip Stewart called the Planning Commission meeting of October 26, 2009 to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon, II. ROLL CALL Members present were Chair Philip Stewart, Vice Chair Julie Glisson and Commissioners Adrianne Brockman, Jon Gustafson, Jim Johnson (arrived at 6:40 p.m.), Russell Jones and Lynne Paretchan. Staff present: Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Support. III. CITIZEN COMMENT Diane Schweisquth, 462 5"' Street. related that a bar use in the East End Corn • s • building generated noise that affected the residents on the other side of the comma wall that separated the commercial and residential units. She said that the Ci ad not envisioned that type of use when the Commons development was approv:• and it was not an appropriate use there. She asked the City to clearly define a•. limit what the commercial aspect of a mixed-use building could be. That was - pecially important because the new business marketing plan for downtown envis.= ed a restaurant and specialty retail business cluster in the vicinity. She asked th: ity to require enhanced soundproofing between the residential and commercial u s. Ms. Schweisguth asked the City to define the boundaries between the reside. al and commercial owners and their responsibilities. She said the residents ha. already brought the issue to the attention of Denise Frisbee, Bob Galante, the Ci •ttorney and the City Council. The Commissioners wanted to know if • e City could change the way the Uniform Building Code was applied locally - •. require special soundproofing and vibration- mitigating measures between the ,-s. Mr. Boone advised the City could petition for an exception. Mr. Egner planned t• alk with Ms. Frisbee about the case. IV. COUNCIL UPDATE Mr. Egner reported • - City Council was meeting with all City boards and commissions. Last week they =.k a field trip to look at City-owned property in the Stafford basin in order to bette nderstand what the City owned and to prepare to talk about how it might be used, e Council had recently heard from a group who wanted the City to find ways to offe ore housing opportunities such as accessory dwellings, cottage clusters, and mor- rental housing. The City Council was to consider that during goal setting. Commissioner Jones saw a conflict between the controls on infill the Planning • Commission was working on and an attainable housing goal. Mr. Egner observed the Page alef 4vego Planning Commission C HIBIT C-18 Minutes of October 26, 2009 EXHIBIT C-18 L oeyous3 LU 08-0053 205 ensuring that changes preserved things like neighborhood ch missioner Paretchan opined that if a neighborhood f a mismatch between plans and code that was good Infill Amendments (LU 08-0053) Mr. Egner distributed a working draft that summarized how the Planning Commission had tentatively agreed to approach Comprehensive Plan amendments and CDC amendments (see working draft dated 10/26/09). He also handed out the draft Infill — Planning Commission Recommendation Matrix that served as the "quick reference" guide. Chair Stewart explained he still had more work to do on it, then he would email it to the Commissioners. The Commissioners examined the working draft. It reflected staffs understanding of what the Commissioners wanted to take to the hearing, including the changes they had made to the Infill Task Force proposal (see Attachment B for the amendments the Infill Task Force originally proposed and Exhibit F-3 to see Infill Task Force late revisions to their original proposal). Mr. Egner asked each Commissioner to go through the working draft before the next meeting to verify those were the changes the Planning Commission had discussed. He also asked them to identify what they wanted testimony focused on. He planned to highlight those issues in the public notice. The Commissioners were not sure all the "tweaks" they had made to the Sloped Lots section were reflected in the working draft, which said the Planning Commission was seeking public testimony on the topic. They asked to see the full code section with the changes highlighted. The Commissioners were not sure they had agreed to orient houses on a flag lot towards the lane. Commissioner Paretchan observed that if the front house on a flag lot did not face the street it looked out of place in the neighborhood. • Vice Chair Glisson suggested if the side of the front house faced the street, it should look like the front of a house. Mr. Egner recalled the Commissioners wanted to hear testimony about this topic. Commissioner Johnson asked staff to present design review to the public in the context of proposed code language with a cover memo. Mr. Egner said he had researched the history of the Commissioners working on the Lot Coverage and Floor Area Ratio tables. They had talked about reducing them overall by 5% to 10%; then by 10%; and finally ended up with a 5% reduction from what the Infill Task Force recommended. He said lot coverage was one potential trigger to design review, but if there was general agreement to adopt a design review process other triggers could be considered. Mr. Egner recalled the Commissioners had suggested that a house that was two stories tall and longer than 50 feet should have 20-foot side setbacks. The working draft illustrated examples of that. The question was should that standard apply to lots that were only 50 feet wide? Should there be a depth threshold? Commissioner Jones suggested there were long, skinny, lots in Lake Oswego on which owners should not be able to build a big house. Commissioner Paretchan recalled a two-story house on a long, skinny, sloped lot in her neighborhood that was nicely designed and did not pose a problem. The problem was the huge houses on either side of it that were too close to it. Mr. Egner suggested the approach might be to apply a different Floor Area Ratio (FAR) to long, narrow lots. Mr. Egner advised that keeping accessory uses and building projection exceptions outside a five-foot minimum setback area could have unintended consequences. It • could result in "eave-less" houses. Commissioner Brockman circulated a photograph of Pag*12k0f4ego Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-18 Minutes of October 26, 2009 LU 03843053 206 a house under construction on Lakeview Boulevard that appeared to be too close to the neighbor's house and asked the other Commissioners to go look at it. She asked why they would want to allow anything to reduce a setback to less than five feet. Commissioner Paretchan said there were too many exceptions allowed, but she did not care if exceptions included eaves or not. Vice Chair Glisson recalled the Commissioners had decided in the end that it would be cleaner to just place a limit at five feet. Mr. Egner asked them to continue to think about this change. When asked, Mr. Egner clarified that he had been offering the Commissioners his recommendations during their discussions but the staff report would not contain staff recommendations. Mr. Boone said he would work with Mr. Egner to clean up the long wall plane text. He asked the Commissioners if"linear depth of greater than 50 feet" included the carport or front porch. Mr. Egner confirmed to Mr. Boone that the Commissioners had also agreed to change the Class 1 variance allowance to reflect that the side setback could not be reduced to less than five feet. Mr. Boone asked if the Commissioners wanted to keep access walkways, pathways, patios and decks less than 30 inches above ground outside a five-foot setback or allow them to be as close as three feet from the property line. The Commissioners asked Mr. Egner to make sure the public was aware the proposed changes would subject Residential Infill Development (RID) review to the standard minor development notification process. Commissioner Jones recalled the Commissioners wanted RID to be primarily used for remodels, not new development. He wanted the report to clarify that was the intent. Mr. Egner said it would allow owners to vary more things with remodels. The 50% increase in the floor-area threshold between more modest remodels and new structures and major remodels could be changed to 50% of lot coverage, or wall area, or something else. Vice Chair Glisson pointed out in the • Applicability section that 50.72.020(1)(a) did not allow new residential structures or major remodeling projects to adjust lot coverage, but (1)(b) allowed smaller remodeling projects to do that. The working draft illustrated which surrounding structures were to be used to gauge RID compatibility. Commissioner Paretchan had suggested looking at the closest five houses on either side and then ten across the street. Staff would suggest ways to measure it if the street dead-ended two houses away. or if there were vacant lots. Mr. Boone asked the Commissioners to consider how to do this if there were duplex, commercial or mixed-use structures in the area. He said staff would make it clear that it was the City Council that changed the master fee schedule annually and the public should look to the City Council to modify the RID appeal fee. He said he would work with Mr. Egner to ensure the flexibility to adjust the combined total of front and rear setbacks by 20% did not encourage people to gerrymander the house so they could cover more of the lot. Mr. Boone asked what the RID criteria that allowed the City Manager to consider the number of buildings on a site and the prevailing patterns of building alignment and spacing (rhythm) was intended to accomplish. Was it supposed to make the development look compatible from the street? In that case did it matter if there was an accessory structure in back that could not be seen from the street? Mr. Boone advised that a condition of approval to use landscaping to mitigate an impact was problematic because the conditions would likely have to require that the tree remain where it was forever. Mr. Egner recalled the Commissioners wanted to invite additional testimony about a requirement to have a specific separation between houses inside a Planned Development. Rage 13kebdirego Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-18 Minutes of October 26, 2009 LU O 3 207 Mr. Egner recalled the Infill Task Force wanted to allow a nonconforming structure to be • rebuilt even if it had been demolished. The Commissioners at first had not wanted to allow it to be rebuilt if it had been intentionally demolished, but later they agreed with what the Infill Task Force wanted. In the meantime Mr. Boone had rewritten the entire section so it also applied to nonconforming duplexes and attached single-family structures. Mr. Egner clarified if the structure was a nonconforming commercial or multifamily use and was accidentally destroyed it would have to be rebuilt to code. Mr. Egner recalled the Commissioners did not want to allow the ministerial development process to change FAR by 2.5%, as the Infill Task Force proposed, because the Commissioners had already agreed they wanted to see an overall, 5%, reduction in FAR. Mr. Egner had researched the history of the connectivity requirement for flag lots. The Infill Task Force had set the threshold at 2 acres by unanimous vote. He thought the 1.75-acre threshold reflected the desire to set it at the minimum size parcel for a Planned Development (PD), so any PD had to provide connectivity. Commissioner Jones said he saw no compelling reason to lower it from 5 acres to 1.75 acres. Mr. Egner said there were very few 5-acre parcels left in the City. He asked at what point did the Commissioners want to trigger a requirement that would help create a better system of connected streets. The Commissioners agreed to fashion the format for deliberations at their next meeting. Mr. Boone confirmed they could hold votes on each subsection and then there could be a final motion to move the amendments package forward with the embedded sub-votes. VIII. OTHER BUSINESS — PLANNING COMMISSION • None. IX. OTHER BUSINESS — COMMISSION FOR CITjZEN1NVO VL MENT None. X. ADJOURNMENT—' _There- 6eing no further business before the Planning Commission. Chair Stewart adjourned the meeting at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted. Iris McCaleb Is/ Iris McCaleb Administrative Support Pa�L4kop4ego Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-18 Minutes of October 26, 2009 LU 3 208 • Ot_1.794 � \, , City of Lake Oswego j (. ) i Planning Commission Minutes ` �I�► / � \\„ ; November 9, 2009 APProyed `\ QREGON -- I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Philip Stewart called the Planning Commission meeting of November 9, 2009 to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Members present were Chair Philip Stewart, Adrianne Brockman, Jon Gustafson, and Lynne Paretchan. Vice Chair Julia Glisson and Commissioners Jim Johnson and Russell Jones were excused. Council Liaison Bill Tierney was present, Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Support. III. CITIZEN COMMENT None. IV. COUNCIL UPDATE Councilor Bill Tierney reported that the City Council was continuing to work o :-nsitive Lands and Clean Streams. Mr. Egner reported that the sustainability tr ng program for Planning Commissioners, City Councilors and department mans.- s was scheduled for November 23`d. V. GENERAL ORGANIZATION /SCHEDULE REVIEW • Rolling Agenda The November 23`d Planning Co . • ssion meeting was to be rescheduled for November 30th. The Commissioners •• erved they had a lot of work to finish after infiil. Chair Stewart invited them • suggest ways the Planning Commission could work more efficiently. VI. MINUTE ' e vote on the Minutes of October 12, 2009 was postponed. EXHIBIT C-19 • LU 08-0053 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of November 9, 2009 Page 1 of 5 Page 1 of 6 EXHIBIT C-19 LU 08-0053 209 VII. WORK SESSION LU 08-0053, Ordinance 2523 — Comprehensive Plan —Infill Amendments LU 08-0053, Ordinance 2523 - Community Development Code — Infill Amendments On October 12, 2009 the Planning Commission continued the public hearing on these ordinances to December 14, 2009. At this work session the Commissioners finalized infill proposals to take forward to the hearing. They reconciled the Working Draft (version 10/29/09) list of changes staff had compiled with their recollection of what they had discussed in previous sessions. Chair Stewart and staff had also prepared a matrix (Infill — Planning Commission Recommendation Matrix) for use as a quick reference guide to issues to be addressed and the differences between changes recommended by the Infill Task Force and the Planning Commission. The Commissioners examined the Working Draft and discussed the following sections. Section 1 — Comprehensive Plan Amendments— Neighborhood Planning/Design Review A prospective Comprehensive Plan amendment would allow local zones or overlay districts. If the Commissioners decided to recommend one of the concepts for single- family residential design review they would work on the process and specific thresholds later. Section 2- Lot Coverage / Maximum Floor Area The Commissioners clarified that their approach to the concern that infill houses were • too big was to reduce the currently allowable Lot Coverage and Maximum Floor Area standards by approximately five percent. Section 3— Structure Design/Setback Planes Staff clarified under Setback Planes that the developer could chose which Corner Lot yard was to be considered the "front yard." The front yard setback plane standard required a different pitch than the side yard setback plane. Commissioner Paretchan wanted to be able to use existing landscaping to meet the Landscape Screening requirement. Commissioner Gustafson said it should count, but he observed that the proposed requirement was so meager that it was not hard to meet. Mr. Boone cautioned that if the City adopted a standard that required a judgment call that would trigger a minor development review process. Barbara Zeller, 3335 Sabina Court. Chair of the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association, said hedges and large shrubs should also count. There should be diversity of plants. A simple landscape plan showing how the developer would incorporate existing landscaping could be required. She said her neighborhood had worked on that concept and she would provide copies to the Commissioners. The Commissioners anticipated they would hear more testimony on this issue. Mr. Egner clarified that the Infill Task Force proposal would allow a second floor balcony to project into a side yard setback. The Commissioners wanted to hear testimony about the issue of allowing some features to project into a narrow side yard setback. Commissioner Paretchan did not agree with requiring 20-foot side yard setbacks on long, narrow lots. She said her neighborhood featured many long, narrow lots. Under • City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes cf No ber 9, 2009 Pace 2 of 5 Page oily EXHIBIT C-19 LU 08-0053 210 0 the proposed standard there was not much room left for a house on a 50' wide, 125' long lot. Section 4 — Yard Setbacks The Planning Commission was proposing a provision that would not allow Yard Exceptions to reduce a setback to less than five feet. Staff explained they assumed the new five-foot limitation would not apply to Class II variances or affect the adjustment processes currently allowed in the Downtown Redevelopment District and the Lake Grove Village Center District. They did not recommend allowing the current amendments to override the districts and they observed the districts represented more mixed-use than single-family residential or duplex-residential use. The Commissioners had not discussed that, but Chair Stewart observed general agreement to move ahead with it. It might make sense to exempt the districts and a Class II variance was hard to get. The Commissioners observed staff had inserted the list of criteria for allowing the side yard of an Accessory Use to be reduced to five feet. They could not recall discussing accessory uses to that extent, but they did not change the draft. The Planning Commission enjoyed a short break and then reconvened. Section 5 — Sloped Lots Commissioner Paretchan saw the R-6 (FAN) Four Foot Height Adjustment report statement that said, "Some Commissioners question whether this concept should be more broadly applied in the City." She asked staff to revise it to say that some Commissioners suggested that. Staff clarified that the Infill Task Force had proposed • the Height Measurements change and this provision only appiied to lots that sloped downward from the street. Commissioner Paretchan suggested they clarify it by inserting "downslope." Mr. Boone clarified the measurement started at the centerline of the "street," which was the area between right-of-way boundary lines. Section 6 - RID Review Commissioner Brockman referred to B. Applicability, and recalled that the Commissioners had agreed that remodeling projects could be allowed to adjust front and rear setbacks by a combined maximum of 20%, but they had not agreed to allow that for new development. The intent was to offer the adjustment in order to encourage owners to remodel their homes by allowing them to expand a room. The Commissioners then asked that provision B(1)(a)(iii) be removed from the provisions for new structures. Mr. Egner recalled that the Infill Task Force had not made a distinction between new development and remodels. Commissioner Brockman questioned whether the Planning Commission had ever discussed allowing setbacks to be reduced to zero where a remodeling project abutted the Oswego Lake setback or dedicated open space. The Commissioners planned to listen to testimony about that. The Commissioners removed "(may be reduced to zero)" from the Applicability section provisions regarding setbacks because that language was not necessary. Staff advised that language could be struck, but that would not remove the possibility the setbacks could be varied down to zero. Commissioner Gustafson saw a need at a future time to consider how to define the Oswego Lake setback. Ms. Zeller wanted clarification about how the 50% threshold between the remodeling classification and new development classification would apply if no part of a nonconforming structure were removed or demolished, but an addition was added. Mr. • Egner explained the intent of the provision was to ensure that at least some portion of City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of November 9, 2009 Page 3 of 5 Page 3 of 6 EXHIBIT C-19 LU 08-0053 211 the structure had to remain to be eligible for the Residential lnfill Design (RID) process. 4111 If no part of the structure was removed, then the structure still qualified as a remodeling project because less than 50% of the structure was removed or demolished. The Commissioners were trying to discourage teardowns and encourage remodels. Section 9— Miscellaneous Provisions The Commissioners discussed the one-year time limit for rebuilding a nonconforming structure that had been damaged or destroyed. Commissioner Paretchan suggested allowing three years so an owner would have time to negotiate a settlement with the insurance company. Commissioner Gustafson said he could agree to extend it to two years, but after three years neighbors might have gotten used to not having a nonconforming structure there and they might expect someone to build a conforming structure. Commissioner Paretchan said the structure might be in a neighborhood of nonconforming structures. Commissioner Brockman suggested allowing a one-year renewal of the one-year period if owners could demonstrate they were making a good faith effort toward rebuilding, Mr. Boone advised that neighbors might challenge a determination by a building official that the owner was making a good faith effort. After one year neighbors might assume the ability to rebuild it was gone and be surprised by start of construction activity on the site because they had received no notice and had no ability to challenge it. He wanted more time to think about standards to apply to address the right to continue nonconformity. When asked, he advised a building permit could be extended every six months, as long as some activity was occurring. An owner could take a very long time to construct a structure as long as a little bit of activity happened on the ground every six months. Commissioner Paretchan observed building plans and building permit fees were costly. so the time limit should be longer in case the owner had 411 to sue their insurance company. Commissioner Gustafson could agree to allow an extension with a cap, so owners could not go on for years showing they were making a "good faith effort." That was not in the public interest. Commissioner Brockman did not favor a cap if they showed they were making a good faith effort. Mr. Egner said he would report that the Planning Commission was considering language that would extend the time period. The Commissioners anticipated they would continue to work out the issue in deliberations. Mr. Boone advised current Sensitive Lands code specified that reconstruction had to be commenced within one year of the date of damage and it had to be completed within two years of such date. But he recalled that was supposed to be a "placeholder" provision until the Planning Commission considered the issue of rebuilding nonconforming structures. Commissioner Paretchan suggested those owners might not be able to rebuild in that time period. Mr. Boone asked what was to be done with the house if rebuilding was not completed within two years. Mr. Egner said staff notes would report that the Commissioners were looking at language to extend that time period. Section 11 — Flag Lots/Serial Partitions The Working Draft reported the Commissioners were divided on the issue of whether houses on flag lots should be required to face the access lane. Mr. Egner explained the Working Draft was not what staff would distribute to the public. The public would get copies of the Matrix and Attachment B. The proposed changes would be incorporated into Attachment B in context and in a manner that would highlight the changes the Planning Commission was considering. Copies would be mailed to City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission • Minutes of November 9, 2009 Pane 4 of 5 Page 4 of 6 EXHIBIT C-19 LU 08-0053 212 • those who had testified and had been involved in the process already. Others would see a notice in Hello L.O. that referred them to the City website. VIII. OTHER BUSINESS — PLANNING COMMISSION Planning Commission Goals (PP 09-0015) The Commissioners examined the October 28, 2009 version draft ofa 010 Planning Commission Goals Project List. They modified it to indi that the Planning Commission would initiate discussions regarding trans ortation and community aesthetics in Lake Oswego. IX. OTHER BUSINESS — COMMISSION F ITIZEN INVOLVMENT None. X. ADJOURNME Th eing no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stewart ,___---adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Iris McCaleb Is/ Iris McCaleb Administrative Support • City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of November 9, 2009 Page 5 of 5 Page 5 of 6 EXHIBIT C-19 LU 08-0053 213 • • • Page 6 of 6 EXHIBIT C-19 LU 08-0053 214 zc S 1. • City of Lake Oswego get' I Planning Commission Minutes 10 APP December 14, 2009 CALL TO ORDER Chair Philip Stewart called the Planning Commission meeting of December 14, 2009 to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. ll. ROLL CALL Members present were Chair Stewart, Vice Chair Julia Glisson and Commissioners Adrianne Brockman, Jon Gustafson, Russell Jones and Lynne Paretchan. Commissioner Jim Johnson was excused. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Denise Frisbee, Director, Planning and Building Services; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Support. City Councilor Bill Tierney was also present. III. CITIZEN COMMENT None. • IV. COUNCIL UPDATE Councilor Bill Tierney reported that the City Council ha. -ntatively opted to allow 30% lot coverage for both public and private schools i . :2 vote. They were scheduled to consider the proposal again on January th Council goal setting sessions were scheduled in January. V. GENERAL ORGANIZATION/ "EDULE REVIEW None. VI. MINUTES h nutes for October 26, 2009 and November 9, 2009 were not available and would e considered at the next meeting. VII. PUBLIC HEARING LU 08-0053, Ordinance 2523 —Comprehensive Plan — Infill Amendments LU 08-0053, Ordinance 2524 — Community Development Code— Infill Amendments Ordinance 2523, LU 08-0053 amends the Comprehensive Plan to include a policy encouraging development of neighborhood plans and to include a policy directing the City to enact a residential design review program. Ordinance 2524, LU 08-0053 amends portions of the Community Development Code, Chapter 50, for the purpose of enhancing the compatibility of infill development and clarification, Proposed updates pertain to the following topics: lot coverage, maximum floor area, structure design. setback planes, yard setbacks, sloped lots, residential infill design review, variances, non-conforming uses, duplexes and attached dwellings, flag lots and serial partitions. The hearing had been continued from October 12, 2009. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-20 Minutes of December 14, 2009 Pane 1 of 14 Page 1 of 14 LU 08-0053 EXHIBIT C-20 U 08-0053 215 Chair Stewart opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedure and criteria. He asked the Commissioners to declare any conflicts of interest. None were declared. Staff Report Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager, presented the staff report The report related the history of the effort to amend the infill provisions and listed key issues the Commissioners wanted the public to weigh in on. Attached to the staff report were draft Ordinances 2523 (Comprehensive Plan) and 2524, Attachment B (Community Development code) both dated 11-25-09. The drafts incorporated the final recommendations of the Infill Task Force (Exhibit F-3) and the Planning Commission's proposed revisions. Public Testimony Ralph Tahran, 13741 Knaus Road, Chair of the Infill Task Force, submitted written comments and illustrations (Exhibit G-13). He doubted that a new design review process would accomplish much because the code already regulated most aspects of a design. He estimated it would cost an additional $8,000 to $10,000 in design fees. He then discussed proposed regulations related to nonconforming uses. Because of code changes it was likely that most houses five years or older did not conform to today's code. He cautioned that the 50% assessed value threshold, the limits on what could be done. and the time limit to rebuild made it very costly to remodel some homes and forced teardowns. Mr. Tahran discussed the proposed 50-foot limit on long wall planes using diagrams that • he specified were drawn to scale and based on exact calculations. He suggested increasing the wall length limit to 55 or 60 feet would reduce the need to extend the structure any farther into the back of the lot and it would ensure the same level of privacy as the proposed standard. He had no problem with the proposed lot coverage and floor area standards. He advocated continuing to allow eaves to project up to 2 feet into a side yard setback. He advised that eaves were an important feature on narrow lots; they did not invade anyone's privacy, they provided shade, and they prevented water intrusion problems. He had included a sketch in his submittal to illustrate a house and garage on a sloped lot where the standard that required the main accessway to the house to be at the level of the driveway would not work. Mr. Tahran advised that the First Addition Neighbors/Forest Hills Neighborhood Association (FAN) sloped lot height measurement adjustment was a good idea, Brad Beals had tested it, and maybe it should be applied citywide. He suggested forming a task force to resolve standards for steeply sloped lots because the proposed standards were still complicated and hard to comprehend. Mr. Tahran recalled the original intent of the Residential Infill Design (RID) review process was to offer an informal, streamlined alternative to the variance process that would examine designs and allow better and more compatible designs that the code would allow. He observed that the original concept had gotten "blown out of proportion" into the RID review process, which was neither easy nor streamlined and was very expensive. Two of his designs had passed RID review and the design fees had been around $15,000. He cautioned against requiring a structure to maintain its compatibility with ten or twenty existing structures around it because many buildings were not worth being compatible with. He questioned whether it was fair to not allow a two-story house because the structures around it were one story. He indicated that he believed the • City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of December 14, 2009 Page 2 of 14 Page 2 of 14 EXHIBIT C-20 LU 08-0053 216 • proposed Planned Development amendments took away the flexibility that Planned Developments (PD) were originally intended to have. He stressed that a board of professionals who were trained to conduct such reviews reviewed PD applications. He had no comment regarding variances, and he indicated he agreed with the Section 10 code for duplexes and attached single-family dwellings. He saw a need to be clearer about what the flag lot house orientation standard actually meant. Did it mean the front door had to be on the lane? Were there any options? He generally agreed with connectivity standards, if exceptions were made where site constraints made that impractical or impossible. During the questioning period, Commissioner Jones was concerned that allowing features to intrude into a narrow side yard created both privacy and safety issues. He related that fire officials had told him they wanted to have a minimum of 5 feet to pass through a side yard when they responded to a fire. Commissioner Jones was concerned that allowing eaves to project into a narrow setback would allow fire to jump from house to house. Mr. Tahran differentiated encroaching overhead eaves with an encroaching wall such as a chimney. He did not think an overhang created much risk. He recalled that fire marshals usually wanted a wall to be a minimum of 3 feet from the property line to allow eaves to project 2 feet into a 5-foot side yard leaving 3 feet of yard. Mr. Tahran clarified that he understood the Planning Commission proposal would allow owners to rebuild on the existing footprint, whether it violated present standards or not, but they had to do that within a one year period of time. He explained there were a number of varied reasons owners did not go forward with their remodeling projects, especially under current economic conditions, so one year might be too short. He suggested offering owners an opportunity to reapply. • Richard Reamer, 398 Furnace Street. Chair of the Old Town Neighborhood Association, was not clear how the additional 10 feet of height was applied to structures on steep lots or the logic behind it. Mr. Egner explained that allowing the downslope side to be 10 feet higher resulted in more living space on one floor for an aging population. Otherwise the structure had to stair step down the slope because it could only be 35 feet high at any point and the main floor living space would be smaller. He clarified the additional 10 feet was allowed on the downslope side, not an upslope front elevation. fv1r. Reamer suggested making the code language more understandable. Emogene Waggoner, 18394 Pioneer Court, had served on the Infill Task Force and was also speaking for four other Infill Task Force members: Jim Bolland, Heather Chrisman, Marylou Colver and Sherry Finnigan. The five of them had been part of the seven who had voted to support the concept of a residential infill design review board. She said they did not support any of the proposed design review options, including a staff- administered program. They urged the Planning Commission to recommend that the City open a community conversation about having an appointed residential design review board. They also asked the City to produce a residential design guidelines handbook similar to the one used by Napa, California. The handbook was needed to clear up the confusion people felt at the Planning Department counter. During the questioning period, Ms. Waggoner clarified the Napa handbook contained guidelines, not rules. Commissioner Jones wanted to know if she thought a residential design review process could be an expedited, inexpensive process for owners. She responded that the ability to live in a community like Lake Oswego was worth the cost to new residents and design review would be fair to existing residents because it would make infill more compatible with existing neighborhoods. Commissioner Jones asked if • she advocated an across-the-board design review for everything. Ms. Waggoner City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Piiinuteessf D cgrr�ber 14, 2009 Page 3 of 14 g 3 '14 EXHIBIT C-20 LU 08-0053 217 suggested there should be guidelines and thresholds, such as size and lot size. But the • community and the Planning Commission should decide what the criteria should be. Brad Beals, 541 91n Street, a member of the Infill Task Force, questioned whether a residential design review process and handbook would work in Lake Oswego. where there was such a variety of neighborhoods and structures. He pointed out First Addition and Forest Hills were now one neighborhood, but they were very different. For example, First Addition had been built on a grid with 50-foot wide lots, but Forest Hills was more suburban and featured cul-de-sacs and 75- to 100-foot lots. He noted the current code had many regulations that dictated how a house could be remodeled but now some were suggesting adding a design review process that would require the remodeler to match his/her house to the 100-year-old and 30-year-old houses next door. He advised that 25% of the houses in First Addition were rentals and he predicted that many of them would eventually be torn down after the economy recovered. He suggested that before fashioning a design review process, the City needed to define compatibility and specify how it was to be measured. Mr. Beals indicated he thought the change to 7.5-foot side setbacks from a set of 5-foot and 10-foot setbacks would be more equitable, but he wanted to be allowed to extend a wall straight back during remodeling. He had once had to offset a kitchen wall 2 feet to meet the code. Commissioner Brockman thought the proposed amendments would allow that extension of a wall, but Mr. Egner advised the language might not be clear enough to allow that in remodels, and suggested that Isection of the proposed code should be revisited. Commissioner Brockman related she had drafted language for that and offered to provide it to staff. Ernie Platt, 15555 Bangy Road. explained he did not support a single-family residential design review panel because it would impose on individuals' concepts of what looked good. He agreed that design guidelines were worth exploring. He said the lot coverage • formula put rear daylight basement houses at a disadvantage even though from the front the house would look the same as a house with no daylight basement. He suggested either reconsidering how submerged floor areas were counted or changing the ratio. He cautioned that the arbitrary long wall depth limit of 50 feet would lead to unintended consequences and the sidewall plane criteria made the long wall limit unnecessary. He cautioned the provision limiting the protrusion of chimneys, canopies, gutters and eaves into the side yard would lead to rather weird-looking houses. He recalled the Building Code adequately addressed the issue of fire safety by allowing anything that was at least 3 feet from the property line to be standard, one-hour construction, but requiring features that were closer than that — including eaves - to be two-hour construction. If eaves projected 2 feet into a 5-foot setback they would still be 3 feet from the property line, so he saw no issue with them protruding that far into the setback. He advised the additional height allowed on steep lots made sense. He said the one-year time period for rebuilding a nonconforming house was too short. He suggested two years might be appropriate, or allowing the owner to demonstrate they did intend to rebuild and show what they had in mind. He advised that the proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) calculations would mean that owners would use the allowable floor area on the lot to maximize the primary structure and very few accessory structures would be built. Maria Meneqhin, Chair of the First Addition Neighbors/Forest Hills Neighborhood Association. 1179 Sunningdale Road, submitted and read aloud the Association's comments and suggestions (Exhibit G-15). They supported creation of a design review process; the R-6 zone code amendments; applying the infill standards to duplexes and attached single family dwellings; the side yard setback planes on corner lots; and eliminating the 50% threshold for remodels (because it resulted in too many tear-downs). They supported the Planning Commission effort to achieve a 5% overall reduction in 411 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of December 14, 2009 Page 4 of 14 Page 4 of 14 EXHIBIT C-20 LU 08-0053 218 • E FAR, but they wanted the Commission to go farther than that and recommend the 10% # reduction the Commissioners had once discussed. They anticipated that would result in 1 more housing diversity, and affordable and sustainable buildings. The Association wanted the City to disallow RID adjustments to FAR and height; to not allow exceptions or adjustments of side yard setbacks; and to include all garage area in I FAR calculations (because the requirement to break up large side planes would not ii address the problem). They felt the code generally allowed too many exceptions and the result was inconsistent interpretation by the staff and the Development Review ii Commission (DRC). They suggested the Planning Commission revisit their recommendations for steeply sloped lots because allowing a height increase on those lots did not address house-to-house relationships or consider slope stability. They ` suggested the current Planning Commissioners should review the detailed analysis of ij steeply sloped lots that the Planning Commission accomplished ten years ago. The Association asked the Planning Commission to follow the upcoming code audit with a ; discerning eye. The Association observed neither the Infill Task Force nor the Planning '' Commission had examined the issue of allowing zero lot line dwellings in all residential zones. They felt zero lot line dwellings belonged only in higher density, residential neighborhoods. During the questioning period, Ms. Meneghin was asked how she defined `housing diversity." She indicated that meant diversity of housing types, sizes and cost. The Association wanted to keep some of the community's smaller lots available for smaller homes for starter families, seniors, and emergency workers who worked in Lake Oswego but could not afford to live in the City. ID Barbara Zeller. 3335 Sabina Court, reminded the Commissioners that the most important factors were the size, scale, setbacks and compatibility of infill. She agreed with Mr. Beals that the Planning Commission needed to define "compatibility". She . advised that a 5-foot setback would not preserve neighbors' privacy and larger setbacks were necessary to accomplish that. She said her neighborhood was seeing 4,000 square foot infill homes. They had analyzed Lake Grove houses and found a 10% reduction in size would not be adequate to reduce their bulk, so they knew that the proposed 5% reduction would have no perceptible result. She stressed that landscaping and buffering were important elements, but the Commissioners had only considered how they could be used to break up sidewall planes. She recalled the Commissioners had agreed to review the code through the prism of sustainability. To do that they could not ignore facts such as huge homes required more power and reduced the number of trees that would otherwise help absorb runoff. Skip O'Neill, 16731 Greenbriar Road. representing the Lake Oswego Corporation, testified the Corporation opposed proposed changes that affected lakefront properties. They asked that lakefront properties be exempted from any additional regulations until the Palisades lakefront overlay was implemented. They had been asking for lakefront zoning for many years. Lakefront properties presented unique challenges to building. He indicated that a majority of RID reviews and most of the variances staff had to process were on lakefront properties. RID was a very expensive, time-consuming process that often necessitated hiring architects and lawyers. He said it made more sense to use an overlay. Mr. O'Neill agreed that it might help to have a book of guidelines. He observed that in Lake Oswego, diversity was compatibility. The City featured lots of architectural styles and house sizes and did not have big, "cookie-cutter" neighborhoods. • City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of December 14, 2009 • Page 5 of 14 Page 5 of 14 EXHIBIT C-20 LU 08-0053 219 Lisa Volpe!, 5655 Kenny Street, said the proposed setbacks for infill might prevent some • of the 40,000 square foot lots in the Rosewood neighborhood from being developed as flag lots. She had planned to preserve 30 feet on each side of her house so someone could build behind it. She wanted to be allowed to have deep eaves so the house would not look "new," and because "wimpy" eaves made a house look "cheap" and allowed moisture to penetrate the siding. She asked if a flag lot really needed 30 feet or if it could be reduced. She asked the Commissioners to look at how the 40,000 square foot lots in the Rosewood neighborhood have been developed and try to adjust the code so infill could match that as long as there was not a safety issue. Jim Bolland. 804 5th Street, who had served on the Infill Task Force, commented on the proposed amendments. He suggested the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council make a design handbook a City goal and budget for it. It had been recommended in 2003, but no work had been done. It should show the best examples of nice designs and housing types in each neighborhood. He anticipated it would help the "spec" builders. who got their plans from plan books, choose better plans. He agreed that the RID process that had been developed was not what the Infill Task Force had envisioned. He cautioned against the option of having staff conduct design review. He supported use of neighborhood overlays that would address specific issues in specific neighborhoods. He agreed the "50% rule" promoted teardowns of affordable housing and should be eliminated. He supported stopping reduction of side yard setbacks because that affected side-to-side neighbor relationships. Mr. Bolland supported the Planning Commission recommendation to apply standards that would result in a 5% reduction in house size. He said the slightly sloped lot provision was an ingenious way to solve a problem in FAN and that Mr. Beals had thoroughly tested it there. He said the Planning Commission should look into whether it • should be applied throughout the community. Mr. Bolland said the Task Force had done some testing of the sloped lot provisions, but he was uncomfortable about how it might affect side-to-side relationships, he suggested it needed more testing. He suggested considering how 45-foot high structures would look going uphill along Glenmorrie Avenue. He recalled a previous Planning Commission had taken a close look at steeply sloped lots eight years ago. He suggested the current Planning Commissioners review that work. He recalled the Infill Task Force had recommended not allowing a planned development process unless there were natural resources on the site that needed to be protected. What was considered "natural resources" was so loose that natural resources seemed to be found on just about every lot. He suggested the Planning Commission look at the results of the planned development code and assesses how it was working. Mr. Bolland said the Infill Task Force had discussed street connectivity, but he did not recall them setting a two-acre threshold. He suggested the proposed requirement needed more analysis and should be vetted neighborhood-by-neighborhood because the Task Force had heard from neighborhoods that wanted it and neighborhoods that did not want it. During the questioning period, Mr. Bolland suggested that a citywide design handbook could have a chapter for each neighborhood. The Planning Commission took a break and reconvened thirteen minutes later. Sherry Finnigan, 128 Condolea Drive had served on both Infill Task Forces. She submitted and read aloud written testimony (Exhibit G-14). She asked the Planning Commission to recommend the City establish a residential design review board similar to the DRC and discontinue using RID. She urged them to reject the three options City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission 11111 Minutes of December 14, 2009 Page 6 of 14 Page 6 of 14 EXHIBIT C-20 LU 08-0053 220 • suggested by staff. She described three RID applications she had read that day on the City website that proposed exceptions and reductions to yard setbacks, lot coverage and FAR. She concluded that in each case that would result in a bigger house. Marylou Colver, 68 Leonard Street, who had served on the Infill Task Force, urged the Planning Commission to recommend the Task Force recommendation to eliminate the financial threshold for reconstruction of nonconforming structures. She said the unintended consequence of the current code was an increase in teardowns that impacted neighborhoods and was the least sustainable choice the City could make. She supported residential :design review, but not by staff, to ensure compatibility. She advised that many other communities had done it successfully so Lake Oswego did not have to reinvent the wheel. She hoped the Commissioners would forward to the City Council the clear-cut changes the Task Force had agreed to while they continued to address the more problematic issues. Ted Argo. 7840 SW 1315`Avenue. Beaverton, Oregon 97008, an architect, discussed his experience with design review boards. He recalled the biggest problem was that it took a long time. It could take as long as five and a half months to get through the approval process. That was unworkable when the new owner was moving into the community and had to modify the house to move into it. He advised that the additional reductions in area, lot coverage and floor area the Commissioners had made were unnecessary. He held that "ugly" was not due to square footage. But he did agree with the way the proposed matrix smoothed out the curve and fixed the artificial step to 25% lot coverage that had been an unintended consequence. He agreed there were a lot of changes in the proposal that were fixes or simplifications that should have been adopted a few years ago. He agreed that the way things were measured on a sloped lot made sense• because lots in Lake Oswego often sloped in multiple directions and front lines were curved. Mr. Argo encouraged the Planning Commission to study examples where they thought RID increased area unnecessarily. Many of the variances were due to unusual site conditions such as side slope. His observation was that new houses in planned developments looked `crammed together" because the developer had been required to make room for a large open space even where there was no significant natural benefit. Then they had to adjust the setbacks so houses were fairly close together. He encouraged the City to create a design handbook, but he cautioned the project would be very time consuming. Carolyn Krebs. 16925 Denney Court, supported a citywide residential design review process, but not by staff. She suggested the Planning Commission specify the design review board should be composed of people in the community with design expertise and those who understood what would be appropriate in a neighborhood. She supported allowing neighborhood overlay districts. Her Lake Forest Neighborhood Association was working toward an overlay district. She said the proposed 5% reduction in floor area was a move in the right direction. It was not enough, but likely the most that could be achieved. She recalled that the lnfill Task Force could never get at that issue. When Ms. Krebs asked for clarification, Mr. Egner clarified that a proposed amendment would require the structures in planned developments to be separated by a total of 16 feet. Ms. Krebs wanted it to also require a setback of at least 8 feet from the property line because her neighborhood was concerned about 5-foot setbacks from property lines. Ms. Krebs, like Ms. Meneghin, was concerned about allowing zero lot line dwellings in lower density residential zones. She agreed the Planning Commission should recommend that the City start work on the design handbook. She asked the Planning Commission to allow more flexibility on flag lots and not require orientation to the access lane. She wanted residents of the parent lot to be able to preserve their back yard City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission mutes f D c ber 14. 2009 Page 7 of 14 Page 7 Of ( EXHIBIT C-20 LU 08-0053 221 •privacy. She suggested allowing each neighborhood to review and offer input regarding access lane standards in their neighborhood because one-size-fits-all would not work. She explained that connectivity was not an issue in her neighborhood and she did not want to see a requirement for access lanes route them over natural resources and private property. During the questioning period, Ms. Krebs explained she did not anticipate flag lots in her neighborhood that put the parent lot in the rear of the property. Commissioner Paretchan related she had seen that happen in her neighborhood. Ms. Krebs said she was concerned what would happen if a series of long, skinny lots (72' x 350' for example) in her neighborhood were developed as flag lots. She wanted flag lot connectivity to be looked at neighborhood by neighborhood. Bob Barman. 1445 Oak Terrace. Palisades Neighborhood Association Area 1 representative, asked the City to exempt lakefront lots until a Palisades Neighborhood Plan lakefront overlay could be fashioned and tested. He explained that lakefront lots presented unique challenges. The proposed changes could make some lots un- buildable. He recalled the City and the Lake Oswego Corporation had hired a consultant to advise them about a lakefront overlay and the conclusion had been that an overlay was needed. He observed the City Council had already agreed to exempt lakefront lots from the Evergreen overlay and to test a Palisades Neighborhood Association (PNA) lakefront overlay. PNA had been waiting for the City to start working on their lakefront overlay, which could eventually serve as a template for other lakefront overlays. Mr Barman advised that one overlay would not fit all lakefront lots. which varied from very large lots to small. 50-foot x 100-foot lots. He showed slides to help explain how the proposed changes would make it a challenge to build on a 50-foot wide West Bay or Blue Heron lot, or a steeply sloped lot on Summit or Phantom Bluff. On the small narrow • lots the house would have to be narrow too. and the owner would need to build closer to the lake to get needed square footage. The proposed amendments would make it a challenge to even get a driveway on the steeply sloped lots. He explained that lakefront homeowners were mainly concerned about maintaining their view shed. They did not want a neighbor's house to block it. That was why nearly all the homes on West Bay were so close to the street. He said side and rear yard setbacks were less important to them. Those were reasons why the proposed changes would be unworkable on lakefront lots and why an overlay was needed. The controversy over RID also demonstrated the need for a lakefront overlay. Mr. Barman observed that Lakeview Boulevard was mostly developed and most of those homes had already been redone and they would be grandfathered in if the proposed changes were adopted. New regulations would affect the ability of the owners of other lakefront lots to have a house that fit the lakefront. He wanted the Commissioners to be aware of Lake Oswego Corporation's design review process. A committee met with the impacted neighbors to discuss a proposed design and they tried to come up with a plan that satisfied everyone. The Corporation could not ''veto" a design, but they tried to make the community look appropriate and he thought over the past ten years they had done a pretty good job. Ninety-nine percent of the participants went away happy. It was not a long process. Carolyne Jones. 2818 Poplar Way, questioned why it was necessary to put a time limit on rebuilding after a structure was damaged. She asked why there was always another plan proposed in Lake Oswego to restrict the use of more and more property. She referred to the sensitive lands debate and recalled owners were concerned about lack of science to support "takings" and use of arbitrary identifications to restrict use of those 411 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of December 14. 2009 Page 8 of 14 Page 8 of 14 EXHIBIT C-20 LU 08-0053 222 • properties. She recalled that a consultant hired by the City to identify sensitive lands had told the Second Look Task Force that City staff had told her what properties to identify. That raised questions about the validity of the identifications. Ms. Jones recalled the consultant also told the Task Force that she was told to put on blinders regarding the presence of ivy, so that raised questions about the accuracy of Habitat Assessment Scores. Ms. Jones said her point was that the Task Force had been charged with creating more flexibility for sensitive lands property owners. She requested that nonconforming use provisions be set aside until the Task Force recommendations were available. She also suggested that a uniform policy be created for all properties with water resources, rather than creating a special use zone just for lakefront owners. She explained that owners of sensitive lands property in stream corridors would like to be able to use their properties just as the lakefront owners would like to use theirs. Deliberations Chair Stewart closed public testimony and opened deliberations. The Commissioners went through the proposed amendments section by section to identify changes there was consensus on. They would forward those to the City Council and then decide how to work on the unresolved issues. SECTION 1 — COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS — NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEW Commissioner Brockman recalled the testimony seemed to support Policy 18, which would allow neighborhood overlays. She observed that proposed Policy 6 would just authorize a residential design review process, not create one and there had been a lot of testimony in favor of that. Commissioner Jones was concerned about the cost, and time • burden on owners and what would trigger a review. Mr. Boone confirmed that the Planning Commission recommendation would just put a design review process on the City Councils list of things to do if they agreed to it. There was nothing in the proposal that set triggers or parameters for such a process. Commissioner Gustafson did not see a compelling reason to have a design review process. It would put a bigger burden on owners and add thousands of dollars to the cost of development at the same time the City was talking about encouraging affordable housing. He reasoned that if the Commissioners could define the problems a review was supposed to solve they could address them in the code. They had already made code changes to setbacks, setback planes, and FAR to address some of the problems. Those changes would not be necessary if a review process could solve the problem, but the Commissioners had heard many people testify they were not satisfied with RID results and RID was also a design review process. He thought a handbook that offered examples for each neighborhood was a great idea. Commissioner Brockman had seen non-residential design review work extremely well. She did not support requiring it for everything, but wanted to use it in certain situations. She believed a community discussion regarding this issue was necessary. Commissioner Gustafson recalled the infill Task Force had eight years to have those kinds of discussions and had never reached consensus. The Commissioners discussed an incremental approach that Commissioner Paretchan suggested. The first step would be to recommend that the City develop design guidelines. Once in place, those guidelines could be used to support a development review process, if and when one was adopted. A design handbook had been proposed in 2003, but staff had been busy with other projects at that time and after that the City began reexamining infill standards that the handbook was supposed to illustrate, so staff had postponed the project. The Commissioners anticipated that the design handbook • would contain a specific set of design guidelines for each neighborhood that reflected City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission _Minutes f DQc rnber 14, 2009 Page 9 of 14 Page 9 of 14 EXHIBIT C-20 LU 08-0053 223 the character of that neighborhood. There was no consensus to recommend a new • Comprehensive Plan policy, so the Commissioners agreed to forward a separate recommendation to the City Council to make it a goal to create the handbook. During the discussion Denise Frisbee, Director, Planning and Building Services, had confirmed a Planning Commission recommendation could encourage the City Council to make design guidelines a goal and to budget for it. The Commissioners should send their recommendation to the City Council in time for Council goal setting sessions. Vice . Chair Glisson had indicated she felt that the proposed Comprehensive Plan policy was too vague to send to the City Council and she had suggested the Planning Commission go farther and recommend how the City could involve neighborhoods in developing their own guidelines. Commissioner Brockman had advised that design handbooks were very helpful but the solution to the problem was a regulatory solution. Commissioner Paretchan anticipated that the problems would become more apparent during work on the guidelines and the solutions could then either be built into the code or serve as a design review process. Commissioner Paretchan moved to support Comprehensive Plan Goal 2, Section 1. Policy 18. Commissioner Gustafson seconded the motion and it passed 5:1. Commissioner Brockman voted against. Commissioner Gustafson moved for the Planning Commission to support the City developing a design guidebook and to forward a recommendation to the City Council to make that a City goal. Commissioner Paretchan seconded the motion and it passed 5:1. Commissioner Brockman voted against. She explained she supported developing a design handbook, but she did not think there was enough money in the budget to • accomplish the project and she saw it as a community wide issue that should be the subject of community wide discussion. SECTION 2 — LOT COVERAGE AND MAX FLOOR AREA Commissioner Jones moved to recommend Section 2 — Lot Coverage and Maximum Floor Area to the City Council as revised by the Planning Commission. Vice Chair Glisson seconded the motion and discussion followed. When asked, Mr. Egner explained the changes to the maximum floor area calculations took away the existing incentive in FAN to use multiple garages as a way to maximize lot coverage and floor area. He recalled the Commissioners had discussed totally dropping the bonus for second garages or setting up a provision that if more than one garage was proposed no bonus would be allowed. The result of the drafted code would be that the bonus was only available if there was only one garage. The draft contained a yellow- highlighted paragraph as follows, that would not be part of the adopted code: "Note: Task Force members recommended that floor area incentives be dropped given that some developers have been providing detached and attached garages as a way of maximizing lot coverage and floor area. The following language is an alternative that would eliminate the incentive for lots with multiple garages." Mvlr. Egner said he thought the Infill Task Force had actually voted on this, but he needed to research that. Commissioner Gustafson wanted the record to show that he was more inclined to follow the recommendation of the Infill Task Force regarding floor area. The vote was conducted and the motion passed 6:0. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of December 14, 2009 Page 10 of 14 Page 10 of 14 EXHIBIT C-20 LU 08-0053 224 • SECTOIN 3 — STRUCTURE DESIGN AND SETBACK PLANES Commissioner Brockman moved to approve Section 3 — Structure Desiqn and Setback Planes. Commissioner Jones seconded the motion and discussion followed. Chair Stewart could not recall hearing any testimony contrary to the Planning Commission proposal. Commissioner Paretchan wanted to clarify how existing landscaping could be used to meet the landscaped screening requirement. She and Mr. Egner modified the last sentence in the table in Appendix 50.07-G (see Attachment B, page 21) to clarify that, "Existing landscaping may be used to meet the screening requirement provided the landscaping meets the minimum size requirements set forth above or if multiple plants exist, the caliper, dimensions and sizes of plants cumulatively meet the cumulative minimum sizes required." The Commissioners then discussed the proposed 50-foot limit on a long wall plane, They recalled Mr. Tahran had recommended increasing it to 55 or 60 feet and had even provided an illustration showing 70 feet. Commissioner Gustafson observed that the • proposed 50-foot length limit and the requirement to have 20-foot side setbacks severely constrained the size of a house on a long, skinny lot. Commissioner Jones said he could accept Mr. Tahran's drawings as a test. Commissioner Gustafson and Vice Chair Glisson recalled Mr. Tahran had testified that if the allowable length were adjusted to 55 or 60 feet the developer would have enough room for a house and would not have to go • back any farther. Mr. Tehran explained that he had factored allowable FAR, allowable lot coverage for two stories, the increased side setback requirement, and appropriate scale into his diagrams. Commissioner Brockman stressed the wall length limit and increased side setback requirement were intended to address people's fear that a 100-foot long, two-story, structure would be built next to their house that would allow their new neighbors to look into their entire yard and take away their privacy. This was an attempt to address that situation in lieu of a design review process. However, she did not think the community was getting much for the time the Planning Commission had spent on this issue. She indicated she would agree to a 60-foot limit rather than lose the limit entirely. Commissioner Paretchan did not believe the proposed standard had been tested enough. She could not support an approach that had not been tested, so she wanted it tested on the four examples of problematic infill that people did not like. She wanted to know what outcome the community would have seen on those lots under the proposed standards. She anticipated it would not work well in a lot of neighborhoods, including her own, where there were a lot of 70-foot wide, 300-foot long lots and the topography affected how houses could be positioned on a lot. She anticipated some results could be long, skinny houses with 28-foot high side walls (because they were set back so far the side plane setback standard would not apply). She said it might put too much burden on owners and not solve the problem. She wanted to strike this provision until it was tested. Commissioner Brockman said she was amenable to increasing the wall length limit to 60 feet. Commissioner Gustafson indicated he could agree to either strike the provision entirely, or increase the limit to 60 feet. Commissioner Paretchan saw a 60-foot limit as 111 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes f Dec mb r 14, 2009 Paae 11 of 14 Page 1 1 of 14 EXHIBIT C-20 LU 08-0053 225 too arbitrary. She wanted to strike the provision and rework it. Vice Chair Glisson 4111 agreed it needed more work. Commissioner Brockman amended her motion so it was to approve Section 3 — Structure Design and Setback Planes, with the modification of the Appendix 50-07-G sentence related to "Existing landscaping" that Mr. Egner and Commissioner Paretchan had agreed on and to change the wall length limit to 60 feet. Commissioner Jones seconded the amended motion and it passed 5:1. Commissioner Paretchan voted against. She explained that she agreed with the landscaped screening revision, but the wall plane length restriction needed more testing. SECTION 4—YARD SETBACKS Commissioner Brockman explained that she could allow eaves and gutters to project into a narrow, 5-foot side yard, but she could not support allowing features like chimneys and bay windows to encroach because the neighbors would be impacted by noise. Vice Chair Glisson observed that eaves helped preserve privacy; short eaves were not very attractive; and to not allow eaves to project might not be effective in pushing the houses back, and just result in short eaves. Commissioner Brockman moved to recommend Section 4 with a modification that the eaves be allowed to project into the setback area by 2 feet. or in accordance with the fire code. Discussion followed. Mr. Egner asked the Commissioners to look at the list of exceptions and pick out the specific features they did not want to allow to project into the setback. After he described what some of the features looked like and what they were for, the Commissioners narrowed the list of features that could project into a 5-foot side yard. Commissioner Paretchan and Commissioner Gustafson agreed that "leaders (a feature of downspouts of older houses) were nice. Commissioner Brockman amended her motion to specify that eaves. gutters. belt courses and sills would be allowed to project into a 5-foot side yard. Staff planned to craft additional language to specify that canopies, sunshades, chimneys, and flues were not allowed to encroach when the side yard was only 5 feet, but those features would be allowed to project into larger side yard setbacks. Staff recalled the Planning Commission had previously placed limits on bay windows. Commissioner Paretchan asked staff to comment on Mr. Tahran's testimony about specifications for access walkways. Mr. Egner explained that was current code and not a proposed amendment. Mr. Tahran pointed out it permitted walkways or pathways to be in the required yard. "so long as the elevation of the walkway or pathway was at or below the elevation of the driveway or parking area for the dwelling or building. Mr. Boone explained a walkway would be considered a 'structure" and subject to standards that applied to structures if it were 30 inches or more off the grade. This provision allowed an elevated walkway, necessary due to topography, without a variance. Since this provision was existing code and not the subject of review at this hearing, Chair Stewart suggested the Planning Commission could discuss it some other time. Staff recommended and the Commissioners agreed to change the title of the table on page 28 of Attachment B to, "Primary and Accessory Structures Built Before January 1, 2010. or additions to those structures." That would address an issue Mr. Beals had City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission • tv? nutes of December 14, 2009 Page 12 of 14 Page 12 of 14 EXHIBIT C-20 LU 08-0053 226 • raised that the existing FAN exemption applied to a structure built before January 1, 2009. but not an addition to it, so a developer had to get a variance to extend a wall. Commissioner Brockman moved to approve Section 4 as modified during deliberations. Commissioner Gustafson seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. SECTION 6 — RID REVIEW Commissioner Brockman observed the Planning Commission had not gone much further than the Infill Task Force had. Vice Chair Glisson could only recall one negative comment in testimony. Mr. Egner corrected two errors under B. Applicability. He specified that "B(b)(iv) Side yard setbacks" should not be stricken and that the second version of B(3) on page 49 replaced the version of B(3) above it on page 47. He agreed to a formatting change Commissioner Paretchan suggested that would itemize exceptions listed under B(a ) and B(b). Commissioner Brockman moved to approve Section 6. — RID Review with those changes. Commissioner Gustafson seconded the motion and discussion followed. Vice Chair Glisson questioned using the proposed compatibility comparison method that looked at structures on different streets. She recalled in some neighborhoods the character changed from street to street due to factors such as topography. She cautioned that the change might have unintended consequences. She just wanted to mention that was a possibility, but she would not vote against Section 6 because of that. • Commissioner Brockman clarified that ''compatibility" did not mean "look alike" - it just meant the houses fit together harmoniously. There could be a one-story house and a two-story house. She recalled a decision in which Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) had analyzed what "compatibility" looked like. Vice Chair Glisson agreed and said she hoped that the people who used the code would understand that. Mr. Boone confirmed the current staff interpretation was that houses did not need to look alike. They considered 'rings of compatibility" and gave more weight to houses that were closer to the subject side than houses that were 200 feet away or around a corner, or were out of sight from the site. Vice Chair Glisson anticipated that in the future people might want sustainable houses with features like rooftop gardens. She indicated that although it might not be acceptable in some established neighborhoods, future Planning Commissions could address that. Commissioner Gustafson anticipated the changes made to the RID process would render it almost worthless. RID had been used for relatively few projects that were extreme examples of issues related to lot coverage, height and FAR. Those were the types of adjustments the Commissioners had removed. They had taken out all of the 'carrots" RID previously offered. He believed that most of the eight to ten new houses built under RID were better than what would have otherwise been allowed and that was what the RID process was supposed to accomplish. He indicated that in the future there would be little incentive for good design through that process and that few would likely use it. The vote was conducted and the motion passed 5:1. Commissioner Gustafson voted against. 41111 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of December 14, 2009 Page 13 of 14 Page 13 of 14 EXHIBIT C-20 LU 08-0053 227 The Commissioners planned to continue their deliberations on January 11, 2010. In the • interim, staff would draft and send them the recommendation to the City Council to make creation of a design handbook a City goal. VIII. OTHER BUSINESS — PLANNING COMMISSION None. IX. OTHER BUSINESS — COMNIISSIONJ,OR ITIZEN INVOLVMENT None. X. AADDJOUR T '—"I here being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stewart adjourned the meeting at 10:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Iris McCaleb Is/ Iris McCaleb Administrative Support • City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission • Minutes of December 14. 2009 Page 14 of 14 Page 14 of 14 EXHIBIT C-20 LU 08-0053 228 E IAKE p\ • (.440411V City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes� ,.� APrO' January 11, 2010 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Philip Stewart called the Planning Commission meeting of January 11, 2010 to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Members present were Chair Philip Stewart and Commissioners Adrianne Brockman, Jon Gustafson, Jim Johnson, Russell Jones and Lynne Paretchan. Vice Chair Julia Glisson was excused. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Support. Ill. CITIZEN COMMENT None. • IV. COUNCIL UPDATE The City Council was meeting jointly with the Tigard City Cou • to listen to a presentation on transit-focused development and to talk about t - joint water project. At their next meeting Economic Development staff would press a retail market analysis and suggest a strategy for how to improve retail develo► ent downtown and in Lake Grove. The Council would also consider the Public , s master plan update. Later in January the Councilors planned a goal-setting retr=- . V. GENERAL ORGANIZATION I SCHEDUL 'EVIEW Mr. Egner pointed out two changes e Rolling Agenda. VI. MINUTES Commissioner Broc -n moved to approve the Minutes of October 26. 2009. Commissioner Jo. seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. Commiss.• er Brockman moved to approve the Minutes of October 26. 2009. Corn . sioner Paretchan seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. Commissioners G afson and Jones abstained. EXHIBIT C-21 LU 08-0053 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes Qf January 11, 2010 Page 1 of 9 Page 1 of 7 EXHIBIT C-21 LU 08-0053 229 VII,` PUBLIC HEARING • LU 08-0053, Ordinance 2523 — Comprehensive Plan — Infill Amendments LU 08-0053, Ordinance 2524 - Community Development Code — Infill Amendments Ordinance 2523, LU 08-0053, amends the Comprehensive Plan to include a policy encouraging development of neighborhood plans and to include a policy directing the City to enact a residential design review program. Ordinance 2524, LU 08-0053, amends portions of the Community Development Code, Chapter 50, for the purpose of enhancing the compatibility of infill development and clarification. Proposed updates pertain to the following topics: lot coverage maximum floor area, structure design, setback planes, yard setbacks sloped lots, residential infill design review, variances, non-conforming uses, duplexes and attached dwellings, flag lots and serial partitions. Sections to be addressed: • Section 7— Planned Developments • Section 8 — Variances • Section 9 — Miscellaneous Provisions • Section 10 — Duplex and Attached Single Family Provisions • Section 5 — Sloped Lots • Section 11 — Flag Lots / Serial Partitions Chair Stewart opened the public hearing. He asked the Commissioners to declare any conflict of interest regarding the application. None were declared. Staff Report Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager, distributed the staff report (see1111 Planning and Building Services Department Supplemental Report #15 dated January 6, 2010) and Attachment B, Ordinance 2524 (Revised 11/25/09). Section 7 — Planned Developments Commissioner Jones wanted assurance that a planned developments (PDs) basic density (number of houses) would be limited to the number of lots the underlying zone allowed a normal subdivision. Mr. Egner confirmed that, but explained that in PDs larger than 1.75 acres, lot sizes could be smaller than the minimum allowable lot in the zone. The combination of the configuration of the lots, open space and streets and the smaller lot sizes was what would make it look different than a normal subdivision. Commissioner Brockman recalled testimony that questioned why one house could be closer than another house to the side property line. VOTE: Commissioner Brockman moved to approve Section 7 — Planned Developments. Commissioner Gustafson seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. Section 8 —Variances The Commissioners recalled this corrected some scriveners' errors and they had added code requirements that applied conditions of approval when a variance was granted to preserve a tree. VOTE: Commissioner Brockman moved to approve Section 8 - Variances. Commissioner Gustafson seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of January 11, 2010 Page 2 of 9 Page 2 of 7 EXHIBIT C-21 230 LU 08-0053 • Section 9 — Miscellaneous Provisions The Commissioners wanted to know if the code could offer an extension to the time limit for rebuilding a nonconforming house if the owners were not able to proceed. They said an owner might still be negotiating with their insurance company for payment. Mr. Boone confirmed the code could offer an extension if there were clear standards for what it would take to renew. The standards might call for a demonstration that they were making an effort to construct, but something was prolonging the project. The Commissioners then discussed what the time limit and extension limit should be if there was some annual demonstration that the owner was making a good faith effort to rebuild. There had been testimony that the rebuilding process could take a long time. The Commissioners considered a one or two-year time limit followed by extensions up to a total of three or five years. Commissioner Brockman reasoned that a shorter period would encourage an owner to move forward more quickly to remove an "eyesore." Commissioner Gustafson did not want the time limit to rebuild the same, nonconforming, structure to be too long if the general goal was to increase the number of conforming structures in the City. Commissioner Paretchan observed that most existing structures in Lake Oswego were not in conformance due to code changes. Commissioner Johnson was not as concerned about what the time limit was as long as the provision required a "good faith" effort and there was a legitimate reason for delay. The Sensitive Lands Ordinance originally set a one-year time limit but the City Council had changed it so the owner had one year to get a building permit and the structure had to be completed within three years. The Commissioners considered setting a similar timeline in this provision. Mr. Boone advised that such a change would only apply to nonconforming residential single-family or duplex structures. He explained that the • Sensitive Lands code language the City Council had adopted did not indicate what owners were required to do with their structure if they did not have the replacement building completed within two years of getting the building permit. For that reason he favored allowing extensions. VOTE: Commissioner Jones moved to give owners one year to get a building permit and allow up to two years subsequent for completion. He explained that was similar to the "one and three" timeline the City Council had set, but the Planning Commission might want to revisit it at a later date when they considered policy-related housekeeping amendments. Commissioner Gustafson suggested the completion date could be the date of the occupancy permit, but there was still a question about what to do if the building was not completed in time. Commissioner Jones clarified that it should not be necessary to get to the point of having an occupancy permit, but the project should be at a point of "substantial completion." He just wanted to ensure owners were making a good faith effort. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion and explained it was with the understanding that the Planning Commission would revisit nonconforming use policy in general. Chair Stewart agreed. Mr. Boone asked the Commissioners to clarify if the motion was to require a building permit within one year and the building completed in two years. Several Commissioners said "no.' Commissioner Jones clarified it was one year, plus two renewals. The vote was conducted and the motion passed 5:0. Commissioner Paretchan abstained. Section 10 — Duplex and Attached Single Family Provisions The Commissioners observed there had been no public testimony related to this section. VOTE: Commissioner Brockman moved to approve Section 10 — Duplex and Attached Single Family Provisions. Commissioner Gustafson seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of January 11, 2010 Page 3 of 9 Page 3 of 7 EXHIBIT C-21 LU 08-0053 231 Section 11 — Flag Lots/Serial Partitions • The proposed language specified that new dwellings on flag lots were to have the front of the house oriented towards the access lane. The Commissioners considered whether to require the house to face the lane. In that case the house in the rear would not have to face the back of the property in front. But when the house in front faced the lane instead of the public street it did not look like it fit the neighborhood. Commissioner Paretchan and Commissioner Johnson recalled examples of that in their neighborhoods. Sometimes the topography or natural features would make it a challenge to orient a house to the access lane. Mr. Egner clarified that the "flag lot" would not be the lot in front. Commissioner Paretchan recalled a flag lot in her neighborhood where the original house was on the back lot and the flag lot was in front. She questioned why the house on the front lot should be required to face the lane instead of the street. She asked if it would be allowed to be as close as five feet from the street if its side yard was oriented to the public street. Mr. Egner recalled the intent of the orientation provision was to create a sense of "street" along the lane, which might eventually be extended to become a street. He and Mr. Boone confirmed that the front lot house was currently allowed to face either way and that it would still be allowed with this code change. No matter which direction the front door faced, the house would have to be positioned so it met both the 25-foot public street and the new 10-foot access lane setbacks. The garage had to be set back far enough from the lane to offer space to park a car between the garage and the lane. Commissioner Jones did not favor applying Local Street Connectivity standards to the access lane and he wanted to retain the current threshhold for applying access standards to parcels that were five acres or larger. Street connectivity was a topic that • raised a lot of issues and should be addressed separately. There had been testimony against it and no testimony in favor of it. He suggested removing those changes from the proposed code amendments. Commissioner Gustafson cautioned that keeping the five-acre threshold would not affect a lot of smaller parcels where a required lane could eventually connect to a street beyond. There were many lots like that in Lake Grove and Lake Forest that would be developed three or four lots at a time. Commissioner Jones referred to a 2004 map projecting connectivity in Lake Forest. He opined that plan increased density without any real need for it. Commissioner Gustafson observed that the map did not change the density, it just showed potential connectivity where the houses would be built. Commissioner Jones stressed it was best to allow the community to take a closer look at the issue of connectivity. He said some areas could use it and wanted it, but some did not. Commissioner Brockman indicated that the City could work with neighborhoods to plan connectivity and that was better than fashioning connectivity piecemeal. She added that having a short lane was a public safety issue when a fire truck turned into the wrong lane and had to get back out quickly. Commissioner Johnson explained it was important to consider what a flag lot would do to other properties beyond it. He recalled situations where it had been a challenge to subdivide or partition a parcel because it was landlocked and there was an accessibility issue. The Commissioners asked staff to relate the Infill Task Force reasoning for this recommendation. Mr. Egner said Task Force minutes reported that the Task Force had agreed to a two-acre threshold. The Task Force discussion had been short and he could not recall the details. He said staff proposed setting the threshold at 1.75 acres instead of two acres to match the size threshold for when planned developments were permitted. • City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission utes QfJa ry11, 2010 Page4of9 Min 4 of 7 EXHIBIT C-21 232 LU 08-0053 Chair Stewart liked the concept of master planning City connections. but wondered how such a process would be initiated. Commissioner Brockman recalled other jurisdictions that had connectivity plans. Mr. Egner suggested one way to achieve connectivity could be to highlight parcels on a map where connectivity needed to occur and let the development approval process decide if it was to be a private lane instead of a public street. Not all flag lot connections would be destined to be public streets. VOTE: Commissioner Jones moved to approve Section 11 — Flag Lots / Serial Partitions but exclude the connectivity changes. He said the mapped, projected Lake Forest connections were too arbitrary and potentially divided large parcels to increase density. Commissioner Gustafson and Commissioner Johnson did not see the issue as a "density" issue. Commissioner Gustafson wanted to see the City plan connectivity. The motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Johnson moved to accept Section 11 — Flag Lots/Serial Partitions as drafted. Commissioner Gustafson seconded the motion and discussion followed. Staff confirmed the proposed changes did not change allowable building height on a flag lot. A new provision related to Access Lane Siting said, "The access lane shall be located no closer than 5' to any existing structures." Commissioner Paretchan suggested this provision should differentiate between habitable structures and sheds, decks and other features that were considered "structures" because they were 30 inches or more above grade. Mr. Egner said that inserting "habitable" would allow the lane to be right up against an existing garage (a non-habitable structure). If the garage had a second floor that was habitable, it had to be five feet away from the lane. If a new, habitable, dwelling was built on top of the garage, the new construction had to be at least ten feet from the • access lane, Chair Stewart observed that meant that the developer would have to set the new construction upper story farther back than the face of the existing, lower level, garage. The Commissioners took a five-minute break and then reconvened the hearing. The vote was conducted and the motion passed 5:1. Commissioner Jones voted against. Section 5 — Sloped Lots Staff had highlighted and summarized the Infill Task Force's proposed basic changes to the sloped lot provisions on page 30 of Attachment B. They allowed: 1. A four-foot height adjustment on slightly sloped lots in First Addition Neighbors/Forest Hills Neighborhood Association (FAN); 2. Measuring the height of houses on downsloped lots starting from the street elevation; 3. Modifying the setback plane on upsloped lots to allow taller houses that would not cut into the slope as much; and 4. Increasing allowable height on steeply sloped lots to 45 feet under certain conditions. Mr. Egner explained that if a lot sloped downhill and the house was falling away from the street anyway, using the front setback plane to push the bulk further back did not accomplish much. Allowing a taller building on an upsloped lot compensated for the topography and reduced the need for a variance. Commissioner Brockman was concerned that the proposed standards would result in houses that did not -grace" hillsides, but would project even further out from the slope and look more massive. Existing code had already allowed hundreds of existing homes • to be built on sloped lots and she had not heard anyone complain. For those reasons she saw no reason to change the code. Commissioner Jones wanted to postpone any City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of January 11, 2010 Pa e 5 of 9 Page 5 of 7 EXHIBIT C-21 LU 08-0053 233 action until the Commissioners had read what the Planning Commission had talked about eight years ago when they examined sloped lots. Mr. Egner advised that the City Council had forwarded the standards the Planning Commission had recommended at that time to the Infill Task Force and now they were back before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Gustafson observed a lot of existing houses on sloped lots would not meet the 35-foot height limit. He assumed they must have been built before that standard was adopted. He said he would agree with the Infill Task Force recommendations because the Task Force had tested the concepts. The Commissioners discussed the FAN height adjustment. When asked, Mr. Egner clarified that the code requirement to balance cut and fill only applied in the floodplain, not when someone excavated into a slope. Commissioner Paretchan recalled testimony that the FAN height adjustment should not be applied just for FAN and it should be applied everywhere. She reasoned it was preferable to allow it on any property with a gentle slope so the developer would not be forced to dig in further. Mr. Egner advised the Infill Task Force had concluded that should be a neighborhood-by-neighborhood decision. He related that the only other area with a similar gentle slope and lotting pattern was in Hallinan. VOTE: Commissioner Brockman moved to support Section 5 — Sloped Lots, (Item 1) R- 6 (FAN) 4-foot Height Adjustment, modified to apply citywide and leave the remaining standards as they were in the current code. Commissioner Jones seconded the motion and discussion followed. Commissioner Brockman explained that she could support the change in how height was measured on sloped lots as long as the height limit was not increased to 45 feet. She was trying to keep hillside development looking like it flowed down the hillside rather than allowing it to project out. She was trying to keep the • existing scale and mass of hillside development. Commissioner Johnson was not inclined to go against recommendations that the Infill Task Force had spent a lot of time working on. Commissioner Brockman then clarified her motion was to support the FAN height adjustment (applied citywide) and direct staff to bring back the other provisions in a way that would maintain the existing height and scale on sloped lots. During the discussion she clarified that the motion included change to the height measurement method. Commissioner Gustafson suggested the Commissioners should approve Items 2 and 3 without the increase to 45 feet because they made a lot of sense. A three-story house on a downsloped lot would look like a one-story house from the street. Changing the setback plane standard for upsloped lots would allow better looking houses. Some existing houses on upsloped lots looked strange because they had to be too broken up to meet the current setback plane standard. Commissioner Brockman said she could agree to that if the height limit remained at 35 feet. Chair Stewart suggested and observed a general consensus to add the definition found in the matrix for a steeply sloped lot. A "steeply sloped lot" was a lot with an average slope of 25% or more. Commissioner Brockman revised her motion to support the following components of Section 5 — Sloped Lots (as listed on page 30 of Attachment B, Ordinance 2524): 1. The R-6 (FAN) four-foot height adjustment was to be applied citywide; 2. Height measurements; 3. Setback planes on steeply sloped lots; Maximum building height was to remain at 35 feet. Commissioner Jones seconded the revised motion and it passed 5:0. Commissioner • Johnson abstained. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of January 11, 2010 Page 5 of 9 Page 6 of 7 EXHIBIT C-21 234 LU 08-0053 • VOTE ON OVERALL INFILL PACKAGE Commissioner Johnson moved to recommend the City Council adopt the overall infill package with the modifications the Planning Commission had made during the hearing. , Commissioner Brockman seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. VIII. WORK SESSION PP 09-0018 — Boones Ferry Road Industrial Park (IP) Zone Amendments Review request from a group of Boones Ferry Road/Pilkington Road property own s that the Planning Commission initiate a legislative Comprehensive Plan Map amendment, Zoning Map amendment and a Community Development Code ( C) amendment to create a zoning overlay for the Industrial Park (IP) Zone. Th roposal would apply to 23 properties in the vicinity of Boones Ferry and Pilkington oads. Staff Report Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager, presented he staff report (see Planning and Building Services Department Memorandum fro • Paul Espe, Associate Planner, dated January 6, 2010). He reported the property •1 ners wanted to expand the list of allowed uses in their area, which was part of the IP one. Staff had suggested they ask the Planning Commission to initiate a legislative process to create a zoning overlay which would be a text amendment that would sr e as a short term, interim fix until the City fashioned a master plan for the IP zone. Any fix should be done in a way that would not compromise a future master plan; co •ete with the nearby retail-oriented, 1111 Lake Grove Village Center General Commercial GC) district, or encourage a lot of immediate redevelopment in the subject area. he fix might be to expand the list of allowed uses for existing buildings. Currently he IP zone only allowed office use that served a primary industrial use. Commissioner Johnson and Commissio er Brockman identified the requested change ,„ as a zone change to GC because it w Id only apply to one specific area in the IP zone. They had many questions includin ow the requested change would affect the City's inventory of industrial lands and ployment areas; how the change would affect the City's overall plan for economicOvelopment; and they were concerned that the result of the change might be somethingthat resembled Portland's 82" Street. estimony from Property Owners Mike Du n. R&M Mari . and Tom Donnelly, Northwest Staple Supply, related that 23 property owners repr enting a total of about nine acres had organized in order to lobby the City to allow t m to assemble a higher-quality office, retail and restaurant area along Boones Fer Road. That pocket area was a 'front door" to the City and needed a better image th.- most of the existing buildings projected. Some of them were houses converted to • ice use. The owners wanted to be able to lease to higher end tenants. Prospective "enants were drawn to the traffic volume of 30,000 vehicles per day on Boones F-rry Road, but not the buildings, and the zoning prevented some of them from being t -re. The group of owners was currently following what they understood was the "tour - of least resistance." It would expand the list of allowable uses and allow them to re del existing buildings and lease to somewhat higher-end uses. However. they w uld not be able to lease to national credit tenants or finance major developments. Mr. • uyn suggested that lower end uses belonged a step or two back from Boones Ferry Road, not along the frontage. He pointed out there was already a lot of office and City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of January 11. 2010 Page 7 of 9 Page 7 of 7 EXHIBIT C-21 LU 08-0053 235 • • • 236 Exhibit D Staff Reports i • STAFF REPORT CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING DIVISION APPLICANT: FILE NO: City of Lake Oswego LU 08-0053 PROPERTY OWNERS: STAFF: N/A Dennis Egner AICP,Assistant Planning Director LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATE OF REPORT: N/A October 20, 2008 LOCATION: DATE OF HEARING: Citywide September 22, 2008 continued to October • 27, 2008 COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DESIGNATION: N/A N/A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: All I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST The City is proposing to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Chapter 50 of the Community Development Code for the purpose of encouraging infill development to be more compatible with existing development in the community. Two plan policies are proposed. One encourages the use of new zone districts and overlay zones to implement neighborhood plans. The second directs the City to establish a design review program for residential development, including single family homes. The draft ordinance(Ord. 2523)is attached as Exhibit A-1. A summary of the plan amendments is attached as Exhibit F-1. The proposed code amendments address a variety of topics including floor area ratios, lot coverage, sloped lots, residential design standards, variances,and non-conforming uses. The draft ordinance (Ord, 2524) is attached as Exhibit A-2. A summary of the code amendments is attached as Exhibit F-2 • (Note: In the code materials released for the September 22,2008 hearing,these exhibits were labeled as A-1 and F-1). EXHIBIT D-1 Planning Commission October 27,2008—LU 08-0053 LU 08-0053 Page 1 of 8 237 The amendments were developed by the City's Infill Task Force. The version of the proposed plan and code amendments published for the September 22,2008 hearing(Exhibits A-1 and A-2) included some minor changes that at the time,had not been reviewed by the Task Force. The Task Force met in August, September,and October to make final refinements. These refinements are included as Exhibit F-3. II. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: Goal 1 Citizen Involvement, Policies 1, 5, and 10 Goal 2 Land Use Planning, Section 1, Land Use Policies and Regulations, Policies 4 and 23 Goal 10 Housing,Policies 10, 13, and 17 Goal 11 Public Facilities and Services, Section 1 Public Safety, Police and Fire Protection, Policy 5 Goal 12 Transportation, Policies 4 and 9 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 I Citizen Involvement Goal 2 Land Use Planning III. FINDINGS A. Background and Discussion: Summary - The proposed amendments were developed by the Infill Task Force. The Task Force was appointed by the City Council in 2005 and included both building industry and neighborhood association representatives. The initial concepts of the Task Force were endorsed by the City Council and the Planning Commission in a joint work session on July 11, 2006. Over the past two years, code language was developed and refined by Task Force members. General Background - In 2003, the City of Lake Oswego adopted a series of code amendments intended to make new infill housing fit better within existing neighborhoods. The amendments were based on the recommendations of an Infill Task Force formed in 2001. In 2005, The City Council reconvened and expanded the Infill Task Force and established a charge statement for the group. The charge statement directed the Task Force to address the following issues: • Needed changes to the 2003 standards • Duplexes and Attached Dwellings • RID Review and Variances • Sloped Lots • Flag Lots and Serial Partitions Planning Commission October 27,2008—LU 08-0053 Page 2 of 8 238 Over the past three years, the Task Force has researched issues and explored code options. Ron Kellett of the University of British Columbia worked with the Infill Task Force to address issues related to house size, privacy, and landscaping. Two subcommittees were formed. Subcommittee 1 addressed development on sloped lots and standards for duplexes and attached dwellings. Subcommittee 2 addressed flag lots, serial partitions, variances and RID Review. On June 20, 2007,concepts and draft code language were presented at an open house and comments were collected. Revisions and adjustments to the draft code language were made over the next nine months. Final refinements were made in the late summer of 2008. The background reports and packets prepared for the Infill Task Force can be found on the City's website at: http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/plan/Infill 2005/Infill 2005.htm. The agendas and meeting notes can be found at: http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/plan/Infill 2005/Infill 2008 Agendallotes.htm. B. Compliance With Criteria for Approval: A Comprehensive Plan text amendment is a legislative decision and must comply with relevant state law, Statewide Planning Goals, and local plan policies. The criteria for legislative text amendments to the Community Development Code are set forth in LOC 50.75.010. 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; There are no known applicable state laws other than ORS 197 to review under this criterion. ORS 197 requirements are addressed below. 2. Comply with any applicable Statewide Planning Goal or Administrative Rule adopted pursuant to ORS Chapter 197; and Statewide Plannine Goal 1, Citizen Involvement Statewide Planning Goal 1 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 strong citizen involvement program. The code clearly defines the procedures by which the general public is notified of pending land use planning matters. All required notification measures and opportunities for input as specified in these documents were provided during this process. The City has also followed the procedures required by ORS 227.186 (Ballot Measure 56)for notification of the owners of property proposed to be directly affected by the changes. As the proposed amendments may potentially affect properties owners throughout the City, this notice was sent citywide. Informational open houses were held on September 3 and October 16, 2008 to share information about the proposed policy and code amendments. 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. Planning Commission October 27,2008—LU 08-0053 Page 3 of 8 239 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 Comprehensive Plan amendment and 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. 5, and 10 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. 10. Provide opportunities for citizens to be involved in the planning process, including data collection, plan preparation, adoption, implementation, evaluation and revision. Findings: The proposal addresses policies 1, 5, and 10 as follows: Pursuant to the requirements of a legislative process,notices of the proposed text • amendments were provided to property owners within the City. In addition, notices were sent 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 were made available for citizen involvement with regard to this application. Open houses were held on September 3 and October 16, 2008. Opportunities for citizen involvement were also available during the process of developing the proposed policy and code amendments. A Task Force consisting of building industry representatives and neighborhood representatives met over a period of three years to develop the proposed amendments. A formal opportunity for public comment occurred at the beginning of every meeting but Task Force members generally welcomed relevant citizen comment at any time during a meeting. Conclusion: The proposed amendments comply with Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, Policies 1, 5, and 10. Goal 2, Land Use Planning. Section 1, Land Use. Policies 4 and 23 4. Require land use regulations to: a. Ensure the provision of park and open space lands, and protection of natural • resources; Planning Commission October 27,2008—LU 08-0053 Page 4 of 8 240 • b. Promote compatibility between development and existing and desired neighborhood character; c. Provide for the implementation of adopted neighborhood plans; d. Provide for necessary public facilities and services; e. Protect life and property from natural hazards; f. Ensure architectural and site design quality; and, g. Reduce dependency on the automobile on a per-capita basis. 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: The primary purpose of the proposed code and plan amendments was to promote compatibility between development and existing and desired neighborhood character. In addition, the proposals are intended to promote quality design. Examples include the policy to establish a design review program and standards related to structure design and setback planes. These changes satisfy Policies 4(b) and 4 (f). In regard to Policy 23,this proposal provides the required information and responses to the applicable approval standards and therefore is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 2. Additionally,the application has been coordinated with applicable jurisdictions and agencies such as DLCD, Metro, Clackamas County and Lake Oswego service providers as required by Goal 2. Conclusion: The proposed amendments comply with Goal 2, Section 1, Policies 4 and 23. Goal 10,Housing,Policies 10, 13, and 17 10. Provide for an interconnected street system to encourage pedestrian, bicycle and transit travel and to reduce vehicle miles traveled to local destinations thus reducing energy use,pollution and congestion. 13. Provide for the active involvement of neighborhood residents and property owners in decisions affecting their neighborhood. 17. Support public and private actions which increase housing choices and reduce housing construction costs. Findings: Policy 10 is carried out by proposed code amendments related to flag lots and street connectivity. The flag lot amendments encourage the use of access lanes which provide the opportunity for interconnections between streets thus allowing better pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular connections. In addition,the proposed changes reduce the parcel size threshold for requiring street connectivity with land development from a five acre development to a 1.75 acre development. The 1.75 acre size is the acreage limit under which the use of the planned development process is restricted. Policy 13 is satisfied through the public involvement process that was established for the project. The Infill Task Force included neighborhood representatives and other II/ neighborhood participants who were involved throughout the process. Planning Commission October 27,2008—LU 08-0053 Page 5 of 8 241 Proposed amendments are consistent with Policy 17 by adjusting the methodologies for determining allowed lot coverage, allowed floor area, and height measurements for roof • planes. These changes provide additional flexibility and should have the effect of reducing housing construction costs. Conclusion: The proposed amendments comply with Goal 10, Policies 10, 13 and 17. Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services, Section 1,Public Safety Police and Fire Protection, Policy 5 5. Require new streets to be of high structural quality, sufficient width and adequately maintained to ensure emergency vehicle and service equipment access. Findings: The proposed flag lot standards encourage access lanes which provide the opportunity for connections between streets. This has the effect of enhancing emergency access by providing access from multiple directions in an emergency. The access lane standards require a 20 foot wide easement which satisfies the minimum requirement for fire code access. The City Engineer will be responsible for establishing the construction standards for access lanes. Conclusion: The proposed amendments comply with Goal 2, Section 1, Policies 4 and 23. Goal 12, Transportation, Goal 3, Neighborhood Collectors and Local Residential Streets, Policies 4 and 9 4. The City shall utilize flexible design criteria and construction standards for local residential street and neighborhood collector improvement projects. Design criteria shall be consistent with the adopted neighborhood plan. In particular these standards shall promote: a. Street development which is compatible with the physical and social characteristics of each neighborhood to promote neighborhood identity and beauty. b. The minimum scale of improvements necessary to provide adequate, but not excessive capacity, required to safely handle automobile traffic generated by planned land uses. c. Solutions to storm water problems and surface water management issues. d. The safety and utility of pedestrians, bicyclists,transit users and motorists. 9. Ensure that connectivity of local streets is achieved in order to: a. reduce excessive trip lengths; b. efficiently and safely accommodate emergency fire and medical vehicles; c. promote the use of alternative modes of travel; d. ensure even dispersal of local traffic; and e. provide local street circulation patterns that provide connections to and from activity centers such as schools, commercial areas, parks and employment centers. Findings: Policies 4 and 9 are proposed code amendments related to flag lots and street connectivity. The flag lot amendments provide for new flexible access lanes which allow • access to property without the need for full scale city streets. The access lanes provide the opportunity for interconnections between streets thus promoting connectivity. In addition, Planning Commission October 27,2008—LU 08-0053 Page 6 of 8 242 the proposed changes promote connectivity by reducing the parcel size threshold for 4110 requiring street connectivity with land development from a five acre development to a 1.75 acre development. Conclusion: The proposed amendments comply with Goal 12, Goal 3, Policies 4 and 9. C. Lake Oswego Community Development Code Procedural Requirements LOC 50.01.010 Purpose LOC 50.05.005 Zoning Districts LOC 50.05.010 Zoning Map LOC 50.79.030 Major Development LOC 50.77.007 Burden of Proof LOC 50.77.030 Application Procedures LOC 50.82.005-.020 Review of Major Development Applications and Appeals LOC 50.83 Hearings before a Hearing Body LOC 50.75.005 Legislative Decision Defined LOC 50.75.010 Criteria for Legislative Decision LOC 50.75.015 Required Notice to DLCD LOC 50.79.020 Planning Commission Recommendation Required LOC 50.79.025 City Council Review and Decision Findings: The proposed amendments have been submitted, noticed and reviewed in 1111/ accordance with the City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code requirements. Conclusion: The record indicates that the proposal complies with all of the above applicable procedural requirements. IV. CONCLUSION The proposed amendments are in compliance with City Comprehensive Plan policies, state laws, and statewide planning goals. V. RECOMMENDATION Based on the work of the lnfill Task Force, staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code. EXHIBITS: A. Ordinances A-1 Ordinance 2523,dated August 7, 2008 A-2 Ordinance 2524,dated August 6, 2008 (includes Attachment B) *Please note that only the ordinance is attached to the staff report. Copies of Attachment B have been provided to the Planning Commission under separate cover in the September 22, 2008 packet. The document can be found on the City's web site under Case File LU 08-0053 at: http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/plan/casefhtm). B. Findings, Conclusions and Order (No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use) Planning Commission October 27,2008—LU 08-0053 Page 7 of 8 243 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 Summary of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments for Infill (Ordinance 2523) F-2 Summary of Proposed Community Development Code Amendments for Infill (Ordinance 2524) G. Letters (None) • • Planning Commission October 27,2008—LU 08-0053 Page 8 of 8 244 AKE(! jo • V Planning and Building Services Department Memorandum OREGON TO: Planning Commission FROM: Denny Egner, AICP DATE: January 21, 2009 SUBJECT: Infill Code Amendments (LU 08-0053) ACTION On January 26, 2009, the Planning Commission is expected to reopen the public hearing on the proposed code and plan amendments for infill development. This hearing is a continuation of the hearing held on October 27, 2008. The Commission will receive a staff report, take testimony, and begin deliberation. Staff recommends that the Commission focus initially on the proposed Comprehensive Plan policy amendment that would direct us to establish a single family design review program. BACKGROUND Commission members requested additional information about the proposed plan policy amendment to establish a design review process for single family homes. The Infill Task Force recommended adoption of the policy by a 7-5 vote after much discussion. The policy was suggested as a way to test the idea at the Commission and Council prior to actually developing a design review program. If the Commission and Council support the idea and approve the policy staff will develop draft code language to implement the program. Under Oregon law (ORS 197,307), there must be a clear and objective (non- discretionary) path for a person to obtain a building permit for needed housing. Staff is unaware of any local government in Oregon that requires design review for single family homes except for those within historic districts (note that private developers sometimes have design review boards for construction within their projects). Because of the state requirement for a clear and objective process, the discretionary review process that is typical of a design review program must be "triggered" by some aspect of the design: size, height, setback, etc. Projects that exceed the trigger threshold would go through the design review process. The original October 27 staff report and draft policy • language include some of the triggers that were considered and discussed by the Task Force. EXHIBIT D-2 LU 08-0053 Planning Commission Public Hearing 01/26/09 l'a_c I CDC Lifill Amendments LU 08-0053 245 This memo includes some of the key background information and direct excerpts from Task Force meeting notes. A. Infill Task Force — Notes and Handouts 1110 1. November 3, 2005 - Work Session Notes Finally, Ron described the individual review process used in Palo Alto, California. Under that process. new single-story houses were subject to clear and objective standards but any house with more than one story was subject to an administrative, limited design review. Plans for two-story houses had to demonstrate compatibility in terms of site planning, mass and scale, form and roofline, street face, and second-story windows. Ron also noted that Palo Alto neighborhoods could restrict themselves to one-story development if 70% of property owners agreed. Patt Thomas asked if a maximum lot size requirement could be applied to existing lots in Lake Oswego. Ron responded that such requirements could only apply to new subdivisions and partitions. Dennis Egner added that subdivisions in Lake Oswego had to reach at least 80% of the maximum density. Dennis also noted that Palo Alto's regulations were amended just this year so it was too soon to know how they would work. Ralph Tahran said he had designed houses in Aspen, Colorado, under regulations similar to Palo Alto's. He said the rules required a lot of extra work but he thought they were beneficial. He also said Aspen's regulations had since been changed. Patt Thomas reported that someone in Subcommittee 2 had suggested a flow chart illustrating the paths an applicant might take toward approval. Brad Beals said information should be concise enough that lay people could understand it. Jim Bolland • asked staff for a commitment to prepare a handbook to illustrate Code requirements. He said the first Infill Task Force had requested this and the current Task Force had brought it up several times. Stephan Lashbrook responded that such a document was needed. Sheila Ostly said she liked the idea of triggering additional review for two-story houses. Patt Thomas responded that very few new, one-story houses would be built in Lake Oswego. Ralph Tahran said 1.5 stories might be a better threshold. Brad Beals said the group needed clearer definitions for concepts like "1.5 stories" and "snout houses." Ralph Tahran said he had heard Class I variances had become easy to obtain. Patt Thomas asked if Class II variances had declined as a result of Residential Infill Design Review. Stephan Lashbrook said Class 11 variances had declined since they required a tougher test. Jim Rolland asked for more data on variances so the group could determine whether or not they were a problem. Emogene Waggoner recommended the Task Force set a maximum limit on floor area, and Sherry Finnigan agreed. Patt Thomas said there was nothing wrong with a large house on a large lot. Sherry suggested the group spend the next meeting talking about the options Ron Kellett had listed to address house size. Ralph Tahran agreed, but Dennis Egner said he needed to look at how that discussion should fit into the schedule. Dennis Hartman said the group should prioritize either an abstract sense of aesthetics or a perceived loss of privacy in order to shape rational standards. Brad Beals asked if Task Force members or staff would document ideas. Ralph Tahran responded that Task Force members would document and test concepts. Planning Commission Public Hearing 01/26/09 Pare 2 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 246 Patt Thomas asked if the issue of lot width was a city-wide problem or whether it occurred only in select neighborhoods. Most members thought the issue was city-wide. • Ron Kellett said complete data on lot dimensions was not available but could be obtained through selective samples. Patt wondered if sample data would be a sufficient basis for Code changes. Stephan Lashbrook noted that the tools Ron suggested did not include a size threshold to trigger design review. Ralph Tahran said it would be better for the trigger point to relate to neighborhood and context. Dennis Egner said he would get more detail on those options, but he reminded the group that the City was required to provide at least one clear and objective option to all applicants. Ralph Tahran said current lot coverage requirements had been hard to meet. For instance, he said it was difficult to put a master bedroom on the main floor. Stephan Lashbrook suggested that lot coverage should be subject to a sliding scale. Ralph Tahran suggested the Task Force should discuss landscaping requirements when it discussed privacy issues. Brad Beals said landscaping in the public right-of- way was an important issue as well. Jim Bolland said the group would need to decide what factors should trigger landscaping requirements. Ron Kellett suggested the group focus on the qualitative aspect of massing. He said it would be good if the community would accept a manageable, controlled design review because that would inject useful conversation into the process. Ron cautioned that quality controls on such a process would be essential. • Ralph Tahran reported a suggestion from Ted Argo about setting a building envelope under which new houses should fit in order to minimize complaints. Brad Beals said that some alterations were very minor and should not be subject to a long approval process. He suggested there should be two levels to Residential lnfill Design Review. Stephan Lashbrook said that was conceivable. Stephan cited the way the Code differentiated between flat lots and sloped lots and he said that more objective distinctions like that could be added. 2. November 17, 2005— Work Session Notes Dennis Egner asked the group if design review should be required for houses above a certain size. There was general agreement that the Task Force should explore this, and Jim Bolland said Subcommittee 2 should make the recommendation. Sheila Ostly suggested that design review should be triggered by house size relative to lot size. She said big houses could be designed to look like smaller ones. Christine Roth and Brad Beals said that very large houses on large lots could be dramatically out of character with their neighborhoods. Another idea was to trigger design review for houses over 90% or 95% of allowable FAR or height. Ralph Tahran and Lane Cooper questioned whether it made sense to set an objective maximum and then require design review to achieve it. Jim Bolland cautioned that the impact of these proposals to the Development Review Commission • was unknown. Marylou Colver expressed concern about unintended consequences and loopholes, while Adrienne Brockman noted that most communities already require design review for commercial and multifamily buildings. Planning Commission Public Hearing 01/26/09 Page 3 CDC[Mill Amendments LU 08-0053 247 Lane Cooper and Brad Beals suggested that overlay zones were a better approach, and the group generally agreed that size thresholds for design review should be • neighborhood-specific. Brad Beals added that viability was very important and that replacing fifty-year-old ranches with two-story homes should be allowed. Heather Chrisman said interim measures were needed since some neighborhoods would take years to adopt neighborhood plans. Emogene Waggoner agreed that code updates were needed as soon as possible. Jim Bolland suggested that if necessary, overlay zones should be put in place before full neighborhood plans were completed. 3. November 17, 2005— Work Session Handout (partial) Implementation Strategies: The Task Force has discussed the idea of requiring design review for houses that exceed certain thresholds. To comply with state law, an applicant must have an opportunity to build a house under clear and objective standards without a discretionary review process. The clear and objective standards could set the size limit over which a house must go through a design review process. A design review process can take many forms. Three options include: • A hearing before the Development Review Commission (public notice in advance) • A hearing by a special infill Review Commission (public notice in advance) • Review by staff— similar to RID review (notice of decision with an opportunity to appeal) In all cases, the application process would become more complex and review time would increase. To comply with state law, reviews (with appeals) would need to occur within 120 days. • Key questions include: 1 . Does the Task Force want to create a design review process for houses over a certain threshold (size, height, width)? 2. What thresholds should trigger review? Options include: - Houses over XX sq. ft. — 6,000 sq. ft.? - House size greater than or equal to 90% of FAR (2,700+ sq. ft. in FAN) - House height greater than 90% of maximum height - House width greater than 80 feet at the front building line 3. What type of review should be required? 4. June 15, 2006 - Work Session Notes Emogene Waggoner said the group would discuss the report Infill Task Force: Recommendations Related to Full Task Force issues, which summarized recommendations from Ron Kellett. Emogene then presented a proposal that she, Jim Bolland, Heather Chrisman, and Sherry Finnigan had prepared in response to item 1(c) from the report (see below). Under their proposal a Residential Design Review Commission would review residential projects for neighborhood compatibility. Projects would trigger such review when they would create a house more than 25% larger than what was on the lot before. • Ted Argo said the proposal was overreaching. Dennis Hartman asked what the "disease was for this cure," Brad Beals questioned whether a clear and objective path Planning Commission Public Hearing 01/26/09 Pace 4 CDC infill Amendments LU 08-0053 248 was required and said this step would make other Task Force recommendations irrelevant. Heather Chrisman said many infill houses didn't fit their neighborhoods and • Staff could at least look at what other communities are doing in this respect. Marylou Colver commented that design review in Old Town had made a positive difference. Doug Cushing asked whether the City would need to compensate architects on a Residential Design Review Commission and said there couldn't be a design philosophy for the whole city. Jim Bolland responded that currently, most houses were built from plan books and this proposal would add neighborhood character to the approval criteria. Sherry Finnigan said houses could he built to all code standards and still not fit the neighborhood. Brad Beals said the perspectives of architects on a Residential Design Review Commission would be too narrow. Emogene Waggoner asked how many new houses had been constructed in Lake Oswego in 2005. Stephan Lashbrook said he thought between 100 and 150 had been built. Sheila Ostly said the concept of "fitting in' was very subjective and expressed concern about added cost and 'cookie cutter" development. Doug Cushing noted that remodels adding 25% more space would trigger review and that an appeal process would be needed. Jim Bolland said the process need not apply to all remodels. Brad Beals said house size, not design, was triggering concern and that house size was a function of land value. Doug Cushing was concerned the Task Force would not be able to work through the proposal before July 11th. Jim Bolland responded that July 11th was an unrealistic deadline anyhow. Brad Beals mentioned blocks where all the houses were small and substandard and asked if new houses should be built to that character. Heather Chrisman responded that the definition of neighborhood for review purposes could be several blocks, not just one block. Ted Argo said it would be better to simply reduce allowed size by 25% rather than complicate the process with design review. • Dennis Hartman moved to have an indication of preference on the Residential Design Review Commission proposal. Emogene Waggoner seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously. The Task Force then voted on whether or not to consider the proposal further. Seven voted "yes" and five voted "no." 5. June 15, 2006 - Work Session Handout PROPOSAL FOR A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN COMMISSION Jim Bolland, Heather Chrisman, Sherry Finnigan and Emogene Waggoner met and discussed this idea and would like to propose to the Infill Task Force the creation of a Design Review Commission. The Design Review Commission 1 . Would look at all new residential development 2. Require the home being built to fit into the neighborhood 3. Is not for creating a bigger house than allowed 4. Should enhance the design element of the home proposed to be built 5. Would be utilized when there is an increase in the size of the home over 25% of the house before construction. Staff should come back to the Infill Task Force with further criteria that would be applicable and examples from other similar communities. • Planning Commission Public!fearing 01/26/09 I'agc CDC!Mill Amendments LU 08-0053 249 6. January 25, 2007 - Work Session Notes Denny summarized the design review proposal from the work group. He said that some Task Force members strongly support a design review process and that those that oppose the idea should use this time as an opportunity to make the proposal more workable because it will ultimately be up to the Planning Commission and City Council if this concept is approved. Some expressed concern about the make up of the Board and the potential number of meetings. Sherry Finnigan noted that the Residential Design Board would meet on an on-call basis and they would not need to scheduled on every 1 s` and 3rd Monday like the DRC. In response to a statement by Doug Cushing, Denny said that there needed to be an option for a property owner or builder to obtain a building permit without going through a discretionary review process. Ted Argo expressed some concern about use of the RID criteria and the process. Ted commented that today, one needed to do construction drawings prior to applying for a tree cutting permit. Carolyn Krebs commented that ultimately a design handbook would be developed to guide decisions. Ralph said that the other in fill standards need to move forward through adoption without waiting for a design handbook to be created. Ralph said that the DR process could add three months to the approval process for single family plan review. There was concern by some Task Force members that triggering DR with houses that are 80% of allowed FAR would require almost all houses to go through a DR process. It was stated that this was too broad given the time and expense that this process may add. • Task Force members asked that the review criteria from other communities be reviewed. Emogene Waggoner said that there needed to be a community-wide discussion about whether design review would be a good idea. Dennis Hartman expressed some concern about defining a 'community aesthetics standard that would add to the market and code forces that already influence house design. 7. January 25, 2007 - Work Session Handout Attached below as Exhibit F-4. 8. March 14, 2007 - Work Session Notes The Task Force discussed the issues related to design review for new residential development. Some task force members proposed lower FAR thresholds so that any development over the threshold would go to design review. It was also suggested that all new homes go to design review. Patt Thomas commented that the City needed to retain a clear and objective permitting process. Doug Cushing said that size wasn't the only issue and that small, ugly houses wouldn't be compatible with neighboring houses. Brad Beals said that the new houses in FAN are too big and are out of scale with other houses. Emogene Waggoner said that she felt strongly that design guidelines were4111 needed. Jim Bolland commented that criteria were needed to trigger the use of the guidelines. Planning Commission Public Hearing 01/26/09 Page 6 CDC lniill Amendments LU 08-0053 250 Sherry Finnegan moved to support the concept of design review. Heather Chrisman . provided a second to the motion. The motion passed 7-5. Denny said he would develop comprehensive plan policy language to support design review. B. Design Review Research In late 2006, the Lake Oswego City Manager's office conducted research on design review programs in California. The research is presented in a table that is attached as Exhibit F-5. C. Palo Alto Single Family Design Guidelines The Palo Alto Single Family Design Guidelines are included for your information. We would prepare a similar document if we were to develop a design review program. The Guidelines are attached as Exhibit F-6. DISCUSSION Key issues related to establishing a design review program include: Triggers — What will trigger the design review process: Size? Height? Number of stories? Sometimes it is not the size of a structure that makes it incompatible with a neighborhood. In FAN, a few of the 'problem" houses are those that don't fit in because of style rather than size. Recall that we need to have a clear and objective option 11111 available to applicants and addressing stylistic attributes of a house under a clear and objective process can be very difficult without being overly regulatory. Examples of possible triggers are included in the January 25, 2007 Task Force Handout (Exhibit F- 4). Process — Design review will add time to the development approval process for single family homes. Currently, planning provides a simple check off during permit review to assure that code requirements are satisfied. Assuming there are no extensions, the process could take up to 120 days (this is the limit set by state law for land use decisions). If extensions are agreed to by participants, the process could take longer. Generally, any delays to a construction project add to the cost of the project. Residential Design Review Commission/Board — A new commission or board will need to be established to review applications. Staffing — A design review process will require staffing. The amount of staff time devoted to the process will be dependent on the triggers and how many houses will need to go through the process. Neighborhood Harmony — A design review process would assure that new home construction is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. While the discretionary process may result in better design, the process could set up an adversarial relationship between neighbors. The trade-offs between design compatibility and neighbor to neighbor relationships should be considered. • Planning Commission Public Hearing 01/26/09 Pap:7 CDC Infll Amendments LU 08-0053 251 CONCLUSION Establishing a new design review process for new single family homes will require a , major commitment on the part of the City. Staff believes it can be workable only if the number of projects that go through the review process is limited to those that clearly conflict with character of a neighborhood. Defining the review triggers will be a critical step if the Commission and the Council choose to pursue a design review program. EXHIBITS NOTE: ONLY EXHIBITS THAT ARE BOLDED AND UNDERLINED ARE INCLUDED IN THIS REPORT. A. Ordinances A-1 Ordinance 2523, dated August 7, 2008 A-2 Ordinance 2524, dated August 6, 2008 (includes Attachment B) *Please note that only the ordinance is attached to the staff report. Copies of Attachment B have been provided to the Planning Commission under separate cover in the September 22, 2008 packet. The document can he found on the City's web site under Case File LU 08-0053 at: http://www.ci.oswego.orus/plan/casefhtm). 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-1 Summary of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments for Infill (Ordinance 2523) F-2 Summary of Proposed Community Development Code Amendments for Infill (Ordinance 2524) F-3 Infill Task Force Refinements to the Proposed Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code (October 2008) F-4 Proposal for Design Review for Single-Family and Two-Family Dwellings — January 25, 2007 F-5 Design Review Programs in California F-6 Palo Alto Single Family Design Guidelines & Checklist G. Letters (None) \\pubwks\data\COMMON_P1Case Files\20081Land Use Files\LU 08-0053 CDC-Infll\Planning Commission\PC Memo 1-26-09 LU • 08-0053.doc Plannine Commission Public Hearing 01126/09 Page 8 CDC Infill Amendments LC 08-0053 252 S�QF 4AKE OSy f • /Air Planning and Building Services Department I 1.1 Memorandum OREGO$ TO: Planning Commission FROM: Denny Egner, AICP DATE: February 3, 2009 SUBJECT: Infill Code Amendments (LU 08-0053) ACTION Three actions are proposed: • Review the proposed Planning Commission schedule and commit to a specific timeline for decision making regarding the proposed infill code amendments. • ■ Continue deliberation regarding design review for single family dwellings. • Begin deliberation on infill related code amendments. Address Section 2 (Lot Coverage and Maximum Floor Area) of the proposed amendments. BACKGROUND On January 26, 2009, the Planning Commission reopened its public hearing on the proposed code and plan amendments for infill development. Following public testimony, the Commission began deliberation. The Commission voted to recommend approval of a plan policy amendment supporting the use of overlay zones and new zone districts to implement neighborhood plans. The Commission directed staff to return with additional information regarding design review. This report presents the following information: • A tentative schedule for review of the infill proposals. • The requested information on design review. • Background material regarding Lot Coverage and Floor Area Ratios. A. Schedule for Review of Infill Proposals The Planning Commission agendas will be quite full over the next few months. Staff proposes the following schedule for addressing the infill proposals: 4110 EXHIBIT D-3 LU 08-0053 Nanning Commission Public Hearing 02/09/09 Page 1 CDC!Mill Amendments LU 08-0053 253 Infill Schedule Date Topic Deliberation Decision 2-9 Section 1 — Design Review Policy X • Section 2 - Lot Coverage and Maximum Floor Area X 2-23 Section 2 - Lot Coverage and Maximum Floor Area X Section 3 — Structure Design/Setback Planes X 3-9 Section 3 — Structure Design/Setback Planes X Section 4 — Yard Setbacks X Section 5 — Sloped Lots X Section 6 - RID Review X Section 7 — Planned Developments/Open Space X 3-23 Sections 4 to 7 X Section 8 - Variances X Section 9 - Miscellaneous Code Provisions X 3-30 Sections 8 and 9 X Section 10 — Duplexes and Attached Dwellings X Section 11 — Flag Lots X 4-13 Section 10 and 11 X Section 1 — Design Review Policy X X Unfinished Work X X B. Design Review Information Staff is recommending that the Commission evaluate the full set of infill code amendments prior to making a final decision on design review. At the January 26 meeting, the Commission requested information on the following topics: • What is considered objectionable design? • What options were considered to address privacy? • What options are available for the design review process? • What would be the impacts of design review in terms of approval timelines, staff time, and applicant fees? 1. What is considered objectionable design? The size and scale of new homes has been a concern expressed by Lake Oswego neighborhood leaders for the past 10 years. In 2003, the City adopted a set of development code standards that were intended to do a better job of managing the size and scale of homes. Key changes that occurred in 2003 included: • Lowering overall structure height by measuring roof height to the peak of the roof rather than to the mid-point of the roof; • Creating the "front setback plane" to push the house bulk back from the front of the lot; • Creating a regulatory relationship between building height and lot coverage; and • Establishing floor area to lot area ratios that made floor area dependent on the size of the lot. 1111 Planning Commission Public Hearing 02/09/09 Page 2 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 254 Since 2003, there have continued to be concerns expressed about key infill issues including: • • New houses and additions are often out of scale with older homes in existing neighborhoods. Floor area regulations continue to allow houses that are significantly larger than older neighbors. • New larger houses are often taller than older existing houses. Existing residents sometimes feel that there is a loss of privacy when a new taller house is constructed on an abutting lot. • Design style can sometimes be an issue. A new modern two-story house with a steeply pitched roof located amongst single-story ranch houses with low pitched roofs can be objectionable. New building materials, such as cultured stone facades, can create a look that fits better in a new suburban subdivision than on infill lots in FAN or Old Town. Commissioner Adrianne Brockman has offered to lead a field trip prior to the February 9 meeting so that Commissioners can visit a few of the sites that neighborhood representatives feel are particularly objectionable. 2. What options were considered to address privacy? Privacy was raised as an issue and addressed by the Infill Task Force. In response, the Task Force recommended a new "side yard setback plane" that forces upper floors to be set back from the side property lines. Side Setback Plane - R-7.5 Zone • Proposed 12:12 Current code: Current code: side setback ► Max. 28' height 10' setback planes 1 with 10' setback above 18' in I • height I • rf 00. Current code: \ 28' height Maximum building • f envelope • 1 12' • 4 5' setback 10' setback Roof forms may penetrate the side setback planes if they are less than 1/4 of the total structure length at 12 feet or more in height. Two or more separate and distinct roof forms such as dormers or gables may project into the side setback plane if they are collectively less than 1/3 of the structure height at 12 feet or more in height. 4110 Planning Commission Public Hearing 02/09/09 Pa c 3 CDC[n611 Amendments LU 08-0053 255 In addition, the Task Force is 11110 recommending new side yard design options that give a property owner a menu of design choices to address side yard compatibility, One of the new choices includes an option for landscaping and screening which would add to privacy and visual separation between properties. When the Task Force initially — addressed privacy, Ron Kellett of the University of British Columbia was providing consulting services to the City. Ron suggested a number of design concepts that were ultimately accepted by the Task Force but the Task Force specifically rejected two ideas that dealt directly with privacy. -- -------- The first concept was to regulate the placement of upper story windows • along side yards so that they did not provide view opportunities into • neighboring homes or yards. The second concept was to regulate the placement and design of upper story decks and porches. Task Force members felt that developing clear and objective standards to address these issues could not be written in such a way that would provide designers with enough flexibility. y s e {: t x Upper story windows set up high for Upper level deck designed for privacy. privacy. The hedge provides additional privacy screening. Plannine Commission Public Hearing 02/09/09 Pxee 4 CDC Intill Amendments LU 08-0053 256 • 3. What options are available for the design review process? The Task Force discussed the design review process but they were never asked to make a recommendation on a specific process. Some felt it was necessary to have a separate Residential Design Board and others believed a process similar to the City's current RID process could work. These two options, plus a process similar to the current Design Review Commission process are described below. There are many ways that a design review process could be organized that blend features of these three options. Design Review Options Design Review Residential Design RID — Staff Review Commission Board _ Decision Quasi-judicial hearing Board decision with Staff decision with Process before the notice and opportunity notice and opportunity Commission. for appeal. for appeal. Hearings Public hearing prior to No hearing in advance No hearing in advance the decision, of the decision. of the decision. Notice Notice is sent to Notice is sent to Notice is sent to nearby property nearby property nearby property owners in advance of owners after a decision owners after a decision the hearing. has been made. If has been made. If objections are not filed, objections are not filed, the decision becomes the decision becomes final. final. Expertise / Architects and design Four architects and Architects are on Make Up professionals make design professionals contract to advise staff the decisions. Seven with one at-large regarding decisions. members appointed. citizen appointee make Two architects are the decisions. consulted. Application Plans must include a Plans must include a Plans must include a Materials site plan, floor plans, site plan, floor plans, site plan, floor plans, building elevations, building elevations, building elevations, building materials, building materials, and building materials, and and an analysis of an analysis of an analysis of surrounding buildings. surrounding buildings. surrounding buildings. Fees Cover the cost of the Cover the cost of the Cover the cost of the process = $4,300. process = $3,000. process = $2,100. _ Timeline Pre-application = 45 - Pre-application = 45 - Pre-application = 15 - (best case) 60 days 60 days 30 days Post-application = 60 Post-application = 50 - Post-application 50 - days 60 days 60 days Hearing requested, Hearing requested, add = 50 - 60 days add = 50 - 60 days Planning Commission Public Hearing 02/09/09 e S CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 257 4. What would be the impacts of design review in terms of approval timelines, staff time, and applicant fees? Approval timelines, staff time, and applicant fees are all dependent on what type of process is used and what the thresholds are for requiring design review. The table above provides an estimate of applicant fee costs and timelines. Fees could range from about $2,100 for a process similar to RID to $4,300 for a process similar to design review for development projects in the City's Old Town Design District Zone. For comparison, the planning review fee for a house that meets all development code requirements is $180. Regarding approval timelines, if a house meets all planning related code requirements, the plan check time typically takes 5 to 10 days. To go through a design review process including pre-application, the review time can take approximately 120 days. If a hearing is requested another 60 days are needed. Assuming no opposition, it could take less time to go straight to a hearing process than to go through an alternative decision making process like the RID process. The RID process has a two stage decision process with a relatively quick decision made by staff, followed by a notice of the decision. If the decision is appealed and a hearing is held, the process will potentially be longer than if the application went directly into the hearing process without the staff decision. The staff time needed for implementation of a new design review process will depend on whether the process requires a public hearing and how many projects per year go through the design review process. Assuming the applications are relatively straightforward, staff time (planning, administrative and legal) commitments for a typical application are as follows: ■ RID Review (no hearing) — 60 staff hours • Design Review Public Hearing — 80 staff hours The key variable in estimating staff time is the estimate of how many projects will go through the design review process. Between 1995 and 2007, Lake Oswego averaged 98 new single family dwelling permits per year. During the same time period, the City averaged 310 remodeling permits per year. The review process can be as complicated for a remodeling project as it can for a new home, depending on what changes are proposed. Often, remodeling projects are more complicated because an applicant is working with a structure that does not conform to the current code requirements. Two scenarios are presented below assuming the City processes 400 permits per year: Design Review — Staff Time Commitment Assume 400 permits per RID Review (no hearing) - DR Public Hearing - year 60 hours per application 80 hours per application 10% go through a design 2400 hours per year 3200 hours per year review process 1.2 FTE 1 .6 FTE 20% go through a design 4800 hours per year 6400 hours per year review process 2.4 FTE 3.2 FTE 2000 hours per year is approximately equal to one full time position. Planning Commission Public Hearing 02/09/09 Page 6 CDC lntill Amendments LU 08-0053 258 • C. Background Material - Lot Coverage and Floor Area Ratios. The following background information was presented to the Infill Task Force and used to support their recommendations. See Attachment B - Section 2 of proposed Ordinance 2524 for the proposed code language (issued September 22, 2008) http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/plan/Land Use App/2008/LU 08- 0053 CDC Comp Plan Infill/LU08-0053 CDC Comp-Plan Infill.htm. Lot coverage/height relationship Issues: ■ Lot coverage/height relationship • Garage location and lot coverage bonus • Floor area ratios Concept: Revise lot coverage scale to eliminate abrupt step changes in lot coverage. Issue: In 2003, the infill code amendments ' _ _ � "-•; ;;:� t" '' made lot coverage a function of building height. The purpose of this relationship was to create an incentive to build shorter '11111111 houses with lower profiles. Under the 2003 — 1, code provisions, structures are allowed to _ - cover 35% of a lot with a building if structure height is equal to or below 22 feet. If a a structure is taller than 22 feet, lot coverage = =� I _ • cannot exceed 25%. t' ti Few homes took advantage of the lot coverage incentive for lower structures. Between 2003 and 2007, only 13 of 190 (7%) new homes built in R-7.5. R-10, and R-15 zones were equal to or less than 22 feet in height. Most new homes were built with the greater height and lesser lot coverage. The development community has requested more flexibility and expressed concerns about the abrupt drop in lot coverage when heights exceed 22 feet. A similar relationship is set forth in the R-5 zone except that allowed lot coverages are greater: 45% if less than or equal to 22 feet in height and 35% if greater than 22 feet. In the R-6 zone, lot size is also factored into the height and lot coverage relationship. Support for the basic concept remains but concerns have been raised about increases in lot coverage that may result from the proposal. Proposal: First, the code was reformatted to divide Lot Coverage and FAR into two separate categories. Second, new tables were developed to allow for smoother proportional relationships between house heights and lot coverage. • Code Sections: R-7.5, R-10, and R-15: Section 50.08.040; R-6: Section 50.07,035; and R-5: Section 50.06.040 and Table 50.06.040-B. Planning Commission Public Hearing 02/09/09 Page 7 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 259 Examples/Background Data: R-7.5, R-10, and R-15 — Lot Coverage - Lot coverage is dependent on height. The proposal creates a sliding scale. Comparative Graph Illustrating Building Height and Lot Coverage for R-7.5, R-10, and R-15 Zones 35 'nom * I f 1 i 34 i`+ • _ Current Code Standard: — 33 I •°4*. •♦ Proposed Changes: y• Areas of increased 32 ' **if* •• 4j lot coverage: 31 ii ♦••• 4 ar • • I • ♦ •+ m30 ' `• �• •• '0 29 + •* •••• 28 •••• • • •• • o I • 27 •• • 4. •••�•♦ R-7.5 4 R-10 R-15 26 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 r 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 35+ Building Height in Feet • R-6 Zone — Lot Coverage - In the R-6 zone, lot coverage is dependent on both structure height and lot size. There are step changes resulting from both variables. Under current standards, a 22' tall house on a 6,000 sq. ft. lot is allowed 45% lot coverage while a 23' tall house on the same lot is only allowed 35% lot coverage. The proposed amendments create a sliding scale for lot coverage. Lot Coverage in the R-6 Zone Lot size Base Height of Structure at Highest Grade in sq. ft. 18' or 19' 20' 21' 22' 23' 24' 25' 26' 27' 28' or less i more 7,000 or 46% 45% 44% 43% 42% 41% I40% 39% 38% 37% 36% less >7,000 - 43% 42% 41% 40% 39% 38% 37% 36% 35% 34% 33% 8,500 >8,500 — 40% 39% 38% 37% 36% 35% 34% 33% 32% 31% 30% 10,000 >10,000 - 37% 36% 35% 34% 33% 32% 31% 30% 29% 28% 27% 11,500 >11,500 34% 33% 32% 31% 30% 29% 28% 27% 26% 25% 24% • Planning Commission Public Heating 02/09/09 Page 8 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 260 • R-5 Zone - Lot Coverage - In the R-5 Zone, lot coverage is related to height for single family detached homes. Lot coverage for single family attached and other structures are not tied to height. R-5 Zone - Proposed Height/Lot Coverage Table Maximum Lot Height (ft.) Coverage (%) 22 or less 45 Single Family >22 to 25 43 % detached >25 to 28 40% >28to30 38 % >30 35% Single Family 50% attached Other Structures 50% Garage location and lot coverage bonus • Concept: Clarify what is meant by "to the rear" of the lot when siting a garage and offering a lot coverage bonus. Issue: The current lot coverage and floor area ratio section includes a lot coverage incentive for garages that are located to the rear of the primary structure. To "the rear" of the primary structure has not been defined. In FAN, an additional issue surfaced: developers were building attached and detached garages on the same sites to take advantage of the lot coverage and FAR bonuses. Proposal: An appendix diagram has been prepared to clarify that the garage is to the rear of the primary structure in cases where all vehicle openings are located ten feet behind the front of the primary structure. In addition, the garage need only be side loading with respect to the front property line. The Task Force recommended that in FAN, lot coverage bonuses apply only when a detached garage is the only garage on the site. Code Sections: Section 50.08.040 (4)(b) - Lot Coverage and Appendix 50.08 - A; Section 50.07.035 (4) • Planning Commission Public Hearing 02/09/09 l'::L,'9 CDC[mill Amendments LU 08-0053 261 Appendix 50.08 — A Garage to the Rear of the Primary Structure • The diagram illustrates three • scenarios where the garage is located to the rear of the 4 primary structure. 10' back from portion of house closest to street. • Front of House Driveway Floor Area Ratio Concepts: • Eliminate abrupt step changes with current Floor Area Ratios (FAR). • Amend the FAR standard to include garages. Issues: Floor area ratio (FAR) requirements for single family residential development were enacted in 2003 and were intended to help manage the size of houses by making allowed floor area dependent on lot size, The current regulations use a table with a series of steps, rather than a mathematic formula to apply the FAR. The step system results in relatively large jumps or drops in house size when lot area changes by a few feet. In addition, the FAR calculation does not count any floor area used for parking. This creates an inequity since two structures may have exactly the same shape and bulk, but differ in terms of FAR based on the number of garage stalls. • Planning Commission Public Hearing 02/09/09 Page 10 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 262 S Two houses with exactly the same size and Garage bulk. Garages are currently exempt from FAR. Meets FAR — large garage Exceeds FAR — small garage Proposal: The draft code was reformatted to divide Lot Coverage and FAR into two separate categories. Separate formulas were devised for allowed floor area in each base zone to allow for a smoother proportional relationship between house size and lot size and to allow for a garage that is proportional to the house size. This will replace the discrete incremental change with a continuous functional relationship between house and lot size. The formula for determining the allowed floor area in each zone follows the basic structure outlined below: Allowed Base Floor Bonus Floor Area (Actual lot size— Garage Floor = Area (3000 sq. + the size of the smallest lot allowed + Floor Area Area ft. in the SF in the zone) x (size factor— 0.2 in zones) the SF zones) • The proposal includes garages in the total floor area allowed. To account for the loss in building square footage, a square footage allowance for garages has been included in the floor area formula. Each formula has separate garage sizes that were derived through a study of garage sizes in each of the single family base zones. A smaller sample was used to establish the 500 sq. ft. garage size in the R-6 zone. Typically, garages were between 400 and 500 square feet in the zone. No garage data was available for the R-5 zone. Garage sizes are listed below. Zone Garage Size Allowed R-5 Up to 500 square feet R-6 Up to 500 square feet R-7.5 Up to 600 square feet R-10 Up to 750 square feet R-15 Up to 850 square feet Code Sections: Section 50.08.042, Section 50.07.037, and 50.06.035 110 Examples/Background Data: Planning Commission Public Hearing 02/09/09 P ce ;i CDC Intill Amendments LU 08-0053 263 Floor Area and Lot Size Charts for the R-6, R-7.5 and R-10 zones are attached as Exhibit F-7. These charts plot recent home construction with floor area on the vertical axis and lot size on the horizontal axis. The charts include lines that show current allowed floor area compared with the proposed floor area allowance. The R-7.5 and R • - 10 charts include a line depicting a 10% reduction in allowed floor area. The R-7.5 and R-10 charts are provided for the Lake Grove neighborhood (with photos and addresses) and for the zoning districts as a whole (no photos or addresses). Examples of what would be permitted by the proposed code within the R-6 and R-5 zones are provided below: R-6 Zone FAR - A new section (Section 50.06.037) addressing FAR is proposed in the R-6 zone. Example R-6 Allowed Floor Area in Square Feet Lot Size Floor Area w/ Floor Area w/ Proposed FAR Current FAR w/out Garage I w/ Garage 5,500 2,750 2,800 3,300 6,000 2,880 2,900 3,400 7,500 3,450 3,200 3,700 9,500 3,990 3,600 4,100 12,500 4,500 4,200 4,700 • 14,500 4,640 4,430 4,930 15,500 4,650 4,610 5,110 In the comparison table, the two smallest and the largest lot sizes produce floor areas that are very close to the current floor area allowed. The lot sizes in the middle ranges produce floor areas that are 200 to 400 square feet smaller than what is currently allowed. R-5 Zone FAR - A 500 square foot garage is proposed to be included for FAR calculation. The table below provides a comparison of the floor areas allowed under current and proposed FAR by lot size. The lot size examples provided are for comparison purposes with current requirements. The standard lot size in the R-5 zone is 5,000 sq. ft. A 500 square foot garage allowance has been included in the FAR calculation. The chart below provides a comparison of the floor areas allowed under current and proposed FAR by lot size: R-5 Allowed Floor Area in Square Feet Lot Size Floor Area w/ Floor Area w/ Proposed FAR Current FAR w/out Garage w/ Garage • 4,000 Not listed 2,700 3,200 5,000 3,000 3.000 3,500 Planning Commission Public Hearing 02/09/09 Page 12 CDC Tofu Amendments LU 08-0053 264 6,000 3,600 3,300 3,800 7,000 4,200 3,600 4,100 • 8,000 4,000 3,900 4,400 9,000 4,500 4,200 4,700 • 10,000 4,000 4,500 5,000 11,000 4,400 4,800 5,300 12,000 4,800 5,100 5,600 13,000 5,200 5,400 5,900 14,000 5,600 5,700 6,200 15.000 6.000 6,000 I 6,500 DISCUSSION The key issues for discussion are broken down by topic: Schedule - Can the Commission commit to a schedule to review the infill proposals? Are there other ways to accelerate the Commission's review process? Design Review - The issues related to design review are same as those outlined in the January 26 staff report. If the Commission is interested in recommending a design review process there should be some guidance provided in the following areas: • Triggers (Size? Height? Stories?): and • Process (Design review board vs. RID staff approval). O Lot Coverage and FAR -Are the Task Force recommendations appropriate? Do you need more information regarding the proposals? 9 g CONCLUSION Design Review - A recommendation on design review is one of the most important recommendations the Planning Commission will make this year. Staff recommends that the Commission review the other infill proposals prior to making a final recommendation to get a better idea about the range of code amendments and to see how the proposed code changes address issues such as privacy and compatibility. Lot Coverage and FAR - Staff recommends that the Commission spend time discussing the Lot Coverage and FAR proposals in anticipation of making a decision regarding these proposals at the February 23 meeting. EXHIBITS III NOTE: ONLY EXHIBITS THAT ARE BOLDED AND UNDERLINED ARE INCLUDED IN THIS REPORT. A. Ordinances Planning Commission Public Hearing 02/09/09 I'.r_r CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 265 A-1 Ordinance 2523, dated August 7, 2008 A-2 Ordinance 2524, dated August 6, 2008 (includes Attachment B) *Please note that only the ordinance is attached to the staff report. Copies of • Attachment B have been provided to the Planning Commission under separate cover in the September 22, 2008 packet. The document can be found on the City's web site under Case File LU 08-0053 at: http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/plan/casef htm). 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-1 Summary of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments for Infill (Ordinance 2523) F-2 Summary of Proposed Community Development Code Amendments for Infill (Ordinance 2524) F-3 Infill Task Force Refinements to the Proposed Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code (October 2008) • F-4 Proposal for Design Review for Single-Family and Two-Family Dwellings — January 25, 2007 F-5 Design Review Programs in California F-6 Palo Alto Single Family Design Guidelines & Checklist F-7 Floor Area and Lot Size Charts G. Letters (None) \\pub_wksldata\COMMON_P\Case Files l2008\Land Use Files\LU 08-0053 CDC-Infi111Planning Commission\PC Memo 1-26-09 LU 08-0053.doc Planning Commission Public Hearing 02/09/09 Page 14 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 266 ` OE LAKE OsyfC • 4,0„, Planning and Building Services Department - ' Supplemental Staff Report OREGO- TO: Planning Commission FROM: Denny Egner, AICP Assistant Planning Director/Long Range Planning Manager DATE: March 4, 2009 SUBJECT: Infill Code Amendments Lot Coverage and Floor Area/Structure Design and Setback Planes (LU 08-0053) ACTIONS • Make a preliminary decision regarding Section 2 (Lot Coverage and Maximum Floor Area) of Attachment B of Ordinance 2524. • • Begin deliberation on Section 3 (Structure Design and Setback Planes) of Attachment B of Ordinance 2524. BACKGROUND A. Schedule for Review of Infill Proposals A modified schedule for addressing the Infill Task Force recommendations is included at the end of this report. B. Lot Coverage and Maximum Floor Area At the February 23 meeting, the Commission raised the following key questions regarding floor area ratio and lot coverage requirements: • Have the FAR requirements made a difference in house design? • Why were FAR standards set at the current levels? • What would be the effect of reducing the proposed adjustments to lot coverage? 1. Have the FAR requirements made a difference in house design? On March 2, I met with builder/designer Brad Beals and architects Ted Argo and Ralph Tahran of the Infill Task Force and asked them if they thought the FAR requirements were having an effect on house design. Ted Argo said the standards were having a major impact on house designs for his clients. He said he had designed a number of houses in Lake Oswego since the FAR standards went into effect and eve _one of EXHIBIT D-4 LU 08-0053 Planning Commission Public Hearing 03/09/09 Pac 1 CDC lntill Amendments LU 08-0053 267 them would have been larger if not for the FAR standards. He said most of his projects are very close to the upper FAR limit. Ralph Tahran provided an example of a 9,600 sq ft lot (80'x120') in the R-7.5 zone. • With 25% lot coverage, a 2,400 sq ft building footprint could be provided. If the house was built at a full two stories, this would result in a 4,800 sq ft house. Under current FAR standards a 3,744 sq. ft. house could be built, In this case study, the FAR standards would produce a house that is over 1,000 sq ft smaller (20%) than what would be allowed if the FAR standards were eliminated. Because an 80' x 120' lot is a somewhat oversized lot in the R-7.5 zone, there would be no problem siting the house footprint in a way that house size would not be reduced by the front setback plane or the proposed side yard setback planes. Even on the smaller 7,500 sq ft lot, it would be possible to site a house with a greater front setback so the house size would not be reduced by the front setback plane. These examples illustrate that the FAR standards do have a significant effect on house size and they become increasingly important as lot size increases. R-7.5 FAR Example Lot Size and Lot Coverage Two-Story Currently Effect of FAR Dimensions Floor Area Allowed FAR 9600 sq ft 2400 sq ft 4800 sq ft 3744 sq ft - 1056 sq ft 80' x 120' 7500 sq ft 1875 sq ft 3750 sq ft 3375 sq ft - 375 sq ft 75' x 100' Additional information regarding FAR is provided in Exhibit F-8, an attachment to this • memo. It provides lot coverage and floor area data for a number of houses that were built close to the FAR limit. In some cases the FAR has been exceeded because the applicant may have gone through the RID process or the applicant took advantage of the 200 sq ft bonus for a detached garage. 2. Why were FAR standards set at the current levels? I made an attempt to determine how the FAR standards were set at their current levels. I examined materials prepared by the City's consultant Ron Kellett in November and December of 2001. The December materials outline a formula very similar to what is currently proposed (0.5 FAR for the portion of a lot that is 6,000 sq ft and 0.2 FAR for the portion over 6,000 sq ft). The materials also include a proposal for a sliding scale FAR based on the number of stories with FAR increasing slightly for a 1.5 or 2 story house. This concept was not carried forward in the R-7.5, R-10, and R-15 zones. The materials also note that smaller lots can generally accommodate higher FARs than larger lots. There was nothing in the files explaining how the overall size limits were established. When the actual code language for the FAR section was prepared, I recall that a table was believed to be preferable to a formula given that it was thought that there was less room for error in using the table. • Planning Commission Public Hearing 03/09/09 pale CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 268 3. What would be the effect of reducing the proposed adjustments to lot • coverage? At the February 23 meeting, the Commission expressed concern regarding increasing lot coverage under the proposed code changes. This issue was also discussed with Brad, Ralph, and Ted. I suggested a scenario where the sliding scale lot coverage for each zone would be compressed as follows: Reduced Lot Coverage Scenario R-7.5 Lot Coverage R-10 Lot Coverage i R-15 Lot Coverage Height Task Reduced Task Reduced ' Task Reduced Force Coverage Force Coverage Force Coverage Proposal Scenario Proposal Scenario Proposal Scenario 22' 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% I 35% 24' 32% 30% 33% 32% 33% 33% 26' 29% 25% 30% 28% 32% 30% 28' 25% 25% 28% 25% 30% 28% 30' - - 25% 25% 28% 25% 35' - - 25% 25% In 2003, lot coverage was made a function of height in order to provide an incentive to build lower scale homes. The 2003 standards established 22 feet (the height of a one story house) as the threshold for how much lot coverage could be provided: height below 22' = 35% lot coverage and height above 22' = 25% lot coverage. In most cases applicants chose the two story option because they could get more floor area with a two story home even if the footprint was reduced by the smaller lot coverage. In response to the Planning Commission's questions and the proposed scenario, Ted, Ralph, and Brad noted that by creating more flexibility in the lot coverage standards, there would be greater incentive for 24-26 foot tall 1'/% story houses to be built. The most important reason Task Force members wanted additional flexibility for lot coverage was to address problems with lots that sloped slightly across a building envelope. If there was a four foot drop across a lot, the opportunity to do a lower scale house with the greater lot coverage could be lost. It was also noted that if the Commission wanted to address impervious surfaces, an impervious surface standard could be developed. The lot coverage standards only apply to building areas and structures over 30 inches in height. The standards do not include driveways, patios, and walkways. The FAN and Old Town neighborhoods have standards that limit impervious surfaces to 60% of the lot. Both the Lake Grove and Glenmorrie Neighborhoods are considering adding an impervious surface standard as part of their neighborhood overlay zones. Ted, Ralph, and Brad stated that they would be at the March 9 meeting to answer questions and provide further information. 4. Background Material — Structure Design and Setback Planes. The following background information was presented to the Infill Task Force and used to support their recommendations. See Attachment B - Section 3 of proposed • Ordinance 2524 for the proposed code language (issued September 22, 2008) http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/plan/Land Use App/2008/LU 08- 0053 CDC Comp Plan Inflll!LUO8-0053 CDC Comp-Plan Infill,htm. Planning Commission Public Hearing 03/09/09 I'aae 3 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 269 Structure Design and Setback Planes • The following materials were part of the background information used by the Infill Task Force to make their recommendations. Structure Design Concepts: • Provide an increased side yard setback for second stories. Use a step back or slope. • Create a menu of design options for neighbor facing side elevations and street facing facades. • Apply the front setback plane to corner lots. • Consider landscaping alternatives for compatibility, scale, and privacy. • Limit wall length to enhance compatibility. Issues: Tall houses close to a common property line or on corner lots can be incompatible with adjacent residences or the streetscape. The current wall plane standards need to be more flexible to include landscaping or alternative designs. The current front setback plane standards 4 allow only two dormers to penetrate the front setback plane. There have been house •x . f • � ' designs proposed where three or more -- ^R� 4 �.� � dormers have been requested but the arbitrary _ a-� R�.� �i' limit has prevented approval. r ' Proposals: 1. Add design standards to require the side profile of a structure to fit behind a plane Example of a house with three that starts at the side yard property line dormers in FAN. and extends upward to 12 feet and slopes toward the center of the structure at minimum slope of 12:12 or (45 degrees) up to the maximum base zone height. The proposal is illustrated in the diagram on the following page. 2. Front setback plane code sections should be amended to apply to both front yards and side yards that abut streets. In addition, to provide greater flexibility in design, it is proposed that more than two dormers or roof features be allowed to penetrate the setback planes. 3. Alternatives to side yard wall planes are proposed. These include wall offsets, bay windows, and landscaping for interior lots and additional features such as balconies and porches on corner lots. 4. The proposed landscaping option includes the concept of "plant units" to achieve • screening along a side wall. Planning Commission Public Hearing 03/09/09 Page 4 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 270 410 Structure Design Concept: Provide an increased side yard setback for second stories. Use a step back or slope. Side Setback Plane - R-7.5 Zone Proposed 12:12 Current code: Current code: side setback . Max. 28' height 10' setback planes with 10' setback above 18' in / height I \ � 1 1 v ,I 12 Current code: \ 28' height Maximum building g / 12 envelope • 12' I • 5' setback 10' setback Roof forms may penetrate the side setback planes if they are less than 1/4 of the total structure length at 12 feet or more in height. Two or more separate and distinct roof forms such as dormers or gables may project into the side setback plane if they are collectively less than 1/3 of the structure height at 12 feet or more in height. The example provided above illustrates the proposed side setback plane for an R-7.5 lot. The portions above the plane (the dark dotted line) represent the portions of the building envelope that would be affected by the setback plane. R-10 and R-15 lots currently require a 10-foot side yard setback on one side and a 15-foot setback on the opposite side. The impacts decrease as the required setbacks increase. Code Sections: R-7.5, R-10, and R-15: Section 50.08.045 (2); R-6: Section 50.07.040 (4); R-0, R-2, R-3, and R-5: Section 50.06.060 (3) 4110 Planning Commission Public Hearing 03/09/09 Page CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 271 Structure Design Concept: • Apply the front setback plane to corner lots. • The front setback plane concept is proposed for corner lots (street side yards). Rather than a 6:12 slope, a 12:12 slope is proposed to establish the plane. This provides some additional flexibility for the developer. Street Front Setback Planes Street Side Yard Setback Plane Front Setback Plane • ♦ 12 1 Maximum height ' k v 20' I ti ROW . :�: ROW • Front Yard Setback Side Yard Setback Adjacent to a Street Code Sections: R-7.5, R-10, and R-15: Section 50.08.045 (1); R-6: Section 50.07.040 (3); R-0, R-2, R-3. and R-5: Section 50.06.060 (2) Currently, structure design standards apply to development in only one of the high and medium density zone districts, the R-5 zone. The proposed revisions expand the structure design standards to apply to detached single family dwellings, zero lot line, and duplex development in all of the high and medium density zones. Zero lot line development is defined as two units in one attached building but with each unit located on a separate lot. A duplex is two units in one building on one lot. • Planning Commission Public Hearing 03/09/09 I':,;c 6 CDC lnliil Amendments LU 08-0053 272 • Structure Design Concepts: • Create a menu of design options for neighbor facing side elevations and street facing facades. • Consider landscaping alternatives for compatibility, scale, and privacy. The proposed code provides alternative side yard design ' `_ treatments. Options include the side and wall plane and include a building -.\ i ° -- k, �F offset option and a landscaping t z r` .--- ` a' '� option. , 1 The proposed code standards R. implement special concepts for corner s -tz - lots on the side yard that abuts the " street. Currently, the side yard ar< r_ • setback plane applies to this façade. - yy A greater set of options was desired r. � :: , • for these facades. These standards are options that are in addition to the • alternatives for the side yard plane, Interior Side Yard Wall Plane the offset wall design, and the landscaped screening. ~* "•,' r.19•_ • ''"• .4'. '•• _:, to , . . 4t. r *+ �r ? / - r Y� L I ,• , , - . : IVA._ , - i. Corner(Street Side Yard)Wall Plane ID Planning Commission Public Hearing 03/09/09 Page 7 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 273 Proposed Appendix 50.08-E defines Plant Units for side yard screening. The proposal requires one plant unit for every 50 feet of linear side yard property line or fraction thereof. Appendix 50.07-E Plant Unit Quantity Size and Type of Illustration Alternative Plants Required Standard Plant Unit 1 - 3" caliper canopy tree 2 - 1 '/2" caliper under story ' - tree + ; 13 - 3' highshrubs Alternative Unit A* 1 - 3" caliper canopy tree l ir •i air 1 - 1 1/2" caliper under story . ' tree V ` 1 - 6' high evergreen tree 11 - 3' high shrubs „AA' tfi d C �,'� ',art Alternative Unit B* 2 - 1 '/i' caliper under story k'p� „ E tree loge „v 3 - 6' high evergreen trees 6 7 - 3' high shrubs 'A k s6 `_I•• _ 44, Alternative Unit C** 2 - 3" caliper canopy tree 5 • 3 - 3' high shrubs �w4., : Alternative Unit D* Minimum 10' long trellis, miaimr• arbor, or pergola (minimum 6 4T I, It tall) _-.�� �V 1 - 1 1/2" caliper under story ,or1, tree ,r+ �, 10 - climbing plants (native) r,'u *Preferred for year around screen ** May be required where vision clearance is required for safe automobile operation. Code Sections: R-7.5, R-10, and R-15: Section 50.08.045 (3); R-6: Section 50.07.040 (4); R-0, R-2, R-3, and R-5: Section 50.06.060 (2) • Planning Commission Public Hearing 03/09/09 Page 8 CDC lnfill Amendments LU 08-0053 274 Structure Design Concept: • • Limit wall length to enhance compatibility. Issue: Extremely long walls can be out of character with surrounding development. Long walls have occurred on large, deep lots where the size of the lot allows a very large house. Although the side yard wall plane can help to break up the wall surface, the overall length and mass of the wall can dominate development on an abutting lot. Proposal: For long walls (over 70 feet in length), break up the building mass by requiring wall planes of over 600 feet to be separated by a distance of 10 feet by a wall that is offset from the adjoining wall planes by at least 4 feet. Alternately, provide landscaping and a setback of 100 feet. Break-Up Long Walls Annendix 50.07-H • 600+ sq ft wall plane 10'+ separation 4'+ offset • >70' If offset is <4', plane is part of the same wall plane Code Sections: R-7.5. R-10, and R-15: Section 50.08.045 (5); R-6: Section 50.07.040 (4): R-0. R-2, R-3, and R-5: Section 50.06.060 (5) Planning Commission Public Hearing 03/09/09 Page 9 CDC Intill Amendments LU 08-0053 275 DISCUSSION The key issues for discussion are broken down by topic: • Lot Coverage and FAR: • Does the Commission support the proposed floor area limitations? • Are the floor area limitations set correctly? • Does the Commission support the proposed adjustment to lot coverage? • Do you want to explore a new impervious surface standard rather than change the lot coverage proposal? Structure Design and Setback Planes: • Does the Commission support the proposed side yard setback planes (both interior and street side)? • Does the Commission support the changes to wall plane standards and the proposed screening options? CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the Commission attempt to make a preliminary decision regarding lot coverage and floor area at the March 9 meeting. Staff proposes that the Commission begin discussion on structure design and make a decision if no additional information is needed. EXHIBITS NOTE: ONLY EXHIBITS THAT ARE BOLDED AND UNDERLINED ARE INCLUDED IN THIS REPORT. A. Ordinances A-1 Ordinance 2523, dated August 7, 2008 A-2 Ordinance 2524, dated August 6, 2008 (includes Attachment B) *Please note that only the ordinance is attached to the staff report. Copies of Attachment B have been provided to the Planning Commission under separate cover in the September 22, 2008 packet. The document can be found on the City's web site under Case File LU 08-0053 at: http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/plan/casefhtm). 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) 4111 Planning Commission Public Hearing 03/09/09 Paee 10 CDC lnfill Amendments LU 08-0053 276 F. Written Materials • F-1 Summary of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments for Infill (Ordinance 2523) F-2 Summary of Proposed Community Development Code Amendments for Infill (Ordinance 2524) F-3 Infill Task Force Refinements to the Proposed Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code (October 2008) F-4 Proposal for Design Review for Single-Family and Two-Family Dwellings — January 25, 2007 F-5 Design Review Programs in California F-6 Palo Alto Single Family Design Guidelines & Checklist F-7 Floor Area and Lot Size Charts F-8 Floor Area and Lot Coverage Examples • 11111 Planning Commission Public Hearing 03/09/09 Page 11 CDC Intill Amendments LU Dtt-0053 277 0 Schedule for Review of Infill Proposals Date Topic Deliberation Decision 2-23 Section 1 — Design Review Policy X Section 2 - Lot Coverage and Maximum Floor Area X 3-9 Section 2 - Lot Coverage and Maximum Floor Area X Section 3 — Structure Design/Setback Planes X 3-23 Section 3 — Structure Design/Setback Planes X Section 4 — Yard Setbacks X Section 5 — Sloped Lots X Section 6 - RID Review X Section 7 — Planned Developments/Open Space X 4-13 Sections 4 to 7 X Section 8 - Variances X Section 9 - Miscellaneous Code Provisions X 5-10 Sections 8 and 9 X Section 10 — Duplexes and Attached Dwellings X Section 11 — Flag Lots X 5-24 Section 10 and 11 X Section 1 — Design Review Policy X X Unfinished Work X X Planning Commission Public Hearing 03/09/09 Page 12 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 278 Planning and Building S � Services Department _—t- Supplemental Report #4 OREGO$ TO: Planning Commission Original Staff Report 10-20-08 FROM: Denny Egner, AICP Supplemental Report #1 01-21-09 Assistant Planning Director/Long Supplemental Report#2 02-03-09 Range Planning Manager Supplemental Report #3 03-04-09 Supplemental Report #4 04-01-09 DATE: April 1 , 2009 SUBJECT: Infill Code Amendments (LU 08-0053) Lot Coverage and Floor Area / Structure Design and Setback Planes / Yard Setbacks ACTIONS • • Make a preliminary decision regarding Section 2 (Lot Coverage and Maximum Floor Area) of Attachment B of Ordinance 2524. ■ Begin deliberation on Section 3 (Structure Design and Setback Planes) and Section 4 (Yard Setbacks) of Attachment B of Ordinance 2524. BACKGROUND A. Lot Coverage At the March 23 meeting, the Commission provided direction for adjusting the proposed lot coverage and floor area standards. At the meeting the Commission voted to slightly reduce the allowed lot coverage in R 7.5, R-10, and R-15 zones. Staff noted that the example provided in the March 4 staff report provided a concept for how lot coverage could be reduced but did not represent a revised lot coverage table. This staff report provides a draft replacement table that sets forth proposed lot coverage for each zone. In addition, the staff report provides revised tables for the R-6 zone and the R-5 zone. Each of tables is intended to slightly reduce the proposed lot coverage adjustment that was recommended by the Infill Task Force. The tables are presented on the following pages: • EXHIBIT D-5 LU 08-0053 Planning Commission Work Session 04'i3/09 Page I CDC Inlill Amendments LU 08-0053 279 1. R.7.5, R-10, and R-15 Lot Coverage 0 Proposed replacement table (highlighted entries were used in the 3/4/09 staff report): Table 50.08.040 Maximum Lot Coverage - R.7.5, R-10, and R-15 Height (ft.) Maximum Lot Coverage (%I of primary R-7.5 R-10 R-15 structure l 22 or less 35 % 35 % 35 % 23 33 % 34 % 34 % 24 30 % 32 % 1 33% 25 28 % 30 % 32 % 26 25 % 28 % 30% 27 25 % 27% 29 % 28 25 % 25% 28 % 29 25 °0 25% 27 % 30 25 % 25% 25 31 25 % 25 % 25 32 25 % 25 % 25% it 33 25 % 25 % 25 % 34 25 % 25 % 25 % 35 or more 25 % 25 %, 25 Table recommended by Infill Task Force: • Maximum Lot Coverage- R.7.5, R-10, and R-15 Height (ft.) Maximum Lot Covera_ e (%) of primary R-7.5 R-10 R-15 structure 22 or less 35 % 35 % 35 % 23 33 % , 34 % 34 24 31 % - 32 % 1 34 % 25 29 % 31 % 33 % 26 28 % 30 % 32% 27 26 % 29 % 31 28 25 % 28 % 31 % 29 25 % 26% 30 % 30 25 % 25% 29 % 31 25 % 25 % 28 % 32 25 % 25 % I 28 % -- 33 25 % 25 % 27 % i 34 25 % 25 % 26 % 35 or more 25 % 1 25 % 25 % Current standard from Section 50.08.040 - R-7.5, R-10, and R-15 zones: Height Lot Coverage Less than or equal to 22' 35% Greater than 22' 25% 11 Planning Commission Work Session 04/13/09 Page 2 CDC Infill Amendments LU 0S-0053 280 2. R-6 Lot Coverage The Commission only briefly discussed the R-6 Lot Coverage requirements. Staff has created a revised proposal based on general direction to slightly reduce the lot coverage adjustment. In reexamining the Infill Task Force's proposed R-6 zone lot coverage table, it was discovered that in some cases lot coverage was increasing and in some cases lot coverage was decreasing. Staff has revised the proposal for the R-6 zone as presented below. A key difference from the original infill proposal is that the lowest height categories were eliminated. These were dropped given that most homes exceed 20 feet in height. This change resulted in a more compressed range of allowed lot coverages and, when compared to the Infill Task Force version, it actually results in some higher proposed coverages in a few cases, especially those with the lowest heights. The highlights below indicate where proposed lot coverages increase or decrease when compared with the current code. The increase or decrease is dependent on lot size categories in addition to height in the R-6 zone. The lot size categories in the proposed table are different from those used in the current code so in some instances the increase or decrease may split across the lot size category. Proposed replacement table: • Table 50.07.035 Maximum Lot Coverage — R-6 Zone Lot Coverage in the R-6 Zone Lot size Base Height of Structure at Highest Grade in sq. ft. 20' or 21' I 22' 23' 24' 25' 26' 27' 28' or less more 7,000 or 45% 43% 42% 40% 38% 36% 35% 35% 35% less >7,000 - 43% 42% 40% 38% 37% 36% 35% 34% 33% 8,500 >8,500 — 40% 39% 38% 35% 34% 33% 32% 31% 30% 10,000 >10,000 - 38% 37% 35% 33% 31% 30% 29% 28% 27% 11,500 >11,500 35% 34% 33% 30% 28% 27% 25% 25% 25% XX% - Decrease in lot coverage from current standard. XX% - Increase in lot coverage from current standard. XX% - The same allowed lot coverage. • Planning Commission Work Session 04/13/09 Page 3 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 281 Table recommended by Infill Task Force: • Table 50.07.035 Lot Coverage in the R-6 Zone Lot size Base Height of Structure at Highest Grade in sq. ft. 18' or 19' 20' 21' 22' 23' 24' 25' 26' 27' 28' or less more 7,000 or 46% 45% 44% 43% 42% 41% 40% i 39% 38% 37% 36% less >7,000 - 43% 42% 41% 40% 39% 38% 37% 36% 35% 34% 33% 8,500 >8,500 - 40% 39% 38% ` 37% 36% 35% 34% 33% 32% 31% 30% 10,000 >10,000 - 37% 36% 35% 34% 33% 32% 31% 30% 29% 28% 27% 11,500 >11,500 34% 33% 32% 31% 30% 29% 28% 27% 26% 25% 24% XX% - Decrease in lot coverage from current standard. XX% - Increase in lot coverage from current standard. XX% - The same allowed lot coverage. I Current standard from Section 50.07.035 - R-6 Zones: TABLE 50.07.035 Maximum Lot Coverage* -' Lot Size Primary Dwelling Primary Dwelling Maximum (Square Feet) < 22 feet in height 22 feet in height Floor Ratio Area* < 6,000 45% 35% 5 >- 6,000 < 7.000 44% 34% .48 7.000< 8,000 43310 33% .46 >_ 8,000<9,000 42% 32% .44 >_9.000< 10,000 41% 31% .42 >_ 10.000 < 11,000 40% 30% .40 > 11,000< 12,000 39% 29% .38 ▪ 12,000< 13,000 38% 28% .36 >_ 13,000< 14.000 37% 27% .34 >_ 14,000< 15,000 36% 26% .32 >_ 15,000 35% 25% _3 • Planning Commission Work Session 04/13/09 Page 4 CDC lnfill Amendments LU 08-0053 g 282 3. R-5 Lot Coverage • The Commission did not discuss the R-5 zone lot coverage recommendations in detail. Staff has applied the same concept for reduction of the proposed lot coverage adjustment. Proposed replacement table: (differences highlighted) Table 50.06.040 Maximum Lot Coverage Zone Dwelling Type Maximum Lot Coverage Height (ft.) Maximum Lot Coverage (%) 22 or less 45 % Single Family >22 to 25 42 R-5 detached >25 to 2.8 38% >28to30 35 % >30 35% SF attached 50% Other Structures 50% Table recommended by Infill Task Force: Table 50.06.040 Maximum Lot Coverage Zone Dwelling Type Maximum Lot Coverage Height (ft.) Maximum Lot Coverage (%) Single Family22 or less 45 g >22 to 25 43 % R-5 detached >25 to 28 40% >28 to 30 38 % >30 35% SF attached 50% Other Structures 50% Current standard from Section 50.07.035 — R-6 Zones: Table 50.06.040 Maximum Lot Coverage Zone Dwelling Type Maximum Lot Coverage Height (ft.) Maximum Lot Coverage (%) Single Family 22 or less 45 % R-5 detached >22 35 00 SF attached 50% Other Structures 50% • Planning Commission Work Session 04/13/09 Page 5 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 283 B. Floor Area • At the March 23 meeting, the Commission asked that staff return with a proposal that reduced the floor area requirements by five to ten percent. New formulas were developed for each zone to reduce the allowed floor areas by approximately five percent. Changes from the Infill Task Force recommendations are highlighted and underlined; deletions are stricken. These proposed formulas are presented below. 1. R-7.5, R-10, and R-15 - Floor Area Proposed replacement formula Table 50.08.042 Maximum Floor Area per Lot Bonus floor area Base floor area calculation (based on zone) (dependent on lot size) Additional floor Zone area allowance per residential unit providing a gar ge 3000 square feet + [(actual lot size — 5800 600 sq. ft. R-7.5 5000 square feet) x 0.19 2-0] + 750 sq. ft. R-10 850 sq. ft. R-15 2. R-6 - Floor Area • Proposed replacement formula: Maximum Floor Area Per Lot = 2750 2-900 square feet + [(actual lot size — 6000 square feet) x 0.19 0.2] + a 500 square foot floor area allowance per residential unit providing a garage. 3. R-5 - Floor Area Proposed replacement formula: Lots 5,000 sq. feet and above: Maximum Floor Area Per Lot = 2850 3000 square feet + [(actual lot size — 6000 square feet) x 0.28 0.3] + a 500 square foot floor area allowance per residential unit providing a garage. Lots less than 5,000 sq. feet: Maximum Floor Area Per Lot = 2850 3000 square feet + [(actual lot size — 6000 square feet) x 0.48 0-5] + a 500 square foot floor area allowance per residential unit providing a garage. • Planning Commission Work Session 04/13/09 n;.oe 6 CDC lnlill Amendments LU 08-0053 284 • C. Background Material — Structure Design and Setback Planes. Background information on Structure Design and Setback Planes was included in the March 23 staff report. This is the same information that was presented to the Infill Task Force and used to support their recommendations. See Attachment B - Section 3 of proposed Ordinance 2524 for the proposed code language (issued September 22, 2008) http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/plan/Land Use App/2008/LU 08- 0053 CDC Comp Plan Infill/LU08-0053 CDC Comp-Plan Infill.htm. D. Background Material — Yard Setbacks Yard Setbacks The following material was part of the background material used by the Infill Task Force to make their recommendations regarding yard setbacks. Yard Setback: • Provide an increased setback for side yards adjacent to the street in the R-7.5 zone. • Provide increased side yard setbacks for lots in the R-6 zone. • Issues: Corner lots have Increase street 25' required front frontage on two side yard setback yard setback streets. Because I from 10' to 15' only a shallow setback is required along the side yard adjacent to a street, TY • there can be a visual -4- I conflict with the deeper front yard setbacks of other properties along the . ► street. R-7.5 Zone — Side Yard Adjoining a Street • Planning Commission Work Session 04/13/09 Page 7 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 285 Issues Continued: In the R-6 zone, many newer homes are being built with basements. Often basement • rooms require window wells to assure safe egress in the event of an emergency. To provide adequate yard area around the window, greater setbacks are needed. Proposals: 1. To assure houses have a positive relationship to local streets, side yard setbacks adjacent to streets should be increased where the difference between the front yard requirement and the street side yard requirement is greater than 10 feet. This would increase the R-7.5 side yard that abuts a street to 15 feet. The R-10 and R-15 zones currently require 15 feet. 2. Side yard setbacks should be at least 7.5 feet when basements are provided and window wells are to be placed in the side yards. This proposal was later modified by the Infill Task Force to apply the 7.5 foot side yard to all development on R-6 lots with or without basements, but to exempt structures built before the effective date of the provision. The Task Force also proposed the following additional changes: • 7.5 foot setbacks on side yards abutting local streets (currently 10 feet). • 15 foot setback to the garage opening off of an alley (currently 10 feet). • Adjusted accessory structure standards so that smaller, lower accessory structures are allowed within 5 feet of side and rear property lines but that • larger structures must meet standard setbacks. • Staff clarified the proposal to assure that setbacks to arterials (A and B Avenues remain a minimum of 20 feet). See Attachment B - Section 4 of proposed Ordinance 2524 for the final proposed code language (issued September 22, 2008) http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/plan/Land Use App/2008/LU 08- 0053 CDC Comp Plan Infill/LU08-0053 CDC Comp-Plan Infill.htm. E. Commission Questions At the March 23 meeting, Commission members had questions about four existing homes in the community. The information below is intended to address those questions. 1. 3328 Lakeview Boulevard Question: Why are the garages close to the street? — ' :=�`..-; Answer: In December of 2007, this property went is �4 through the Residential Infill Design Review process and exceptions to front yard setbacks were granted. Exceptions were also granted for lot coverage and floor area requirements. y FS _ • Planning Commission Work Session 04/13/09 l'ace 8 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 286 Lot coverage is 37% (25% required) and the floor area ratio to lot size is 0.41:1 (0.37:1 • required). 3328 Lakeview Boulevard may a good example to look at when the Commission discusses the RID process. • - 2. 3712 S. Shore , Question: Why is the garage close to the street'? • .: ' --- ,{ . Does this house meet lot coverage and floor area f ,: �'- requirements? i In '" .r '. Answer: The garage setback is 7.5 feet from the ' rr. i-r 1 3 , ')' right-of-way. The project received a variance for ,,;.„�� _ k ° --- the setback and for lot coverage in 1999. Lot coverage is 40%. The project was built before +'°"" the 2003 infill standards went into effect for floor — T - ; ' area. 3. 3178 Douglas Circle a RR b Question: Would this house comply with ' sett wall plane and side and setback plane ' t .; proposed Y _ requirements? Regarding the wall plane standard, the SAnswer:house would not satisfy the proposed standard. The house is 107 feet in length. The proposed ' A I` standard limits wall planes to 600 sq. ft, in size — _?l•i_°.. . ' two wall planes are greater than 600 sq. ft. The house provides a two foot off-set between wall - - planes. The proposed standard requires a four -, ,;; _ . # foot off-set. This house would meet the side yard setback plane requirement. The standard requires that the building fit under a 12:12 sloping plane that begins 12 feet high along the property line. The house has a 12 foot yard setback and the walls rise 18 feet before the roof slopes to the center of the lot at a 12:12 pitch. 12:12 Setback Plane 3178 ss Douglas Circle 18ft 12ft O 12 ft Yard Setback Planning Commission Work Session 04/13/09 Page 9 CDC Mill Amendments 1.0 08-0053 287 4. 1075 Chandler Road Question: Would this house comply with • r�` �.,..-=- yte � E •_ proposed wall plane and side yard setback plane requirements? . }. Answer: Regarding the wall plane standard, r the house would not satisfy the proposed i-► f f ', ' r standard. The house is over 120 feet in 1 ��t#'' E j length. The proposed standard limits wall , °� A planes to 600 sq. ft. in size — at least one wall ,. i ' plane is greater than 600 sq. ft. The house provides a two foot off-set between wall ; •/ �"" fi planes. The proposed standard requires a r • - four foot off-set. The house has a setback of approximately 13 feet along the eastern foundation. The wall rises approximately 24 feet at its tallest point before the roof slopes toward the center at a 5:12 pitch. This appears to fall just under the proposed side yard setback plane. DISCUSSION The key issues for discussion are broken down by topic: 111/ Lot Coverage and FAR: • Are the replacement tables and formulas appropriate? Structure Design and Setback Planes: • Does the Commission support the proposed side yard setback planes (both interior and street side)? • Does the Commission support the changes to wall plane standards and the proposed screening options? Yard Setbacks: • Are the setbacks appropriate? CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the Commission make preliminary decisions on as many of the elements as possible. Once you have a feel for your general direction on each item, staff will repackage the entire set of amendments for a final hearing and Commission action. • Planning Commission Work Session 04/13/09 I'at e I CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 288 EXHIBITS NOTE: ONLY EXHIBITS THAT ARE BOLDED AND UNDERLINED ARE INCLUDED IN THIS REPORT. A. Ordinances A-1 Ordinance 2523, dated August 7, 2008 A-2 Ordinance 2524, dated August 6, 2008 (includes Attachment B) *Please note that only the ordinance is attached to the staff report. Copies of Attachment B have been provided to the Planning Commission under separate cover in the September 22, 2008 packet. The document can be found on the City's web site under Case File LU 08-0053 at: http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/plan/casefhtm). 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-1 Summary of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments for Infill (Ordinance 2523) F-2 Summary of Proposed Community Development Code Amendments for Infill (Ordinance 2524) F-3 Infill Task Force Refinements to the Proposed Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code (October 2008) F-4 Proposal for Design Review for Single-Family and Two-Family Dwellings — January 25, 2007 F-5 Design Review Programs in California F-6 Palo Alto Single Family Design Guidelines & Checklist F-7 Floor Area and Lot Size Charts F-8 Floor Area and Lot Coverage Examples Planning Commission Work Session 04/13/09 f'3ge 1 I CDC]nfill Amendments LU 08-0053 289 • • a 290 ``el OILAKE OSCO Planning and Building Services Department \\\\ Supplemental Report #5 �OREGOS TO: Planning Commission Original Staff Report 10-20-08 FROM: Denny Egner, AICP Supplemental Report #1 01-21-09 Assistant Planning Director/Long Supplemental Report #2 02-03-09 Range Planning Manager Supplemental Report #3 03-04-09 Supplemental Report #4 04-01-09 DATE: May 11, 2009 Supplemental Report #5 05-11-09 SUBJECT: Infill Code Amendments (LU 08-0053) Lot Coverage and Floor Area / Structure Design and Setback Planes / Yard Setbacks BACKGROUND • A. R-6 Lot Coverage Table At the April 13, 2009 meeting, the Planning Commission proposed the following lot coverages in the R-6 zone: Table 50.07.035 Maximum Lot Coverage — R-6 Zone Lot Coverage in the R-6 Zone Lot size Base Height of Structure at Highest Grade in sq. ft. 20' or 21' 22' 23' 24' 25' 26' 27' 28' or less more 7,000 or 45% 43% 42% 40% 38% 36% 35% 35% 35% less >7,000 - 4: 36% 4G ,6`,-% e.;% 37% 36% 35% 34% 33% 8,500 -->8,500 — - =5% •c'35 !o ' 35'%e 34% 33% 32% 31% 30% 10,000 >10,000 - /35% •7,;35% 35`>c 33% 31% 30% 29% 28% 27% 11,500 >11,500 35;'b 34% 33% 30% 28% 27% 25% 25% 25% EXHIBIT D-5.1 LU 08-0053 Planning Commission Public Hearing 05/1 1/09 1'asc CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 291 • • • 292 %AKE os.H,ECO Planning 9 and Building Services Department Supplemental Report #6 OREGO$ TO: Planning Commission Original Staff Report 10-20-08 FROM: Denny Egner, AICP Supplemental Report #1 01-21-09 Assistant Planning Director/Long Supplemental Report #2 02-03-09 Range Planning Manager Supplemental Report #3 03-04-09 Supplemental Report #4 04-01-09 DATE: May 29, 2009 Supplemental Report #5 05-11-09 Supplemental Report #6 05-29-09 SUBJECT: Infill Code Amendments (LU 08-0053) Residential Infill Design Review ACTIONS • • Reach a preliminary decision regarding the Commission's recommendations for modifications to the Residential Infill Design (RID) Review process. BACKGROUND A. Origins The RID review process was established in 2003 with adoption of the initial set of code amendments regulating infill development. The process came about in response to Infill Task Force member's concerns that fully compatible and appropriate houses could be designed to fit into neighborhoods in ways that violated the newly proposed infill standards. The RID process was intended to serve as a "safety valve" and an alternative way of meeting the code objectives for compatible infill. B. Current Practice The current RID process allows for an administrative (staff level) review and approval of house designs and house alterations that do not fully comply with development code standards. The approval includes a notice to adjacent property owners and an opportunity for a hearing before the Development Review Commission. In making a decision on a RID application, staff has the option of inviting in design advisors (architects/designers) that are under contract with the City to provide design advice for . the RID process. See the RID Handout (attached as Exhibit F-9) for a more complete explanation of the process. EXHIBIT D-6 LU 08-0053 Planning Commission Work Session 06/08/09 Page I CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 293 The current RID process allows adjustments to building height, lot coverage, floor area ratios, yard setbacks, Oswego Lake setbacks, front setback planes, side yard wall • planes, garage appearance and location, and accessory structure requirements of the underlying zone. The adjustments are permitted if the applicant demonstrates that the resulting structure provides a compatible, positive relationship between the structure and the surrounding neighbors and street. Exhibit F-10 (attached) includes a summary of the RID approvals that have occurred between 2003 and 2007. Staff is in the process of compiling RID information since 2007 and should have that information available at or before the June 8 meeting. C. Infill Task Force Recommendations The currently proposed recommendations from the Infill Task Force change the review criteria and greatly reduce the scope of the RID review process. The proposed changes would eliminate the use of RID for adjusting the lot coverage-height relationship, floor area, and the current roof forms exceptions. The proposal limits adjustments to the following: • side yard setbacks, • front setback planes, • side yard planes, • garage appearance and location, and • accessory structure requirements. The Task Force recommended that any adjustments to floor area and lot coverage should occur through the variance process. The Task Force has proposed the following • limitations for use of the Class 1 variance process for floor area adjustments: Class 1 variances may be allowed for u p to a maximum 15% increase in floor area, subject to the following lot size limitations: Zone ' Minimum Lot Size Required if House Floor Area is to be Adjusted Under Class 9 Variance R-5 10.000 sq. ft. R-6 12.000 sq. ft. _ R-7.5 15,000 s . ft. R-10 15,000 sq. ft. R-15 22,500 sq. ft. The Infill Task Force's proposed amendments to the RID process are included in Section 6 of Attachment B of Ordinance 2524 in the Commission's original staff report dated October 20, 2008. A copy is included at the end of this memo. D. Brockman Proposal At the May 27 meeting, Commissioner Brockman made a motion to approve the following code changes: • • RID be deleted from the code as the provisions apply to new development, and Planning Commission Work Session 06/08/09 feat 2 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 294 • RID be modified to apply (only) to true remodels where at least 60% of the • structure remains. The Commission tabled the motion and agreed to focus the June 8 meeting on RID. DISCUSSION The key issues for discussion include: • Have the RID approvals been done in a manner that results in development that is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhoods? • Should there be a "safety valve" process (such as RID) to allow applicants to adjust code requirements? • Does the Infill Task Force proposal limit RID appropriately? • Are there other changes to the RID process that the Commission would like staff to address? CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the Commission attempt to make a preliminary decision regarding RID review at the June 8 meeting. If there is agreement on an approach for RID, the Commission can use the June 22 meeting to receive public comment on its preliminary recommendation (Note that the infill public hearing was continued to June 22). Following the reopening of the hearing, the Commission can deliberate and finalize its recommendation to the City Council. EXHIBITS NOTE: ONLY EXHIBITS THAT ARE BOLDED AND UNDERLINED ARE INCLUDED IN THIS REPORT. A. Ordinances A-1 Ordinance 2523, dated August 7, 2008 A-2 Ordinance 2524, dated August 6, 2008 (includes Attachment B) *Please note that only the ordinance is attached to the staff report. Copies of Attachment B have been provided to the Planning Commission under separate cover in the September 22, 2008 packet. The document can he found on the City's web site under Case File LU 08-0053 at: http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/plan/casef htm). 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) Planning Commission Work Session 06/08/09 3 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 295 F. Written Materials F-1 Summary of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments for Infill 410 (Ordinance 2523) F-2 Summary of Proposed Community Development Code Amendments for Infill (Ordinance 2524) F-3 Infill Task Force Refinements to the Proposed Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code (October 2008) F-4 Proposal for Design Review for Single-Family and Two-Family Dwellings — January 25, 2007 F-5 Design Review Programs in California F-6 Palo Alto Single Family Design Guidelines & Checklist F-7 Floor Area and Lot Size Charts F-8 Floor Area and Lot Coverage Examples F-9 RID Handout F-10 Residential Infill Design Review— Projects Approved as of May 16, 2007 S Planning Commission Work Session 06/08/09 Page 4 CDC mull Amendments LU 08-0053 296 • Infill Task Force Recommendations Section 6 of Attachment B of Ordinance 2524, dated August 6, 2008 Section 6 - RID Review RID Review Section 50.81.010 Notice of Minor Development Application. 3. For development processed through the Residential Infill Design Review process (LOC Article 50.72), the City Manager shall provide written notice of a preliminary decision to owners of property within 100 200 feet of the entire contiguous site for which the application is made. -14-there are less than 8 properties within 100 feet of the site. the notice area-shalt--be e pand rd from the 100 foot-bew4acy.-untt+-at least 8 properties-a e included in the notice area. The list shall be compiled from the most recent property tax assessment roll. In addition to the notice requirements of subsection (2) above, the notice of the preliminary decision shall include the • requirements of LOC 50.81.020 (1) through (4), and shall state that if no written comments are received within the 14 day comment period, the decision will become final. The notice shall also describe the appeal process following finalization of the decision. Notice shall also be sent to parties identified in subsections (1) (a) and (b) above. Article 50.72 Residential Infill Design Review Standards. Seet on 50.72.020 Authorization and Criteria. fifl-des' shall-apply-the-building--height, lot coverage, floor area ratio, yard setback-Oswego Lake setback, front setback plane, side yard setback elevation-requirements, garage app a ra nce a nd-lo ts-of-the-u-nderly„�ng-zo Te, including such requirements created or modified by a planned development-overlay: 2. The City Manager may grant exceptions to the applisablc requirements listed in subsection (1) above. if the applicant demonstrates that the proposed residential dwelling or accessory structure design results in development t tter than development that would m ective standards-ils (1) above, for the-applicable zone—leg this-determ tientleott„ My- anage -s;-all consider the following- a. Residential Dwelling or Accessory Structure Size. i. Intent. Compatible infill is ensured-thfougla--a-reix of standards-addressing lot re intended to • reflect-the-size-of-buildings) that car, be reasonably-located and shaped to-suit-the scale and-character of a neighborhood. The Code establisne e floor--area-and-i-ts-location on a let through the-following-standards.- Planning Commission Work Session 06/08/09 Page 5 CDC lnfdl Amendments LU 08-0053 297 ▪ Floor area ratio • Lot coverage • • Yard Setbacks • Building-height • Accessory structures ii .criteria: The City Manager may permit-a-residential-dwelling or accessory structure design to exceed or vary from the standards listed in subsection (2)(a)(i) above when a more compatible, positive relationship between the size of a proposed residential-dwelling or accessory structure and the scale and character of a neighborhood can be demonstrated in other ways. The City Manager will evaluate that relation-ship-by considers that diminish the perceived &cale and improve the perceived character-of-g-reater-size—T-hat review will include consideration of: 1 . Distance and visibility from street and adjoining properties; 2. Topography; or example); 4. Building form(s), massing and orientation; and 5. L-andscaping. b. Relationship to the Street. i—1 ►tent—�e+��patible infill is development that makes a positive contribution-to the-s al�le and char cte; of a neighborhood's strectscape-While this s to-neighborhood and from street to street, a positive ooetribetion-is-typisaliy one-that enhances-the €efi experie n f-a-pedestrian using the street—The-Code-establishes the relationship of a building's location-and-form • relative to the street through the following standards: F ro nt-yard-setback • Front setback plane • Garage door-openings ii. Criteria. The City-Managerory structure design to exceed or vary-from--the-standards-listed in-subsectio„ (2)(b)(,) above when a-more-oompatible;-positive relationship between a proposed design and the e-demonstrated oth of-ways. The city IVlanager will evaluate-that relationship by considering the degree to w#ic-h a proposed design offers features that enhance the perceived scale and char acter-ef the st��reet-fron; a pedestrian's perspective. That-review-will-f 1. Distance and visibility from street; 7 Prevailing patterns of front yard setback. building alignment and spacing (rhythm); 3. T-opegraphy; 4, Preservation of existing trees and features of perceived value to the street; 5. Perceived building force-pfeportief ► he street; 6. Porch and/or entry location and treatment relative to the street; 7. Garage distance-and visibility rem the stet; 8. Perceived size and scale of garage doors from the street; 9. Perceived area and-scale-of-driveways-and-parking areas from the street; • 10. Fencing or--screens; and 11. Landscaping, Planning Commission Work Session 06/08/09 Mtge 6 CDC Intill Amendments LU 08-0053 298 1 0 {.Relationship to the-Neighbor-s- i. Intent. Compatible infi ish the scale, character or pr-ivacy-of 1 neighboring—residences—While—the-scale, character and privacy of one building relative to another will vary fr-em street to street and from 1. t typically-one that adjusts the location and perceived scale, character-and-views from-or vid visual conflict with neighbors. T-he Code establishes-the-relationship-of-a-bui-Iding's-location and form relative to its neighbors through the following standards: Side-yard setback • Side wall elevation ii. Criteria. The City Manager may permit-a-reside structure design to exceed or vary from the standards listed in subsectio�1 `, }(+}-above when a more compatible, positive relationship-between a residential dwelling or accessory structure and the scale, character and privacy of its neighbors can be demonstrated in other-ways--T# ign offers features that enhance ative-4e-ad of include-consideration of: perties: 2. Preservatian of-existing tom,-gees-and-few+�urs of nor„eiyed value +„ a ng proper ies: 3. Topography; 4. Perceived g buildin hight� for p•r m— e � _ e • adloining-oropeptiesi 5.Treater t f ele to adi'aininq-propeFties; 6. Perceived sight-lines to and from windows, decks and outdoor living spaces; ----7- -e41-Gi-14€1-e-F-&-Gre-e-n-ineland n 8 l andscaaing, 3-. When-applyinq-the criteria-for-sempatibil ouse relationship-to-the street, h in subsection-(2- shall c:nsider-the-pattern--and-ski ots within 200 feet of the so-comer any neighborhood design obfectives or guidelines for residential developmentcal neighborhood association- Section 50.72.020 Exceptions to Zone Requirements Based on Residential Dwelling or Accessory Structure Design. 1 . For proposed residential dwellings or accessory structures. the City Manager may grant exceptions to side yard setbacks, front setback planes, side yard planes, garage appearance and location, and accessory structure requirements of the underlying zone, if the applicant demonstrates that the criteria listed in subsection (2) below are satisfied: These edits significantly narrow the scope of the RID process. The proposed III changes would eliminate the use of RID for adjusting the lot coverage-height relationship, the FARs, and the exceptions to allow roof forms to exceed base height by six feet. These provisions were originally set up under the 2003 infill Planning Commission Work Session 06/08/09 P:r;e 7 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 299 amendments. In regard to lot coverage, the additional flexibility being offered through other code amendments should eliminate the need for the RID • adjustments. 2. To approve an exception, the City Manager shall determine that the following criteria are met: a. The development is compatible with abutting property in terms of: Scale, massing. building form, and height; ii. Side and rear elevations, including window and deck placement; and iii. Neighbor privacy. b. The development is compatible with the character of the neighborhood and the street in terms of: Massing, proportion, height, and the rhythm of building forms along the abutting street; ii. Building elevations, window and doorway placement; iii. Building materials and detailing; and iv. Site planning and orientation of the building; 3. In determining whether the criteria are met. the City Manager shall consider the following, to the extent applicable to the site and the proposed development: a. Distance and visibility from street; • b. Distance and visibility from adjoining properties c. Topography; d. Building number (more smaller versus one larger, for example): e. Building form(s), massing and orientation; and f. Landscaping. g. Prevailing patterns of building alignment and spacing (rhythm); h. Preservation of existing trees and other natural features of perceived value to the street, the adjoining neighbors, and neighborhood; Porch and/or entry location and treatment relative to the street; j. Garage distance and visibility from the street; k. Perceived size and scale of garage doors from the street; Perceived area and scale of driveways and parking areas from the street; m. Fencing or screens. ExceptionsRelating to the Rosidenii -Accessory Structure izn i. Intent, The Code establishes residential dwelling or aeGessory structure size iewirg-s-tarlda-F421 - • Floor-afea-rat+e • Lot coverage • Yard Setbacks • B-ui4dinc--height • • Acce-sory structures Oswego Lake setback Planning Commission Work Session 06/08/09 p,gc 8 CDC Intill Amendments LU 08-0053 300 • These standards are intended toin7 riuence the_size of bui senably located and shaped to suit the scale and character of a neighborhood. ii. Considerations. In considering whether a residential design is compatible and entri -ne+q-hborhoo le and gager shall consider the degree to which a _ ��uyv� . nun wrT.�ra prep e -►mprove-the perceived character of greater size. That review will-include consideration of: 1. Distan ' ln-ing properties; 2. Topography; r-example-}; tation; and 5. Landscaping. front yard setback, street b. Exceptions Relating to th he Street i Intent The Code establishes the relationship of a buildno!s-location and form relative to the street through the following standards: • Front yard and side yard setbacks ▪ Front setback plane • Garage appcarancc • While hale and character marr va neighb m street to street development that contrribuTtes-po i ce,-t8-the character of the ly-e ,an-ces-the safety and experience of a pedestrian using the street. ii. Consi #ers features-that-enhance-the perceived scale and character f the street from a pedes+rio eview-mill include considerations of: 1. Distance and visibility from street; 2. P r re rhythm); 3.3. Topography; 4. Preservation of existing trees and features of perceived value to the street; 5. Perceived building-form—proportion, mas` -a- -orientation rclativoe-to4he street; 6. Porch and/or entry location and treatment relative to the street; 7. Garage distance and visibility from the street; 8. Perceived size and scale-of-garage doors-from the street; 9. Perceived area and scale of driveways and parking areas from the street; 10. Fencing or screens -and 11 . Landscaping. • c. Exceptions mated to the Relati-onship-to-the-Neighbors. Planning Commission Work Session 06/08/09 Page y CDC Lihll Amendments LU 08-0053 301 i. Intent,--Th-e-C-ode-estabtiehes the relationship of a building's location and form •relative to its -t3 ing-standards: • Side yard-setback • Side wall elevation • Oswego Lake setback While the scale, c g-relay street to street, and from lot to lot, development that is compatible and contributes positively-to the charac L t ii. Co Tside ations.The City n anagor wiII evaluate-the�iegrc]lee ie-vh+sh-,a proposed-design-of#ers-features thatenhance-perceived scale, nha rater and privany relative to adjoining properties. That review will include considerations of: 1. Dictanoe-a -vis taifity-fr-s 2. lare eryation of existing frees and feat„res of r, ng properties; 3. Tepoq ap1w+ 4, Perceived b 4td•ing-h 5. Tr atment of elevations exposed to adjoining properties; 67. P-erceived-siq-ht-lines to and from wi • 8. Landseap+ng- 3. When determining whether the proposed development is compatible to the character of the neighborhood and the street, the City Manager shall consider the pattern and character of development of all lots within 200 feet of the subject site. The City Manager shall also consider any neighborhood design objectives or guidelines for residential development that have been adopted by the City as part of a neighborhood plan. This section previously stated the objectives and guidelines were to be adopted "by the local neighborhood association." Staff believes this section will be stronger if the City is implementing objectives and guidelines that are adopted as part of a neighborhood plan. • Planning Commission Work Session 06/08/09 Page I 0 CDC In-fill Amendments LU 08-0053 302 FAR Exceptions — Variance Process • Rather than use the RID process, require an FAR exception to be processed as a Class 1 variance. Section 50.68.015 Classification of Variances. A variance which would allow development not in conformance with the requirements of the development standards may be granted. 1 . Class 1 (minor) variances are small changes from the Code requirements and which will have little or no effect on adjacent property or users. Class 1 (minor) 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 20%, or less. b. Variance from yard setback requirements for a structure other than those described in subsection (1)(a) of this section of two feet or less in side or front yards or five feet or less in rear yards. c. Variances from minimum lot width or depth of 5 feet or less. d. Variances in lot coverage or floor area ratio (FAR) on lots which have the same boundaries as when platted and 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 15% of the maximum allowed lot coverage or FAR. e. Variances in floor area ratio (FAR) for single family residential development, up • to a maximum 15% increase in floor area, subject to the following lot size limitations: Zone Minimum Lot Size Required if House Floor Area is to be Adjusted Under Class 1 Variance R-5 10,000 sq. ft. R-6 12,000 sq. ft., R-7.5 15,000 sq. ft. R-10 15,000 sq. ft. R-15 22,500 sq. ft. ef. Variations from maximum fence or retaining wall height restrictions, pursuant to LOC Article 45.15. fg. Variation to the maximum grade of a private street or driveway. gh. 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. #i. Variances to distance of driveway from intersections (LOC 50.58.015). q Variances to street frontage (LOC 50.57.015). j. Variances to driveway width for Flag Lots (LOC 50.20.020). id. Variances for elevated walkway or pathway within setback or yard. • 2. Class 2 variances which are significant changes from the Code requirements and are likely to create impacts on adjacent property or users. Class 2 variances include: Mannino Commission Work Session 06/08/09 Page 1 I CDC Intill Amendments LU 08-0053 303 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 20%. • 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 2 feet in side and front yards and more than 5 feet in rear yards. 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. f. Variance to fence, wall, and retaining wall requirements, other than height. g. Variances to any other requirement of this Code except as classified as a Class 1 (minor) variance above, and applicable to a development. 3. The City Manager shall decide the classification of any variance application. 4. For Class 1 (minor) 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. RID and the Planned Development Overlay Process No change as part of the infill update. The update to the Community Development Code (LU-08-0054) includes text amendments to section 50.17.010 to clarify that the RID process can be used to modify development within an approved Planned Development Overlay but that such a modification is limited to the extent that the RID • review process allows exceptions to the code. These amendments are for clarification only and do not provide any additional authority under the RID process. • Planning Commission Work Session 06/08/09 Page 12 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 304 A:Ort IAKE Osxf • Planningand Building �11► Services Department - Supplemental Report #7 OREGO$ TO: Planning Commission Original Staff Report 10-20-08 FROM: Debra Andreades, AICP Supplemental Report #1 01-21-09 Senior Planner Supplemental Report #2 02-03-09 Supplemental Report #3 03-04-09 DATE: June 5, 2009 Supplemental Report #4 04-01-09 Supplemental Report #5 05-11-09 SUBJECT: Residential Infill Design Review Supplemental Report #6 05-29-09 Supplemental Report#7 06-05-09 In preparation for discussion of the RID review process at the June 8th meeting, the attached report is an expansion of the report that the Planning Commission previously received as Exhibit F-10. This report includes the addition of RID projects that were • approved between 2007 and May 1 , 2009. The following information was added to the report for all of the RID projects: • Whether or not RID Advisors were utilized • The land use case file number EXHIBIT: F-11 RID Projects Approved as of May 1 , 2009 • EXHIBIT D-7 LU 08-0053 Planning Commission Work Session 06/08/09 Paae 1 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 305 • • 306 UE LAKE OS • ivF)° Planning and Building Services Department Supplemental Report #8 �REGOK TO: Planning Commission Original Staff Report 10-20-08 FROM: Denny Egner, AICP Supplemental Report#1 01-21-09 Assistant Planning Director Supplemental Report #2 02-03-09 Supplemental Report#3 03-04-09 Debra Andreades, AICP Supplemental Report#4 04-01-09 Senior Planner Supplemental Report #5 05-11-09 Supplemental Report#6 05-29-09 DATE: June 11, 2009 Supplemental Report #7 06-05-09 Supplemental Report #8 06-11-09 SUBJECT: Infill Task Force Summary • I. Introduction Based on work on June 8, the Planning Commission stated the intent to use the June 22 meeting to further refine its work plan for developing infill recommendations and to continue its discussion on RID review. This supplemental report provides an outline of background information for both items. The Commission continued its public hearing on infill to the June 22 meeting. Staff proposes that the Commission open the hearing and continue the hearing to a date at which you wish to receive public testimony on your infill preliminary recommendations. II. Infill Work Plan At the June 8 meeting, the Commission discussed a draft work plan developed by a subcommittee of the Commission. The draft work plan included 10 steps leading up to adoption of recommendations to the City Council. Step 1 was to review the Summary of Proposed Community Development Code Amendments for Infill. Step 2 was to review the remainder of the Infill Task Force background material (See below and the attached Exhibit F-12). Step 3 charged the Commission with identifying the broad policy issues that will guide the Commission's review of the infill proposals. The work plan stated: a. What filters should be used to review infill issues? b. What are the objectives the Commission is trying to achieve? EXHIBIT D-8 LU 08-0053 Planning Commission Work Session 06/22/09 Page 1 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 307 The work plan anticipated that this process would include consideration of the following factors: • Privacy; • Sustainability; • Compatibility; and • Flexibility. At the June 22 meeting. the Commission should determine if in fact, these four factors are the key objectives or whether there are others that should be considered. In addition, the Commission should discuss how, specifically, it would like to use the factors when reviewing and/or modifying the infill proposals. Infill Background Material The attached Exhibit (F-12) includes the remaining background information that was used by the Infill Task Force in developing and reviewing draft code language. The material was part of a work book that had explanatory concept background material on the left hand page and actual code language on the right hand page. While this format helped to connect concepts to code, it created a very bulky and complicated working document. The original 10-20-08 staff report did not include a large amount of material that explained the concepts that the Task Force had worked with to develop code language. Rather, that report primarily addresses code amendment criteria. The code language (Exhibit B of draft ordinance 2524) was organized around the 11 topic areas that the Infill Task Force had addressed. As the Commission has moved forward in their review of the Task Force recommendations, staff has presented the concepts and ideas following this same organizational pattern. Staff has included the relevant Infill Task Force background material within the supplemental staff reports for each of the major topics that the Commission has addressed to date. In order to give the Commission a more complete understanding of all of the issues and concepts, this report includes the remaining sections. You are encouraged to refer back to the actual code language (Exhibit B of draft ordinance 2524) while reviewing the background material. The table on the next page outlines which supplemental staff report includes the background material for each of the topic areas. • Planning Commission Work Session 06/22/09 Page 2 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 308 • Section Topic Supplemental Staff Report that includes the Infill Task Force background material 1 Comprehensive Plan Supplemental Report # 1 (01-21-09) Amendments • Neighborhood Plans / Overlay Zones • Design Review 2 Lot Coverage and Maximum Supplemental Report # 2 (02-03-09) Floor Area 3 Structure Design/Setback Supplemental Report# 3 (03-04-09) Planes 4 I Yard Setbacks Supplemental Report # 4 (04-01-09) 5 Sloped Lots Current Report 6 RID Review Supplemental Report#6 (05-29-09) 7 PUDs/Open Space Addressed in 2008 8 Variances Current Report 9 Miscellaneous Code Provisions Current Report 10 Duplexes and Attached Current Report Dwellings 11 Flag Lots/Serial Partitions Current Report 1111 III. RID Discussion Summary The following information is a summary of the key points on which staff heard agreement during the discussion of proposed changes to the RID standards at the June 8, 2009 work session. This summary is intended to aid further discussion with regard to options for modifying the code. Discussion • The Commission discussed the neighborhood notice area for RID which is currently 100 feet from the boundaries of the subject property. The notice area is proposed to be expanded to 300 feet, to coincide with what is required for all minor development applications. • The Commission discussed the procedures for variances and RID decisions. The Commission stated that the RID process should mirror the variance process procedurally. Planning Commission Work Session 06/22/09 Page 3 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 309 • The current fee to appeal a RID decision to the DRC is the same as any minor development application: $514 for a staff decision and % the original application fee, • not to exceed $4,651 to appeal a RID decision made by the DRC, to City Council. The appeal fee is proposed to be reduced. • The Commission discussed making a distinction between RID requests for new homes and RID requests for remodels to existing structures. It is proposed that there be limitations on what exceptions would be allowed for new house construction; i.e. those elements that tend to result in larger houses such as FAR, lot coverage and height should not be allowed to be requested under RID. A RID exception to these standards could be allowed on properties where the existing house is non-conforming and the request is for an addition, up to a certain percentage. This should be covered tinder eligibility in the applicability section of LOC 50. 72. Staff notes: As an alternative, it maybe appropriate to allow a percentage increase in size (through RiD) for remodels to both non-conforming structures and to those where the proposed remodel would cause the structure to exceed the code standard. This would avoid creation of a special privilege for non-conforming structures. • The Commission discussed whether the criteria for exceptions should be different for new house construction vs. remodels. Because many remodels are requested for existing houses that are non-conforming, should the whole house be legalized or only the portion where the addition is proposed? Related to that issue, is the analysis of better design only for the facade that is affected or for the whole house? Staff notes: Because RID approval is driven by design, analysis of whether the criteria are met could require that the totality of the house with the addition, be reviewed but the non-conformity of the house would only be legalized at the location of the new addition. Supplemental Information The Commission requested that staff provide answers to the following questions: 1. There have been a total of 37 RID reviews processed to date (2003-May 1 , 2009), as indicated in Exhibit F-11 . How many variances were approved during that same time period? Answer. 74 (13 were variances to standards that had nothing to do with house construction). 2. During the time that we have been processing RID applications, there have been 416 building permits issued for new homes, (2004-May 1 , 2009. The first RID was approved in 2003 but the building permit would not have been issued until 2004). How many of these included RID review approval? Answer. 15 or 3.6% Note: There have been ten RiD approvals for new home development but one RiD approval authorized six new dwelling units on 6th St. Planning Commission Work Session 06/22/09 Page 4 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 310 3. Of the total 37 RID reviews processed. 27 were for additions to existing single i family homes. How many of these existing houses were non-conforming prior to the request? Answer. 25, or 92% -The two that were not non-conforming were at 1011 Lake Shore (LU 04-0067) and 2801 South Shore (LU 04-0081); two of the earliest RID reviews that were processed. EXHIBIT: F-12 Infill Task Force Issues Summary - Sections 5, 8, 9, 10, and 11 • i Planning Commission Work Session 06/22/09 Page 5 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 311 0 0 312 • ps OE LAKE i fi Ego Planning and Building ri11► Services Department Supplemental Report #9 OREGO$ TO: Planning Commission Original Staff Report 10-20-08 Supplemental Report #1 01-21-09 FROM: Denny Egner, AICP Supplemental Report #2 02-03-09 Assistant Planning Director Supplemental Report #3 03-04-09 Supplemental Report #4 04-01-09 DATE: July 2, 2009 Supplemental Report #5 05-11-09 Supplemental Report #6 05-29-09 SUBJECT: July 13, 2009 Meeting Supplemental Report#7 06-05-09 Supplemental Report #8 06-11-09 Supplemental Report #9 07-02-09 I. Introduction At the June 22 meeting, the Planning Commission addressed its plan for completing 1111 work on the infill proposals and discussed RID review. This memorandum summarizes the June 22 work and provides additional background information for the Commission's continued review of the infill proposals. The memorandum addresses: • RID; • Structure Design — Setback Planes; • Yard Setbacks; and • Variances. II. Infill Work Plan The Commission agreed upon four key factors that need to be considered when addressing infill. The factors include: • Privacy; • Sustainability; • Compatibility; and • Flexibility. It is expected that the Commission's infill recommendations will be consistent with these factors. EXHIBIT D-9 LU 08-0053 Planning Commission Work Session 07/13/09 Page 1 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 313 As part of developing approach to address infill, the Commission reviewed the full p 9 an pp set of proposals that have come forward from the Infill Task Force. The opportunity to 11111 examine all of the proposals has given the Commission a more complete understanding of how the various proposals fit together. The Commission agreed, in concept, to the following schedule: ■ July 13 and 27 — Infill work sessions; • September 14 and 28 — Infill work sessions; • October 12 and/or 26 — Reopen public hearing; and • November 9 and 23 — Complete deliberation and make a recommendation. At the June 22 meeting, the Commission agreed to continue to work through the set of proposals from the Infill Task Force. The proposed topics for the July 13 work session include RID, Structure Design — Setback Planes, Yard Setbacks, and Variances. Agendas for future work sessions were left open. To assist Commissioners in locating background information for the July 13 work session, we have updated the table that was included in the June 11 staff report. It outlines which supplemental staff report includes the background material for each of the infill topic areas. Infill Background Materials Section Topic Supplemental Staff Report that includes the Infill Task Force • background material 1 Comprehensive Plan Supplemental Report # 1 (01-21-09) Amendments • Neighborhood Plans / Overlay Zones • Design Review _ 2 ' Lot Coverage and Maximum Supplemental Report # 2 (02-03-09) Floor Area 3 Structure Design/Setback Supplemental Report # 3 (03-04-09) Planes 4 Yard Setbacks Supplemental Report # 4 (04-01-09) 5 Sloped Lots Supplemental Report #8 (06-11-09) 6 RID Review Supplemental Report #6 (05-29-09) Supplemental Report #8 (06-11-09) 7 PUDs/Open Space Addressed in 2008 8 Variances Supplemental Report #8 (06-11-09) 9 Miscellaneous Code Provisions Supplemental Report #8 (06-11-09) 10 Duplexes and Attached Supplemental Report #8 (06-11-09) Dwellings 11 Flag Lots/Serial Partitions Supplemental Report #8 (06-11-09) • Planning Commission Work Session 07/13/09 Page 2 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 314 III. Topics for the July 13 Work Session A. RID Review (Section 6) The Commission discussed the RID process at the June 8 and June 22 work sessions. Based on the Commission discussion to date, the Commission may want to consider the following set of proposals. 1. The RID process should mirror other minor development processes (such as the variance process), i.e. public notice area be expanded to 300 feet and public notice be sent prior to a preliminary decision. 2. Limit the applicability of the RID process for new houses and for extensive remodels (remodels where more than 50% of the original house is removed). In these cases, RID should not be used to adjust floor area, lot coverage, or height. Allow RID to be used to adjust setbacks, setback planes, and garage location standards. Limit adjustments to side yards to assure that no yard is less than five feet in width. (Note: Does the Commission agree about the extensive remodel provision? What is the correct percentage?) 3. Allow the full range of RID adjustments for remodeling projects where at least 50% of the original house is retained. (See note above. Is this an appropriate limit?) 1110 4. Limit the RID adjustment to no more than a 20% increase over the code standard for floor area, lot coverage, and height adjustments. 5. Continue to use the "whole house" test when applying RID criteria and use the same criteria for new houses and remodels. 6. The fee to appeal RID decisions should be reduced. The current fee to appeal a RID decision to the DRC is the same as any minor development application: $514 for a staff decision and '/2 the original application fee, not to exceed $4,651 to appeal a RID decision made by the DRC, to City Council. B. Structure Design/Setback Planes (Section 3) On May 27, the Commission began their discussion of Section 3 — Structure Design and Setback Planes, The discussion generally addressed side yard setback planes and wall plane standards but there were no decisions or direction provided. The following two questions were included in the April 13 staff report on Structure Design and Setback Planes: • Does the Commission support the proposed side yard setback planes (both interior and street side)? • Does the Commission support the changes to wall plane standards and the • proposed screening options? Planning Commission Work Session 07/13/09 Page 3 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 315 As part of the previous discussion of Side Yard requirements, the Commission asked for a list of yard exceptions that are currently allowed by the code. Attached to the staff report is a collection of code excerpts that authorize a variety of code exceptions. For the most part, the Infill Task Force did not address these exceptions. C. Yard Setbacks (Section 4) The infill proposals include two proposed changes to setbacks. The corner side yard in the R-7.5 zone is proposed to be expanded to 15 feet and the side yard in the R-6 zone is proposed to be expanded to 7.5 feet. As noted above, Commissioners asked for information about yard exceptions and that information is attached to this report. D. Variances (Section 8) For the June 22 meeting, Commission members reviewed all of the proposed infill code changes including proposed changes to the variance section of the code. Given that the proposed variance changes relate closely to other issues such as RID review and yard requirements, variances were included on the list of items to be addressed at the July 13 meeting. Key issues include: • Should the Class 1 variance process be expanded to include: - New construction that would continue non-conforming building walls (should • building notches be allowed to be filled in)? - Variances to preserve trees? - Variances for survey errors? • Should variances that reduce the setbacks to less than 5 feet be Class 2 variances? IV. Conclusion The staff report sets out a fairly aggressive work plan for the July 13 meeting. At the conclusion of the meeting. the Commission should identify the topics it hopes to address at the July 27 meeting. Please call or e-mail staff if you would like any additional background information prior to the meeting that would help in reaching a preliminary decision on any of the topics. EXHIBIT: F-13 Code Exceptions, Planned Developments, and Variances 11111 Planning Commission Work Session 07/13/09 Page 4 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 316 `,(i Q`LAKE 0slye eCO O -;r Planning and Building Services Department \\\\'' ..----—I'll 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 I I.-----‘-------:-- Supplemental Report #10 OREGON TO: Planning Commission Original Staff Report 10-20-08 Supplemental Report #1 01-21-09 FROM: Denny Egner, AICP Supplemental Report#2 02-03-09 Assistant Planning Director Supplemental Report#3 03-04-09 Supplemental Report#4 04-01-09 DATE: August 13, 2009 Supplemental Report#5 05-11-09 Supplemental Report#6 05-29-09 SUBJECT: August 24, 2009 Meeting Supplemental Report #7 06-05-09 Supplemental Report #8 06-11-09 Supplemental Report #9 07-02-09 Supplemental Report #10 08-24-09 1. Introduction At the July 13 and July 27 meetings, the Planning Commission addressed RID, • Structure Design — Setback Planes, and Yard Setbacks. The items that were on the July 27 agenda that were not discussed include yard exceptions and variances. These items along with Miscellaneous Provisions and Sloped Lots are addressed in this report. II. Schedule Staff and Planning Commission Chair Philip Stewart are currently in the process of assembling a matrix that summarizes Commission actions and decisions to date. This matrix is intended to help focus public comment and Commission deliberation as we move forward toward adoption of a set of code amendments. We intend to have a draft available for review prior to the August 24 meeting. As a reminder, the Commission has targeted October 12 as the date that it wanted to reopen the public hearing on infill and take comments on the Commission's proposed version of the infill provisions and code amendments. To complete review of the full set of infill proposals prior to October 12, staff proposes the following schedule: • August 24 - Yard Exceptions, Variances (Section 8). Miscellaneous Provisions (Section 9) and Sloped Lots (Section 5). • September 14 - Duplexes and Single Family Attached (Section 10), Flag Lots /Partitions (Section 11), PUDs/Open Space (Section 7), and Single Family Design Review (Policy). • ■ October 12 and/or 26 — Reopen the public hearing. • November 9 and 23 — Complete deliberation and make a recommendation. EXHIBIT D-10 LU 08-0053 Planning Commission Work Session 08/24/09 Page 1 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 317 This is an extremely ambitious schedule given the pace at which the Commission has reviewed this material to date. A few options to consider include: 1. Schedule extra meetings or schedule longer meetings on the two work session dates. 2. Choose to hold the October 12 hearing on a partial set of amendments. 3. Delay the hearing until the Commission is done with its review. III. Background Material This memorandum addresses each of the topics proposed for the August 24 meeting including: Yard Exceptions, Variances, Miscellaneous Provisions, and Sloped Lots. To assist Commissioners in locating background information for the August 24 work session, we have updated the table that was included in the June 11 and July 13 staff reports. It outlines which supplemental staff report includes the background material for each of the infill topic areas. Infill Background Materials Section Topic Supplemental Staff Report that includes the Infill Task Force background material 1 Comprehensive Plan Supplemental Report # 1 (01-21-09) • Amendments ■ Neighborhood Plans / Overlay Zones • Design Review 2 Lot Coverage and Maximum Supplemental Report # 2 (02-03-09) Floor Area 3 Structure Design/Setback Supplemental Report # 3 (03-04-09) Planes 4 Yard Setbacks Supplemental Report # 4 (04-01-09) 5 Sloped Lots Supplemental Report #8 (06-11-09) 6 RID Review Supplemental Report #6 (05-29-09) Supplemental Report #8 (06-11-09) 7 PUDs/Open Space See Exhibit F-3 8 Variances Supplemental Report #8 (06-11-09) 9 Miscellaneous Code Provisions Supplemental Report #8 (06-11-09) 10 Duplexes and Attached Supplemental Report #8 (06-11-09) Dwellings 11 Flag Lots/Serial Partitions Supplemental Report #8 (06-11-09) In addition to the materials found in these supplemental reports, the Exhibits that have been provided as part of the Planning Commission hearing record offer further relevant information. Exhibit F-3 is entitled Infill Task Force Refinements to the Proposed Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code October 2008". This document provides the Task Force's final suggested changes to proposed Planning Commission Work Session 08/24/09 Page 2 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 318 code amendments. A copy is included with this memorandum. Exhibit F-3 modifies the full set of Code Amendments that are provided as Attachment B to Ordinance 2524 (See the Infill section of your CDC amendment notebook under the tab for LU 08-0053 — Ordinance 2524). Exhibit F-3 includes a proposed amendment related to Planned Development standards. IV. Key Factors At the June 22 meeting, the Commission agreed upon four key factors that need to be considered when addressing infill. The factors include: • Privacy; • Sustainability; • Compatibility; and • Flexibility. The Commission's review and deliberation should take these factors into consideration. V. Topics for the August 24 Work Session A. Yard Exceptions (Section 3 and Exhibit F-3) The Commission completed their review of the proposed yard amendments at the July 27 meeting. The Commission did not discuss the yard exceptions that are currently • allowed by the development code. Copies of the various code sections that allow exceptions were included in the July 27 Planning Commission staff report (Report #9). The exceptions address a variety of different situations including accessory structures, porches, the Oswego Lake setbacks, building projections, decks, walkways, and other building features. These exceptions were not addressed directly by the Infill Task Force. The Task Force did discuss a proposed new "exception" to the exceptions by recommending that if bay windows were used to meet the side yard offset options outlined in Section 3 (Structure Design and Setback Planes), they must meet full side yard setback dimensions and could not use the building projection exception provisions of the code. Exhibit F-3 provides the Task Forces recommended language; see the reference to Pages 18, 19, and 20 Structure Design — Treatment 2 — Side Yard Features — EXCEPTION. Key issue for discussion: • Should the Commission review yard exceptions as part of the infill amendments or should this be something that is addressed under a broader restructuring of the Community Development Code? B. Variances (Section 8) Issues: Some code requirements discourage the remodeling of existing structures by • making it too difficult to modify existing dwellings. In some situations, the Class 1 variance process can be used to reduce side yards to less than five feet. Planning Commission Work Session 08/24/09 Page 3 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 319 Proposals: 0 • Allows variances for continuation of nonconforming building walls as long as the house does not grow larger than allowed in the zone. • Allows for variances to preserve trees. • Allows for variances for minor remodeling projects. • Allows for Class 1 variances where survey errors have resulted in nonconforming homes. • Requires Class 2 rather than Class 1 variances for reductions in side yard setbacks that are reduced to less than five feet. Section 8 - Variances — Sections to be amended: 50.68.015 Classification of Variances Commission members reviewed the background information for all of the proposed infill code changes including proposed changes to the variance section of the code at the June 22 meeting. For the August 24 work session, please look back at Section 8 of the Infill Task Force Issues Summary (Exhibit F-12) of the June 11 Planning Commission Staff Report (Report #8). Also, please review the proposed code language found in Section 8 of Attachment B of Ordinance 2524 (Pages 47- 49 in the Infill section of your CDC amendment notebook [see the tab for LU 08-0053 — Ordinance 2524]). Key issues for discussion include: • Should the Class 1 variance process be expanded to include: - New construction that would continue non-conforming building walls (should • building notches be allowed to be filled in)? - Variances to preserve trees? - Variances for survey errors? • Should variances that reduce the setbacks to less than 5 feet be Class 2 variances? C. Miscellaneous Provisions (Section 9) Issue: Remodeling projects require additional flexibility. Proposal: • Allows for reconstruction of nonconforming houses after fire or other destruction. • Allows increases in roof pitch for nonconforming structures where the height limit of the zone is not exceeded and no additional living space is created as a result. • Provides new approval criteria and process for remodeling projects that exceed code standards by no more than 2.5%. Section 9 - Miscellaneous Code Provisions - Sections to be amended: 50.70.020 Nonconforming Structures 50.70.005 Nonconforming Structures 50.79.010 Ministerial Development Classification The Infill Task Force put a great amount of importance on these provisions. Task Force members believed that these provisions add a degree of code flexibility that will help to • encourage remodeling of existing structures rather than pushing owners into situations Planning Commission Work Session 08/24/09 Page 4 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 320 where they would tear down an existing building. Planning Commission members reviewed the background information for all of the proposed infill code changes including these proposed changes at the June 22 meeting. To prepare for the August 24 work session, please review Section 9 of the Infill Task Force Issues Summary (Exhibit F-12) of the June 11 Planning Commission Staff Report (Report#8). Also, please review the proposed code language found in Section 9 of Attachment B of Ordinance 2524 (Pages 50 - 51 in the Infill section of your CDC amendment notebook [see the tab for LU 08-0053 — Ordinance 25241). Staff will be providing the Commission with some revised language regarding non-conforming uses prior to the August 24 meeting. Key issues for discussion include: • Should a house that was non-conforming be allowed to be reconstructed in the same non-conforming manor after it is demolished, either intentionally or by accidental means? • Should the City allow minor increases in roof pitch for nonconforming structures where the height limit of the zone is not exceeded and no additional living space is created as a result? • Should the City allow minor adjustments for remodeling projects that exceed code standards by no more than 2.5%? D. Sloped Lots (Section 5) Issues: Provide greater flexibility on steeply sloped lots. Proposals: • Makes a distinction between sloped lots and steeply sloped lots (a steep slope is one with an average slope of 25%). • On lots with sloping topography, provides up to a four feet increase in height on the downslope portion of the lot to allow for more floor area at a single level. • On steeply sloped lots with at least 10 feet of � t Y elevation change across the building envelope, • allows an increase in height from 35 feet to as {5 eax much as 45 feet, provided certain conditions �' and design standards are met. • Adjusts how the front setback plane is "" 4tt, �a• measured for slopping lots. For downslope r lots, the base height is measured from the a�. street centerline. For upslope lots, the front • " ` 5 4 . setback plane follows a 6:12 slope or the actual slope within the building envelope, whichever is greater. • Allows an 18-foot minimum setback on steeply sloped lots. • Does not require support structures to be enclosed. • Establishes the front setback plane based on the average slope of the land on steeply sloped lots. Section 5 - Sloped Lots — Sections to be amended: 50.02 Definitions 50.06.050-060 R-0, R-2, R-3, R-5, and WR Planning Commission Work Session 08/24/09 Page 5 CDC infill Amendments LU 08-0053 321 50.07.030-040 R-6 50.08.030-045 R-7.5, R-10 and R-15 The issue of sloped lots is left over from the original 2003 infill amendments. Some property owners argued that special provisions were needed to address steeply sloped lots. The Planning Commission developed a proposal to provide a height bonus for certain lots so that more floor area would be allowed on a single floor without "stair- stepping" the structure down a hillside. The Commission proposal was referred back to the Infill Task Force by the Council when the charge statement was developed for the Task Force. The Task Force has reviewed the original sloped lot concept and concurred with the proposal for additional height flexibility on steeply sloped lots. In addition, the Task Force suggested changes for measuring height in the First Addition neighborhood and when measuring the height of setback planes. For the August 24 work session, please look at Section 5 of the Infill Task Force Issues Summary (Exhibit F-12) of the June 11 Planning Commission Staff Report (Report #8). Also, please review the proposed code language found in Section 5 of Attachment B of Ordinance 2524 (Pages 27-38 in the Infill section of your CDC amendment notebook [see the tab for LU 08-0053 — Ordinance 2524]) Finally, please look at Exhibit F-3 and examine the proposed amendments suggested for page 27 through page 39. Key issues for discussion include: • Should the code allow taller structures (up to 45 feet) on steeply sloped lots? • Should a height bonus (up to 4 feet) be provided in the First Addition (R-6 Zone) to compensate for the slope? . • Should setback plane measurement techniques be adjusted for sloped situations? • Should front yard setbacks be adjusted on steeply sloped lots? VI. Conclusion The staff report sets out an agenda for this meeting. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Commission should assess its progress and determine if additional meetings or extended meetings are needed. Please call or e-mail staff if you would like any additional background information prior to the meeting that would help in reaching a preliminary decision on any of the topics. EXHIBIT: F-3 Infill Task Force Refinements to the proposed Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code October 2008 Planning Commission Work Session 08/24/09 Page 6 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 322 psw `'�,' �f� Planning and Building � Services Department Supplemental Report #11 ORLGO$ TO: Planning Commission Original Staff Report 10-20-08 Supplemental Report #1 01-21-09 FROM: Denny Egner, AICP Supplemental Report #2 02-03-09 Assistant Planning Director Supplemental Report #3 03-04-09 Supplemental Report #4 04-01-09 DATE: September 3, 2009 Supplemental Report #5 05-11-09 Supplemental Report #6 05-29-09 SUBJECT: September 14, 2009 Meeting Supplemental Report #7 06-05-09 Supplemental Report #8 06-11-09 Supplemental Report#9 07-02-09 Supplemental Report #10 08-13-09 Sunnlemental Renort#11 09-03-09 I. Introduction At the August 24 meeting, the Commission discussed yard exceptions, variances, and miscellaneous provisions. This report describes the outstanding issues from the August 24 meeting and presents information related to Sloped Lots, Duplexes/Attached Dwellings, Flag Lots/Partitions, PUDs. and Single Family Design Review. II. Schedule The matrix of planning commission recommendations is being prepared. This will serve as an outline to focus testimony at the hearing. The Planning Commission will be reopening the public hearing on October 12. Staff is scheduling an informational open house/presentation on October 8. We have scheduled an extra Planning Commission work session for September 24 to complete work on the proposals prior to the hearing. We will be sending notice to those who have testified and to neighborhood leaders during the week of September 21. We are publishing a front page article in the October Hello LO to advertise the hearing and the open house. Hello LO will direct people to the City website for additional information. • EXHIBIT D-11 LU 08-0053 Planning Commission Work Session 09/14/09 Page 1 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 323 III. Background Material The table listing the location of background material is included below. This is reprinted • from the last staff report. Infill Background Materials Section Topic Supplemental Staff Report that includes the Infill Task Force background material 1 Comprehensive Plan Supplemental Report # 1 (01-21-09) Amendments • Neighborhood Plans / Overlay Zones • Design Review 2 Lot Coverage and Maximum Supplemental Report# 2 (02-03-09) Floor Area 3 Structure Design/Setback Supplemental Report # 3 (03-04-09) Planes 4 Yard Setbacks Supplemental Report # 4 (04-01-09) 5 Sloped Lots Supplemental Report #8 (06-11-09) 6 RID Review Supplemental Report #6 (05-29-09) Supplemental Report #8 (06-11-09) 7 PUDs/Open Space See Exhibit F-3 8 Variances Supplemental Report #8 (06-11-09) • 9 Miscellaneous Code Provisions Supplemental Report #8 (06-11-09) 10 Duplexes and Attached Supplemental Report #8 (06-11-09) Dwellings 11 Flag Lots/Serial Partitions Supplemental Report #8 (06-11-09) In addition to the materials found in these supplemental reports, the Exhibits that have been provided as part of the Planning Commission hearing record offer further relevant information. Exhibit F-3 is entitled 'infill Task Force Refinements to the Proposed Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code October 2008". This document provides the Task Force's final suggested changes to proposed code amendments. A copy was included with the August 13 memorandum (#10). Exhibit F-3 modifies the full set of Code Amendments that are provided as Attachment B to Ordinance 2524 (See the Infill section of your CDC amendment notebook under the tab for LU 08-0053 — Ordinance 2524). Exhibit F-3 includes a proposed amendment related to Planned Development standards. IV. Key Factors At the June 22 meeting, the Commission agreed upon four key factors that need to be considered when addressing Infill. The factors include: • Privacy • Compatibility • Sustainability • Flexibility. The Commission's review and deliberation should take these factors into consideration. Planning Commission Work Session 09/14/09 Page 2 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 324 V. Topics for the September 14, 2009 Work Session • A. Yard Exceptions (Section 3 and Exhibit F-3) At the August 24 meeting, the Commission discussed yard exceptions and agreed with the Infill Task Force proposal that bay windows should be no closer than five feet to a property line if they are used to break-up a wall plane. Staff noted that the code sections addressing general exceptions in Article 50.22 are being amended as part of the CDC housekeeping (policy related) amendments and changes may be more appropriately addressed when the Commission reopens that hearing (LU 08-0054 — Ordinance 2526). The Commission stated that it may want to have a second discussion about yard exceptions on September 14 when Commissioner Paretchan was in attendance. B. Variances (Section 8) On August 24, the Commission was generally supportive of the Infill Task Force recommendations for amendments related to variances. It was noted that the staff should be able require retention of a tree if a variance was approved to preserve a tree. To authorize such a condition, section 50.79.040 (d) should be amended as follows: d. The condition is reasonably related to eliminating or mitigating a negative impact on natural features or processes or on the built environment of the • neighborhood which is created or contributed to by the proposed development. As used in this section, "natural features or processes"includes Distinctive Natural Areas, stream corridors and natural drainage ways, significant tree(s) -of troca, tree(s) for which a variance or exception is granted in order to preserve the tree(sl, wetlands, and other natural areas. C. Miscellaneous Provisions (Section 9) At the August 24 meeting, the Commission was supportive of the Task Force proposals but had a concern about the nonconforming use amendments. The Commission suggested that if a nonconforming structure is intentionally demolished it should be rebuilt in a manner that conforms to the code. Revisions to the nonconforming use section of the Community Development Code (LOC 50.70.020) are attached as Exhibit F-14. The revisions follow the Planning Commission's general consensus to change the nonconforming section to allow single family dwellings, duplexes, and landmarks that are involuntarily destroyed to be rebuilt to the same degree of nonconformity. Regarding voluntary destruction, it was understood from the discussion that the Planning Commission wanted to eliminate the 50% test (as recommended by the Infill Task Force). but require the rebuilding to fully conform. The Commission deferred to the CDC/Policy discussion whether to make any changes • to the nonconforming section for structures other than "infill-affected" structures (single family dwellings, duplex, and landmarks). Thus, the revised LOC 50.70.020 has provided for a new subsection 2, but that subsection retains the current 50% test. This Planning Commission Work Session 09114!09 Page 3 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 325 subsection 2 should be thought of as a placeholder for the upcoming discussion of the CDC/Policy amendments. The Deputy City Attorney has offered the following opinion in response to a question regarding how much of a non-conforming wing of a structure must be removed, changed, or altered before it is considered a demolition, Under the proposal, a property owner has the right to reconstruct a nonconforming single family dwelling, duplex or landmark structure provided the destruction was involuntary. For voluntary destruction, as long as the wall/roof that constitutes the shell of the building remains, then "holes of work" can occur within the wall/roof since the structural element that is creating the nonconformity remains. Currently, under LOC 50.70.030, the owner has a right to make normal repairs or replacement of nonbearing walls, fixtures, wiring, or plumbing; under LOC 50.70.005(3), the owner has the right to maintain the structure in reasonable repair so long as in doing so, the nonconformity is not expanded (nonconforming use or structure may be continued and maintained in reasonable repair so long as it remains otherwise lawful, but it shall not be altered in a manner to enlarge or expand or reconstruct the use or structure). However under the proposed language, assuming an entire vertical portion of the wall and roof were removed due to dry rot (assuming that would be "lack of structural maintenance by the owner"), so that there is now no longer an '`obstruction from the ground to the sky") then that portion of the wall/roof could not be rebuilt. D. Sloped Lots (Section 5) The Commission began its review of the sloped lot proposals on August 24. The • Commission supported the proposed changes that adjusted height in the R-6 zone (FAN). The remaining sections of the sloped lot proposal still need to be addressed by the Commission. The background information from the August 13 staff report is reprinted below. Issues: Provide greater flexibility on steeply sloped lots, Proposals: • Makes a distinction between sloped lots and steeply sloped lots (a steep slope is one with an average slope of 25%). • On lots with sloping topography, provides up to a four feet increase in height on the downslope portion of the lot to allow for more floor area at a single level. (Addressed by the Commission on August 24, 2009) • On steeply sloped lots with at least 10 feet of elevation change across the building envelope, , • allows an increase in height from 35 feet to as ': w_ r ° much as 45 feet, provided certain conditions • : and design standards are met, }' • Adjusts how the front setback plane is `�' S �" ' • measured for slopping lots. For downslope � , • � ri • lots, the base height is measured from the ° street centerline. For upslope lots, the front ��::°, x� setback plane follows a 6:12 slope or the Planning Commission Work Session 09/14/09 Page 4 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 326 actual slope within the building envelope, whichever is greater. Si Allows an 18-foot minimum setback on steeply sloped lots. • Does not require support structures to be enclosed. • Establishes the front setback plane based on the average slope of the land on steeply sloped lots. Section 5 - Sloped Lots — Sections to be amended: 50.02 Definitions 50.06.050-060 R-0, R-2, R-3, R-5, and WR 50.07.030-040 R-6 (Addressed on August 24, 2009) 50.08.030-045 R-7.5, R-10 and R-15 The issue of sloped lots is left over from the original 2003 infill amendments. Some property owners argued that special provisions were needed to address steeply sloped lots. The Planning Commission developed a proposal to provide a height bonus for certain lots so that more floor area would be allowed on a single floor without "stair- stepping" the structure down a hillside. The Commission proposal was referred back to the Infill Task Force by the Council when the charge statement was developed for the Task Force. The Task Force has reviewed the original sloped lot concept and concurred with the proposal for additional height flexibility on steeply sloped lots. In addition, the Task Force suggested changes for measuring height in the First Addition neighborhood and when measuring the height of setback planes. For the September 14 work session, please look at Section 5 of the Infill Task Force • Issues Summary (Exhibit F-12) of the June 11 Planning Commission Staff Report (Report #8). Also, please review the proposed code language found in Section 5 of Attachment B of Ordinance 2524 (Pages 27-38 in the Infill section of your CDC amendment notebook [see the tab for LU 08-0053 — Ordinance 2524]) Finally, please look at Exhibit F-3 and examine the proposed amendments suggested for pages 27 to 29. Note that the changes include a new definition for "Base Height" and recommend that the proposed four-foot height exception apply only to the R-6 Zone (FAN). The Commission addressed the four-foot exception at their August 24 meeting. Key issues for discussion include: • Should the code allow taller structures (up to 45 feet) on steeply sloped lots? • Should setback plane measurement techniques be adjusted for sloped situations? • Should front yard setbacks be adjusted on steeply sloped lots? E. Planned Developments (Exhibit F-3) In 2008, the City Council amended the Community Development Code to restrict the use of the Planned Development process and to eliminate the requirement for common open space tracts and Planned Developments on parcels smaller than 75,000 sq. ft. in size. The change requires all lots in these small developments to meet the minimum lot size of the zone. The Infill Task Force had also made recommendations for additional changes to the Planned Development section of the code but these were deferred by the Planning Commission and were to be brought back for discussion during the review • of the infill proposals. Exhibit F-3 includes the Task Force's original proposal for code amendments changing the setback requirements for Planned Developments. That proposal is reprinted below: Planning Commission Work Session 09/14/09 Page 5 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 327 • Section 50. 17.015 Authorization 5. Except as required by LOC 50.06.050 (5), the reviewing authority may grant exceptions to the minimum side yard setbacks of the underlying zone, without the necessity of meeting the requirements of LOC Article 50.68 (Variances) if the requirements of 50.17.015(2) are met, and: a. Proposed lot sizes are less than the minimum size required by the underlying zone, or b. Lesser setbacks are necessary to provide additional tree preservation or protection of abutting natural areas. 20' separation of portions c. Side yard setbacks shall not be exceeding 18' in height— reduced to less than 8 feet except standard setback 10' under the following circumstances: i. Structures on abutting lots 20' within the development are separated by no less than 16 feet when all portions of the structure within the standard setback are no greater than 18 feet in height. 18' ii. Structures on abutting lots within the development are separated by no 6' 10' less than 20 feet when any portion of the structure exceeds 18 feet in height within the standard setback area. 10' PL • This limitation does not affect the underlying base zone yard setbacks when those setbacks are less than 8 feet. Key issues for discussion include: • Should the Planned Development provisions include new standards limiting the amount of flexibility for exceptions to side yard setbacks? • Are the proposed standards requiring 16 feet and 20 feet of separation appropriate? F. Duplexes and Single Family Attached (Section 10) Issues: Infill standards don't apply to duplexes and attached single family units in all zones. Proposal: • Applies infill standards to duplex and single family attached housing. • Provides greater flexibility in meeting garage standards. Section 10 Duplex and Single Family Attached - Sections to be amended: 50.06.060 R-0, R-2, R-3, and R-5 — Structure Design 50.06.065 R-0, R-2, R-3, and R-5 - Garage Appearance 50.07.047 R-6 - Garage Appearance 50.08.055 R-7.5, R-10 and R-15 - Garage Appearance • Planning Commission Work Session 09/14/09 Page 6 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 328 The proposed changes make it clear that infill standards apply to duplex and attached single family homes in the high and medium density zones (R-0, R-2, R-3, and R-5). The Task Force noted that the current garage standards present a significant design problem for the typical attached dwelling or duplex given that lots for these uses are generally not twice the width of a typical single family lot. Given the narrower lots. more flexibility is needed in siting and designing the garage (see pages 17 and 18 of the background information provided in Exhibit F-12, attached to the June 11, 2009 Commission Report - Report#8). For duplexes and attached dwellings, the proposed code amendments would allow the garage to occupy up to 75% of the lot width so long as certain design features are provided. Exhibit F-3 includes the Task Force's final amendment to the proposed code language. The amendment is included below with changes highlighted. The Task Force recommended that Sections 50.06.065 (1)(b)(ii)(4)(C) and 50.08.055 (1)(a)(ii)(D)(3) be modified as follows: An enclosed outdoor living space is located between the front of the house, the garage. and the public right-of-way. The enclosure shall consist of wood and, wrought iron, brick, stucco, stone, or other masonry fencing (excluding concrete block) and include an operable entryway gate (see Appendix 50.06.065 f2)(b)(ii)(4)(C)), and.... The original code language recommended by the Task Force is on pages 52 to 57 of • Attachment B to Ordinance 2524 (LU 08-0053). The modifications proposed above apply to the sections on pages 52 and 56. Key issues for discussion include: • Should the structure design standards apply to duplexes and attached dwellings in the high and medium density zones? • Should garage appearance standards be more flexible for duplexes and attached dwellings? G. Flag Lots/Serial Partitions (Section 11) Issues: Flag lots are isolated from the surrounding neighborhood. Greater flexibility for some types of flag lot development is needed. Proposal: • Requires the front of the lot to be the side from which access is taken. • Requires a "connecting lane" with houses fronting on the lane. • Sets standards for the "connecting lane." • Changes setbacks to provide more flexibility. • Requires a five-foot setback from the access drive to existing house on parent parcel. • Requires a 10-foot setback from the access drive with at least 20 feet for a parking area. • • Requires street connectivity for properties of 1.75 acres or greater. Planning Commission Work Session 09/14/09 Page 7 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 329 Section 11 - Flag Lots/Serial Partitions - Sections to be amended: 50.68.015 Classification of Variances • 50.20.020-030 Flag Lot Standards 50.57.020 Standards for Construction 50.60.005-035 Street Connectivity The purpose of the changes proposed in Section 11 is to create a stronger sense of "neighborhood" in areas where flag lot development is likely. The proposed code amendments would require driveways to be designed as connecting lanes that offer access to multiple properties and provide a "street" to which houses would "front" rather than the typical flag lot pattern of having houses oriented to the backs of other houses. The Task Force developed a set of objectives for flag lots to help guide the development of the proposed code standards. The objectives are reprinted below and are included in Exhibit F-12. Flag Lot Objectives 1 . Create stronger neighborhoods and neighborhood character — Flag lots don't contribute to neighborhood character— they are hidden and pulled away from the street, often with the house facing the back of the parent parcel house. 2. Connectivity — Make flag pole access ways connect so there are directional options and a greater network of streets and pedestrian ways. 3. Tree Protection — Protect trees to the greatest extent practicable. • 4. Infill —Allow for infill to occur at planned densities. 5. Coordination — Require coordination among property owners so that connecting lanes are provided. 6. Incremental Development — Allow individual properties to develop independently while contributing to the overall connecting lane concept. Exhibit F-3 includes the final modifications to amendments suggested by the Task Force, The full set of amendments proposed by the Task Force are on pages 58 to 68 of Attachment B to Ordinance 2524 (LU 08-0053). The changes suggested below are from Exhibit F-3 and modify the language and diagram on page 59 of Attachment B. Section 50.20.025 Lot Configuration Requirements. 1. Determination of Front Yard: At the-timc o�sia r�uic- for a flag lot creation, lThe front yard shall be determined as follows: 14o front yard of a flag lot is measured from the4o1-line-That--is-most 1. rallel and closest to the street. excluding the pole partion of the flag lot. The-€runt-yafd-shall--he the---side-from which access is taken. Except for a lot that fronts on a public street, the front yard(s) of a flag lot shall be measured from the access lane or from a projected extension of the access lane through the property (see Section 50.20.030 (6) for setback requirements). (Note: A front yard occurs on either side of the Planning Commission Work Session 09/14/09 Page 8 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 330 access lane of the flaq lot. See Appendix 50.20.025(4A)). lf-this-stondard is not • p oticable due-te-placement of--straoture-s-on adjacent lots, topograph-y-(at configuratfen -er similar reasons, then the-font yard wi rom-a property lino that abtits the access portion of the flag ore semen, Appendix 50.20.025(4-A) Front Yards for Flag Lots and Lots Abutting Access Lanes Flag lot access lane Front yard measurement locations Lots fronting on the street must meet the front yard requirement on the street and the I setback requirement on the access lane. • —� — — 110 To recap, the Infill Task Force's recommendations for flag lots and partitions are found in Section 11 on pages 58 to 68 of Attachment B to Ordinance 2524 (LU 08-0053). The relevant background information for Section 11 can be reviewed by examining pages 19 to 28 of Exhibit F-12 (attached to the June 11, 2009 staff report - Report#8). Key issues for discussion include: • Should access be the determining factor for identifying the "front" of a flag lot? • Rather than allow flag lot driveways serving single developments, should land divisions require a "connecting lane" that can provide additional access to other properties? • Are the standards for the "connecting lane" appropriate? • Are the changes to provide more setback flexibility for flag lots appropriate? • Are the setbacks to the access drives appropriate? - Five-foot setback from the access drive to existing house on the parent parcel? - Ten-foot setback from the access drive with at least 20 feet for a parking area? • Should street connectivity be required for land divisions when properties are 1.75 acres or greater in size? H. Design Review (Section 1) By a split vote. the Infill Task Force recommended that the City adopt a new comprehensive plan policy that would direct the City to develop a design review program for new single family dwellings. The draft policy is included in proposed Planning Commission Work Session 09/14/09 Page 9 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 331 Ordinance 2523 (Exhibit A-1) and in the background information to Ordinance 2523 (Exhibit F-1). (Please note that this proposed ordinance would amend the • Comprehensive plan. Ordinance 2524 addresses development code changes for infill and would amend the Community Development Code rather than the Comprehensive Plan.) When the Infill Task Force met in October of 2008, they made a small modification to the proposal outlined in Exhibit A-1. The modified proposal is included below (the change is highlighted). Comprehensive Plan Goal 2 (Land Use Planning) Section 2 Policy 6 6. Establish a design review process for residential development to ensure that new and remodeled structures are compatible with the character and scale of development present or planned for the surrounding neighborhood. The Commission discussed design review last winter and chose to examine the entire package of infill amendments before making a recommendation on design review. The January 21 , 2009 and February 3, 2009 staff reports addressed the issue of design review. Key issues for discussion include: • Should a design review program for residential development be established? • What parameters should guide the program? VI. Conclusion The staff report outlines the key issues for discussion. We have scheduled meetings on September 14 and 24 to review the remaining materials. The goal for meetings is to have a set of proposals that the Commission generally supports prior to reopening the hearing. The hearing will be an opportunity for the public to provide testimony on whether the Commission has gone too far or not far enough with its proposals. Please call or e-mail staff if you would like any additional background information prior to the September 14 meeting. EXHIBIT: F-14 Non-Conforming Uses — 08/24/09 Planning Commission Work Session 09/14/09 Page 10 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 332 OE LAKE OS iv Planning and Building Services Department +-- Supplemental Report #12 OREGON TO: Planning Commission Original Staff Report 10-20-08 Supplemental Report#1 01-21-09 FROM: Denny Egner, AICP Supplemental Report#2 02-03-09 Assistant Planning Director/ Supplemental Report#3 03-04-09 Long Range Planning Manager Supplemental Report#4 04-01-09 Supplemental Report#5 05-11-09 DATE: October 1, 2009 Supplemental Report #6 05-29-09 Supplemental Report#7 06-05-09 SUBJECT: October 12, 2009 Planning Supplemental Report #8 06-11-09 Commission Infill Work Session Supplemental Report#9 07-02-09 Supplemental Report#10 08-13-09 Supplemental Report#11 09-03-09 Supplemental Report#12 10-01-09 On June 22, 2009, the Planning Commission continued the public hearings on infill standards and plan amendments until October 12. On October 12, the Commission • should reopen the hearings and continue them to a specific future date (December 14 is a possibility). Following the continuance, the Commission is expected to hold a work session on the unresolved infill issues. At the September 14 work session the Planning Commission made significant progress reviewing a number of sections but there were still questions regarding standards for Duplexes/Single Family Attached Dwellings and Flag Lots/Serial Partitions. In addition, the Commission wanted additional research completed on long skinny lots prior to a final work session discussion about Design Review. To complete work on October 12, the Commission should review the following materials: • Sections 10 and 11 of Attachment B to Ordinance 2524 (these are the duplex and flag lot sections of the proposed code language). • Supplemental Report#8 (06-11-09) (includes the background material for Sections 10 and 11). • Supplemental Report#11 (September 3, 2009) (frames key issues for discussion and includes materials from Exhibit F-3, the final recommendations from the Infill Task Force). • Exhibit F-1 of Proposed Ordinance 2523 (Comprehensive Plan policy amendments for design review) • Prior to the October 12 meeting staff will be doing additional research regarding long skinny lots and will develop a few alternatives for Commission consideration. EXHIBIT D-12 LU 08-0053 Planning Commission Work Session 10/12/09 Page 1 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 333 • • • 334 OF LAKE S iv f CO MAP Planning and Building Services Department Supplemental Report #13 OREGO$ TO: Planning Commission Original Staff Report 10-20-08 Supplemental Report #1 01-21-09 FROM: Denny Egner, AICP Supplemental Report #2 02-03-09 Assistant Planning Director/ Supplemental Report #3 03-04-09 Long Range Planning Manager Supplemental Report #4 04-01-09 Supplemental Report #5 05-11-09 DATE: October 8, 2009 Supplemental Report #6 05-29-09 Supplemental Report #7 06-05-09 SUBJECT: October 12, 2009 Planning Supplemental Report #8 06 11 09 Commission Infill Work Session Supplemental Report #9 07-02-09 Long Lots Supplemental Report #10 08-13-09 Supplemental Report #11 09-03-09 Supplemental Report #12 10-01-09 Supplemental Report #13 10-08-09 Background/Issues 110 The Commission identified narrow, deep lots as a lot type that has a high probability for compatibility problems when new houses are constructed. Two much discussed examples are the houses at 3178 Douglas Circle and 1061 Chandler Road. Maps and photographs of each property are attached. Key infill issues associated with narrow, deep lots include: • Long continuous walls - Long walls along the side yards can appear imposing from neighboring properties. • Privacy concerns — Long two story structures may provide more window openings that overlook neighboring properties. • Fire safety — Upper story bedrooms require fire exits which means windows cannot be placed high along the wall. • Building width is maximized — Because long lots are often greater in size than a typical lot in a zone, the allowed floor area is greater than what would be allowed for the typical. shorter lot. If the owner/builder wants to maximize the allowed floor area, this will usually require maximizing the width of the building. This may result in more massing near the front of the lot. • Backyards — By placing the building at the front of the lot and by maximizing building width, the owner/builder can maximize the size of the backyard. • EXHIBIT D-13 LU 08-0053 Planning Commission Work Session 10/12/09 Page 1 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 335 Infill Task Force Recommendations To address long skinny lots and issues of privacy, the Infill Task Force recommended the following provisions: • Side yard setback planes — Side yard setback planes require upper floors to be pushed toward the center of the lot, (Sections 50.08.045, 50.07.040, and 50.06.060 — pages 12-17 of Attachment B to Ordinance 2524) • Side yard screening — The code currently requires that side wall planes be broken up to reduce massing. The Task Force recommended that landscape screening be an option that could be used in place of the wall plane requirement. (Sections 50.08.045, 50.07.040, and 50.06.060 — pages 17-21 of Attachment B to Ordinance 2524) • Long wall provisions — The Task Force recommended that if wall planes exceeded 70 feet in length that they be broken into smaller components and that four foot off- sets be required. (Sections 50.08.045, 50.07.040, and 50.06.060 — pages 23-24 of Attachment B to Ordinance 2524) • Design review — The majority of the Task Force voted to support a design review process for infill development. The details of the process were not worked out. The Task Force considered the following concepts but did not recommend them: 111 • Upper story window/balcony standards —The Task Force considered establishing standards to regulate the placement of upper story windows but rejected the idea given the complexity of review and enforcement. • The Task Force considered the concept of a horizontal angle setback but rejected it as being too complicated. The horizontal angle setback is a concept that was suggested by the City's infill consultant from the University of British Columbia, Ron Kellett. A depiction of the concept is attached. Discussion Questions Key questions for the Commission include: • Do the combination of side yard setback plane, landscape screening, and wall length standards adequately address the problem? • If not, would the addition of window placement standards or a horizontal angle setback satisfy Commission concerns? • Should long wall houses be subject to design review? If so. what would trigger the review process? • Planning Commission Work Session 10/12/09 Page 2 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 336 1110 3178 Douglas Circle t.4-. • r s- y , f e k it 'A' : i. �. i 9 Xf SL ' a€� - .• 4r t � — y4 atar1. - '•1 1.,..•-:••F-T...• I'L' ti:41421‘1' ' 1 °P.C.iiitti ''1 1' » li J1 k iX ,'... 11111! mr,,, .,,,, ,,,,,-,,,, ,.- . .,..v. y , „v.. • _ , 2 j ., ,...______________"/„...-----------;"--'- .__ .., J f • , ' •', ]- •'.-....1-..,4 li 0 f Planning Commission Work Session 10/12/09 Page 3 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 337 1061 Chandler Road 4,i,.;,_ ,i,,,,, .:..„it..,a . „:- . -.4„. ;.7-,4ii.k,:iti..:7;::......t.!..;,:if.-:.....:4,_:..c.,,,:tio.,..:3:‘.ii..,;'' •• .?..,,,f.y.,-!...-, -,....-;"-?.-7' -, •.. -s'.- ¢ X UYA�c y,:' R r = - '�'y„w;,Ni-,. is t r s e a 1,1 i s � 4: am' 3'i+F' _ ( '�� � r • yy 4 T ®; Y , 4 Ctfi k ' EN ._' , . ASK F HF2 • CHURCH PIS'IST PAL CS -- r M . . .. . • Planning Commission Work Session 10/12/09 Page 4 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 338 • Neighbor to nei hbor scale — side elevations OBJECTIVE: REDUCE SCALE OF SIDE YARD WALLS BUT. . . Current standard IMPROVE FLEXIBILITY TO /l INTEGRATE COMPLIANCE `�� ,1 WITH A `WHOLE'HOUSE DESIGN CONCEPT Side yard elevation broken Into planes of loss than 750 square feet Changes !n plane a minimum of 2 feet. 0 HORIZONTAL ANGLE SETBACK CONCEPT CHANGE THE CURRENT AREA BASED STANDARD TO ONE BASED ON A HORIZONTAL \\ DAYLIGHT ANGLE dot • set this angle by zone • establish a minimum `step' • apply only to neighbor to . neighbor side yards , • Planning Commission Work Session 10/12/09 Page 5 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 339 • HORIZONTAL ANGLE SETBACK CONCEPT • • Building can step back following angle - Front and rear facing windows and doors can be located in 'steps' Apex of horizontal angle on property line Building must fit within any angle along property line HORIZONTAL ANGLE SETBACK: Recommendation • R-7.5 R-10 SO'setback 15'setback horizontal angle* 135° 120° max. wall length at setback 48' 52' max. wall area at 12'height** 576 sf 624 sf current max. wall area 750 sf 750 sf • Angle can vary by zone and/or by lot width •• First floor height with double setback concept • Planning Commission Work Session 10/12/09 Page 6 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08.0053 340 • HORIZONTAL DAYLIGHT ANGLE: Review } STRENGTHS LIABILITIES • less arbitrary and simpler • greater framing complexity to regulate than current standard • modest loss of first floor area • elevation massing better integrated with floor plan • impact on coverage not yet tested • NEIGHBOR TO NEIGHBOR SCALE: Recommendation i 1I • drop side yard elevation plane standard • adopt double setback standard with minimum `step' limitation (> 3'seems OK, 5'may be better) • adopt horizontal setback angle (--- 120° when setback is 10' or less, --130° when setback is IS'or more) Planning Commission Work Session 10/12/09 Page 7 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 341 • DOUBLE SETBACK + HORIZONTAL ANGLE SETBACK • MASSING ENVELOPE CONCEPT • � K w :: - 4- yf • Setback and height Buildings must fit WITHIN standards establish a envelope but not mirror it `massing envelope' Minor projections are allowed, perhaps encouraged • Planning Commission Work Session 10/12/09 Page 8 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 342 • R-7.5: Massing envelopes generated by: 1 1 1 Horizontal angle only iti *4ii• P ,-,. Horizontal angle + double setback NARROW LOTS WIDE LOTS IDR-10: Massing envelopes generated by: i 1 • Horizontal angle only -) \,,: i I' a NARROW LOTS Horizontal angle + double setback WIDE LOTS • Planning Commission Work Session 10/12/09 Page 9 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 343 • DOUBLE SETBACK: Wrapping porch example Y• r y# , 1;F �i Y &171 1� ( .y"1 ..- � I • j I �s { ri `� ' Note size and location of side yard facing windows • s Planning Commission Work Session 10/12/09 Page 10 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 344 `.0 of�.AKE cswECO� Planning and Building llik Services Department Supplemental Report #14 OREGO$ TO: Planning Commission Original Staff Report 10-20-08 Supplemental Report #1 01-21-09 FROM: Denny Egner, AICP Supplemental Report #2 02-03-09 Assistant Planning Director/ Supplemental Report #3 03-04-09 Long Range Planning Manager Supplemental Report #4 04-01-09 Supplemental Report #5 05-11-09 DATE: December 1, 2009 Supplemental Report #6 05-29-09 Supplemental Report #7 06-05-09 SUBJECT: December 14, 2009 Planning Supplemental Report #8 06-11-09 Commission Public Hearing Supplemental Report #9 07-02-09 Supplemental Report #10 08-13-09 Supplemental Report #11 09-03-09 Supplemental Report #12 10-01-09 I. INTRODUCTION Supplemental Report #13 10-08-09 41110 On December 14, 2009, the Planning Commission Supplemental Report #14 12-01-09 is scheduled to reopen its public hearing on proposed code amendments related to infill development. This report provides a brief background and summary of the issues. Proposed code amendment language is attached. II. BACKGROUND The original public hearing on this item was opened on October 27. 2008 continued until January 26, 2009. The Commission has held a total of 15 meetings where the proposed infill amendments have been discussed. Since the spring of 2009, these meetings have been held in a work session format which has allowed the Commission to review and discuss the original proposals put forth by the infill Task Force and the input and testimony of citizens. The product of the Commission's work is a working draft of changes to the infill Task Force proposals. At the December 14, 2009 public hearing, the Commission is seeking testimony on the changes it is proposing as well as on some of the larger issues identified and addressed by the infill Task Force. III. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS/CRITERIA/FINDINGS The October 27, 2008 staff report lists the applicable regulations, criteria, and findings for amendments to the Community Development Code. The final decision by the Planning Commission will include findings that may result in changes to the preliminary • findings listed in the October 27. 2008 report. EXHIBIT D-14 LU 08-0053 Planning Commission Public Hearing 12/14/09 Page 1 CDC infill Amendments LU 08-0053 345 IV. KEY ISSUES The Commission has specifically requested additional public testimony regarding the • following key issues: • Design Review — The Commission is considering three options: o No new design review process o Design review in limited cases o City-wide design review • Maximum Floor Area — The Commission is considering reducing maximum floor area by approximately 5% from what is currently allowed. • Corner Lot Balconies — The Infill Task Force proposed that balconies be allowed to encroach four feet into the street side yard on corner lots. The projection is likely to conflict with the proposed street side setback plane. • Long Wall Planes — The Commission is proposing that new design standards apply to structures on narrow and deep lots. The standards would limit wall length to no more than 50 feet when walls are greater than 18 feet in height. • Sloped Lots — The proposed amendments would increase building height to 45 feet on steeply sloped lots. Amendments would provide a small height increase to moderately sloped lots in FAN. Other proposed amendments would change the way heights are measured for front setback planes. • Planned Development Setbacks — The Infill Task Force recommended that • side setbacks in planned developments be no less than eight feet in width unless certain conditions are met. • Nonconforming Uses — The Planning Commission is seeking additional testimony on the length of time that should be allowed to rebuild before nonconforming use rights are lost. The draft proposes one year. • Adjustments — The Infill Task Force proposed a 2.5% adjustment for lot size, lot coverage, and floor area. The Commission has proposed elimination of the adjustment for floor area and has agreed with the lot size adjustment. They are seeking additional testimony regarding the adjustment for lot coverage. • Flag Lots — Additional comments are sought on the following: o House orientation to access lanes. o Circumstances that would exempt development from providing access lanes. o Connectivity standards — Development size threshold that determine when streets need to be designed to connect to other streets. Options discussed include: 1.75 acres, 2 acres, and 5 acres. Planning Commission Public Hearing 12/14/09 Page 2 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 346 V. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION • Two new and two revised exhibits are included with this staff report. New exhibits document the changes to the Infill Task Force proposals that have been proposed by the Planning Commission. They include: • The Planning Commission recommendation matrix, and • The Planning Commission working draft of infill amendments. The revised exhibits incorporate the final recommendations of the Infill Task Force (Exhibit F-3) along with the Planning Commission's proposed revisions. These exhibits represent the compilation of the amendments that are being proposed. • Ordinance 2523 (revised 11-25-09) - Comprehensive Plan policy amendments; and • Ordinance 2524 (revised 1 1-25-09) — Attachment B - Development Code amendments. Ordinance 2523 is intended to amend the Comprehensive Plan. It includes a proposed policy to establish a new design review process for residential properties. This policy may need to be changed depending on Commission direction regarding design review. Attachment B of Ordinance 2524 includes the proposed amendments to the development code. It includes the Infill Task Force recommendations in red and depicts Planning Commission changes in blue and green. Staff has highlighted sections or topics where the Commission is seeking additional testimony. 11111 Following the close of the hearing, staff recommends that the Commission work through each of the highlighted sections and provide direction for including it, deleting it, or amending it. Exhibits A-1 .1 Ordinance 2523-Draft (Revised 11-25-09) A-2 Ordinance 2524-Draft — Attachment B (Revised 11-25-09) F-15 Planning Commission Recommendation Matrix (dated 11-25-09) F-16 Planning Commission Working Draft of Infill Amendments (dated 11-25-09) • Planning Commission Public Hearing 12/14/09 Page 3 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 • 347 • • • 348 8sn' O Planning and Building Services Department Supplemental Report #15 OREGO$ TO: Planning Commission Original Staff Report 10-20-08 Supplemental Report #1 01-21-09 FROM: Denny Egner, AICP Supplemental Report #2 02-03-09 Assistant Planning Director! Supplemental Report #3 03-04-09 Long Range Planning Manager Supplemental Report #4 04-01-09 Supplemental Report #5 05-11-09 DATE: January 6, 2010 Supplemental Report #6 05-29-09 Supplemental Report #7 06-05-09 SUBJECT: January 11, 2010 Planning Supplemental Report #8 06-11-09 Commission Public Hearing Supplemental Report #9 07-02-09 Supplemental Report #10 08-13-09 Supplemental Report #11 09-03-09 Supplemental Report#12 10-01-09 I. INTRODUCTION Supplemental Report#13 10-08-09 • Supplemental Report #14 12-01-09 On December 14, 2009, the Planning Commission Supplemental Report #15 01-06-10 reopened its public hearing on proposed code amendments related to infill development. The Commission heard testimony from 16 people and began deliberation. This report provides a brief summary of the actions taken at the December 14 meeting and outlines a strategy for completing work on the remaining sections. The final section provides clarification of a number of issues raised during testimony at the December 14 hearing. II. DECEMBER 14, 2009 — COMMISSION DELIBERATION Following the testimony, the Commission began addressing each of the eleven infill sections. Progress and preliminary decisions are documented below: Section 1 — Comprehensive Plan Amendments - By a 5-1 vote, the Commission recommended approval of Policy 18 (neighborhood planning). The Commission also recommended approval of Policy 6 regarding design review. In a separate 4-2 vote, the Commission recommended that the City develop a design handbook to encourage compatible development. Following the meeting, staff prepared a draft memo to be sent to the City Council in support of a design handbook. Edits were suggested by Commissioners Glisson and Paretchan. The final version is attached. 4110 Section 2 — Lot Coverage and Maximum Floor Area - The Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the amendments. EXHIBIT D-15 LU 08-0053 Planning Commission Public Hearing-Deliberaton 01/11/1D Page 1 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 349 Section 3 — Structure Design/Setback Planes — The Commission voted 5-1 to recommend approval of the section with the following amendments: • • Appendix 50.07- G (p. 21) — Add the following language to the notes: ".... or if multiple plants exist, the caliper sizes of the plants cumulatively meet the minimum total sizes required." • Long Wall Planes (p.21) — Trigger the massing provision when structures exceed 60 feet in length rather than 50 feet (Change 50 feet to 60 feet in the text and insert the new standard in the structure design section of each of the residential zones - Sections 50.06.060, 50.07.040, and 50.08.045). Section 4 — Yard Setbacks — The Commission voted 5-1 to recommend approval of Section 4 with the following amendments: • Section 50.07.025 (5) (p. 28) — Change the date to 2010 and revise the heading in the table to read: "Primary and Accessory Structures or Additions to those Structures Built before January 1, 2010." (revised language is underlined) • Section 50.22.045 (p. 29) — Revise to allow projections for eaves and certain building features. The new language should be revised to read: "but in no event may canopies, sunshades, or chimney flues be located within five feet of a side lot line." (revised language is underlined) Section 5 — Sloped Lots — The Commission chose to defer discussion on this topic. • Section 6 — RID Review — The Commission voted 5-1 to recommend approval of the section with the following amendments: • Sections 50.72.020 (a. and b.) (p. 46) — Create a bullet list for applicability in both sections. Correct the typographical error in subsection (b. iv.) to keep the words "Side yard setbacks" in the section. Sections 7 to 11 — These sections are to be addressed at the January 12, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. II. STRATEGY FOR COMPLETING DELIBERATION Chair Philip Stuart and I met on January 5 to discuss the rolling agenda. At the meeting, it was proposed that the Commission continue their deliberation by first addressing those sections where there has been general agreement and then conclude with deliberation on the more difficult sections (Sloped Lots and Flag Lots). Given this strategy, the Commission should be prepared to begin discussion on January 12 with sections 7-10 and then move on to sections 5 and 11. In addition, there will need to be some discussion about what form a final recommendation to the Council should take. As the Commission worked through the first set of recommendations there was a dissenting vote in all but one case. The votes against came from different Commissioners for different reasons. The Commission • should decide whether its final recommendation to the Council will consist of a series of Planning Commission Public Hearing-Deliberation 01/11/10 Page 2 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 350 votes or whether the Commissioners can support the package as a whole and can • make one general vote to support the full package. III. RESPONSE TO DECEMBER 14, 2009 TESTIMONY Reflecting on the meeting there were a number of statements that were made in testimony that were not accurate. The statements and clarifications are provided below. Sherry Finnigan — Ms. Finnigan stated "that staff failed to put concrete examples" of design review programs before the Planning Commission. This is incorrect. Exhibit F-1 is the summary of the design review policy proposal. It includes a description of the different design threshold alternatives that had been discussed by the Infill Task Force. The thresholds included floor area, lot size, lot shape, and setbacks. The material also included a suggestion for a design review board. In addition, the Planning Commission's staff report dated January 21 , 2009 specifically addressed design review and included the Infill Task Force notes on the topic. The January 21, 2009 report also included a matrix of research done about design review in other communities and a copy of the design guidelines for single family homes in Palo Alto, CA. Jim Bolland — Mr. Bolland stated that the Task Force subcommittee that was supposed to discuss sloped lots never met to address the topic and that the group rushed through the issue at the end without a thorough discussion. Infill Task Force notes provide a record of what actually occurred. Infill Subcommittee 1 met and discussed sloped lots on January 19, 2006, February 2 and February 16, 2006. The full Task Force (with Jim Bolland present) discussed the topic on April 6, 2006 and reviewed the issue in detail on • December 14, 2006. A small work group that included Ted Argo, Brad Beals, Heather Chrisman, Bill Seroyer, Ralph Tahran and Emogene Waggoner met on January 10, 2007 to test sloped lot concepts. On January 18, 2007, the group (without Heather and Emogene) met again. The notes and conclusions from the work group were provided to the Task Force on January 25, 2007. No change to the 45-foot height concept was proposed. The Task Force meeting notes for January 25, 2007 (with Jim Bolland in attendance) state that the ''Task Force provided cautious support for the proposal to increase height to 45 feet on steeply sloped lots. They reserved the option of reviewing this option again." To conclude, Mr. Bolland's statement regarding sloped lots is incorrect. Jim Bolland — Mr. Bolland stated that the Council adopted a provision stating that a handbook will be prepared. Staff reviewed the Council's public hearing minutes and the 2003 ordinance adopting the original infill standards. There is no mention of a handbook or guidebook. Preparation of a design handbook was a planning department project in 2003, but it was not something that the department was directed to do by the Council. Following the adoption of the infill standards, staff had a set of drawings prepared that depicted the infill standards for use as illustrations in a handbook. Soon after the infill standards were adopted and began to be used by planners and builders, a number of "housekeeping" amendments were prepared to clarify interpretations and conflicts that occurred with adoption of the standards. Preparation of the handbook was delayed in • anticipation of the housekeeping changes (see the reference to this from a joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting below). The housekeeping measures were adopted in 2004. Planning Commission Public Hearing-Deliberation 01/11/10 Page 3 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 351 By late 2004/early 2005, some community members raised concerns that the infill standards did not go far enough to manage house size and design. In response, the Council reformed the Infill Task Force to evaluate the infill standards and to address items that had not been addressed. Work on the handbook was set aside to allow for completion of the infill code amendments. It is believed that the idea of what the handbook should be has changed over time. Originally, it was viewed as a way to help builders and property owners meet the code requirements. Illustrations would show the best practices for complying with the code. Since it was originally conceived, the concept of the handbook has changed to a compendium of examples of "good design" that could fit well into a neighborhood. Entry from the staff report for a joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting on 11-12-03: "Long Range Planning Projects - Infill • Code Amendments - housekeeping and corrections (starting in January) • Sloped Lots (active - scheduled for November 24 PC work session) • Duplex and attached lots (not active) • Guidebook (on hold- waiting to resolve code amendments and interpretations)." Carolyne Jones — Ms. Jones stated that Christie Galen was hired by the City to create the Sensitive Lands Map. In fact, the firm that Ms. Galen worked for was hired. not Ms. Galen personally. Ms. Galen did work on all the inventories as did other staff. Ms. Jones said of Ms. Galen: ''She was told by City Staff what properties to identify." • This misrepresents what was said and what occurred. The consulting firm was provided with a list of potential resource sites based on the City's hydrology maps and aerial photos. The firm was also invited to, and did, suggest other sites to inventory. All of the inventory data was based on resource areas (streams, tree groves, etc) and not on individual properties—resource boundaries rarely follow tax lot lines. Ms. Jones also said that "[Christie Galen] was told to put blinders on regarding the presence of ivy." In fact, Ms. Galen did say that she was instructed not to eliminate sites from the inventory based solely on the presence of ivy. In urban areas, the presence of some invasive plants is a given and not considered disqualifying. However, Ms. Galen also said that the presence of ivy was taken into account, and that it did reduce scores in comparison to other sites with little or no ivy. Exhibits F-17 Planning Commission Letter to the Council regarding an Infill Design Handbook Planning Commission Public Hearing-Deliberation 01/11/10 Page 4 CDC Infill Amendments LU 08-0053 352 Ex E Graphics pi • • • `fit�, . • . r— N t t1 - 1 1, A I- t COLLEGE liktrvi6 /i®00. THYON }{ SF q MT snvAru - CREME 30- c -•-.-ttr. .• 4iiii`''-'''--- .. . E1 � STATE �. C. �7Q�9 4. ry� �� ♦ ' �- '.� !l i PARE ■ ill L tstrif41 • gilL___ )1i _ice n,7■r•' i : �•t4.;. ff, m-■ llii/!/� �i .` •���� �1'r ii ° ' 3. . - ... ........,,,4......... it . .. Ir.- ,....., se i. -v// 1:7 ,ti'• •!! n !j'', __- a tIEi'iLi1� - •i�l J�T' POOH LAKE SC+S DP , � t 1111111.1111 r � ..i\' "s+ f r M '�r 'y` • l r :�- . . Sr : _; �: y P �__:, w.i..uII _ , witLake Oswego Lots �ti c s■ - 1 . 'T `' I� `11 'f `��` d*111 �� `� \ Single-Family Residential Zoning latliE F �` it ;.,,�,� lteN ,,, .. Building to Lot Size Ratio v1 v T • 4, )11 L%HANDS • • �� �01* aoanLAr BATMEN ' �i �, i r ELEMENT l y oswEcoLAs counxRx 1 I L. '� �T11 'xu TREATMENT �( JJ , 4i scH°°L GP czvsGOLF COURSE / • �Il\•f 1 �F�e Vacant or Unknown lr 4 SPRINGEROOI - W. �10 ) S_An FOOT . WAY EIOAD n wh a PA„ fg NO `s 1�... , Av F R6„ Less than .15 �n T P (IN, c( !" '�r ,wL Q 15:1 24:1 NIA ;�1 I0P v� 'V i 7 �.+gyp ■ _ RARE i �1 a 11� Ii v �' -�- -�17'4.4' ,, 25:1 34:1 :,, ■d1"' UAM1IWi •? 1 i +°a r� r 7 - ,rA_. ���y�Tl1,1-7-,rTa.I� 1 1� _aid' 11111 ��� �■! Iiii :♦S, 1 t* E/%jI i m rf, ❑ `alTi'�� --ow 1rtTn �T .35:1 44:1 � [in14-nit�.1 i - 11 i ¢ mo.xomrrAu+erArosu(Agee J � „ +� }i f! lt� . ... ..� ._[111111 Q \ 1101 -7,t I'♦ ("', .45:1 or greater 1•� .ie\� \ sr tills �c� i. urpeoswEGo R 01/ �` 4, "i p ,, 111 OM■1 > WAIAGA A HUNT CLUB `� f` �. 1 PAiQ d.lJ 1AAEGROIE \ =104 -(, , /� • f _(`,,�� :'�I/ 7 * �V �C ELEMEMARY .-;L A 1.4• ` , r�i!{�ilnlf//■■.■!■n n'-' �I, .__ SCHOOL Mi� 4,.4711'' 4 h/l:'I '= 'Pi POST q ��a`�ola/til l ` �■lW...,, :-- -`1 � = U° '';' • `� p• �� f��,. :.�t V...v//‘ t Li4e r. _A�_ 0 ,..1 ROGERS /\/ Lake Oswego City Limits .' ` `,'-m ills'_=`- f G II('it -Qrs'"* * ® 0514i4 �� , .. �i� ! A • {imam.. Ts I -fil f Lake Oswego Urban II I: . _ --o�'rlGlli�Nor �`s �>, ♦�t, , � .r.■---%l,�i En etir •� /i °i�. ` r1. {trn !"'IR r • '�:d ■� ���El�:r��i { 'JL��i` 1�t�1W �l Services Boundary p_ }tJH I` �� ��� apt°l° \. a. ate, �rl�- =Cif in■ �LEE• ..,g _•■[ - _----- f .-F f'nL i-r-`r;`,�` =�rflM 1',�`''�\i \ - wlottAE[ I `"I �a ®��1��� `` fay:4 n ��� .- inc P P _ I ` S ♦ ♦ ail •■ •l ♦ i �777 11 i �� \_ r-. ,I I f1 i i r ►'•u 9:0 S� °/.• /►� �+rs esa i• Q - A �I• �ir ® �7a s u r\ ,� -L-:.• lir L ''1 Mali .t►�� '� it .�*`sV� t 1�i%r• 3 rr , ` ` ,'��"�GH/7� ® 3f��rtrEes► �--I �1L �; � r"=-,��''/ .t If11:` ' �� ; s�a6 • ✓i rt T ..• r PI' vs ®� ' Vy3 pA -71 ♦,�{ �� Illilil11�R1= °S Oy t i ■��p j I' ' • f l 9 .•` tii• l t��A'� i11� acHoct �1,0 ♦ a ![R■lUrnnl ; 1! TT.. !t teal sCif°1- •-.1.: a `,_._- �, J1I ,� kt !Anita:. WW■ n- N. r p 0■6. 8� owns • ,,j,..,� ♦ C SISTERS of r rE rroLr h �+ • `�, y: Mir \ �• `� s= nliq« =.��. i t i4 ls>xG �� ��I. ��/ !(/ ¢ i, �!•1- Via. n■! �� ♦ 4,•. i `1' 'A r•�+:1114 ! (i 1111iL la,t- i _ pug NAMES CONVENT gyp• • 17. _ ` .41 'sirae ♦ a+ ��,►_ f S v�.4 rii{��r�7 I VI 5.1.AL / *' ca Lr-e `� N'E -�, !i•■! : aft•" �� \ ei ♦Mg ¢ M �tr�a■7M�'♦'a�'�F�\'/(f�l�DI� GOLF CO TE, i! I s'�■ 1 • • 4.. \ ' MNS E • ��" •• J i � fir. I•,1 �+ ' �� �� `f �(I.tl • R��r. : N��\{/ lU :- �■ • IJ u--'� •`. , ' ��� �. •. ♦ Iri JJJ itoau 't JEAN _a . `s -`.�Z. / �.,t/t . • ■■ t► i■ LAi■nroGE -- H(i13 • 1 d4YANr C ■ I N t. ••a■ HOHscHoa L Myvnxras7 _,,..Illa Ti EIFAIEMARI' �, EE.�' l S - y --s,�'. �; - - - L COLLEGE _ Ste.!�"7�S ' saaoL `tea. �t ■• piW.ibls A +f l{ i _ Fitilt ,O 9� :1 p . ■ter■. wauoA At � '�r_,':/l �Q�Ta�u q �1 �� •ill. i..aim HR3N sc witk. t l/ 1 VAr ma 7 __—..mean 74‘,11:4 �i .4 f tau,may�' 1�-t1" r ■a11‘ ■ ! m ■_�. 1` • Sri '. ,'-rlit n an r /Ham_, , gjr.• . I iE.ru. ■ 1� ' , !Sr ° 1. 1 VOW, O iins-1,1 irpE 1QO usax Uo= ■ii ;iv :', 1r/ • • s •si.r! ff ' • IVRE , • N 2:Win=II:SAli.e".ill IL."'"�2'''. '. .41a,: n it �•• e- /*F• � 4.II eAu 't ar d' _ R03Rj,r lit■aka.1 'au:rim itile[ aa'"*s t1 t``, .,_ rs. 'Ar•ii Mfli I an la --9' pQ OAT I Utl..■, ■. ■a! r• ]•■11111' .ar-![ r a�if ♦•• _.i'•Fiilaa ..e. 4 i!!! i■...y. :aYNst' . ♦l LLLLLL"' • en•= ;;,..' - ERua WOODS.a. _ �. , EXHIBIT E-1 qa�•�.414 1..11► ,.,inn' II?t�ii�■ PAIa III[ MI iili�\ _ LU 08-0053 • .sm■.■: % isr VIP ' 411 tabu 'ii/`"!^-� r !at �'F.���� lni:}�a_.M`K I ROAD !T.- ,�.i tir`�..'', ti�D.�■ T4a CANAL ACES ► RIP ,� 1) ArF.T 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Feet MORxs PH it kIke, r._:.. .- fir�e`IF 0 0.2 0.4 0,6 0.8 1 Miles )AII _ im OCTOBER 2Q75 A/B/GIS SERVICES:CIIY OF LAKE OSWEGO 353 — ul .E., N Q �POMIIA,/O, `\ PPp 9A Y/air C COLLEGEWok 16,joi ,RYON CO CE fa2 • (F-. �1 At ..,„_- F P -- 9 SFq xr.mcx_3 ;1 y�y�,Y I cry a. 11p. 4-: iiirii A � �EFF f9 MONhbF `' �S saAr 1, $ It.l _0 .1. -i�.T,4 ` 1 / , ' EFL phi ir n I 13$ Mill QJK °::arth �� - - r R • ' `` ` i �1 ( i_•fHl Sgi00L .!Aa - CARE 08MtiS0 \ I. ' i MOH SCHOOL NA ' 4-a_ I . �J ST II. ARK • /�"414 `' % Lake Oswego Lots r/ kligHoi. �/111j4 .: r Single-Family Residential Zoning oil {- ' - • _- URJAVY• �1S' SEWAGE Lot Size to Minimum Lot Size Ratio TYrroNc• x Q J E�MEM OSWEGO LASE COUNTRY � PLH TREATMENT w SCFKJOLCLU.GOLF GGUFSE _ Ism •� YI.ANT ; Less than 1:1 I $�` • SPRING..00H ®j r� FOOiN S `— WAY PAIR A, TAPE 1:1 1.99:1 a �� „ e y 2:1 3,99:1 MEADOWS ROAD l4 Miff . , HALL a .. ' �l! ;# z, augiL11 ��� � ,� � ' 4:1PAPI11 K7— P.R.---- ii6111116 • I A. .OT)II IHOWPPAS/IUTURlLL A �ftnVIEW . y llw't`U ' PARK CAM f / • J.. �j�1 R .'-. T•„ IY AV fill 7 POST . Y •:E� — \ ...... • - _ _ OPFICE L. i 9 `. ` ,ytaiaair ` 1- J . 11.0 �/f I YIfile 1, SWAT M' YOOEtB -- .r'�� •• —144 -,,, ,,, A/ Lake Oswego City Limits �: MI F :� „„ „ ps�ieg ,T .` ,NV4 - '- A Lake Oswego Urban �. / f� ....�. 1 '�c' +wizei•��/IIII®■ 4Il / Services Boundary ���R. '4 ii 1 :-4, \4 *V.-- --) s,„, ; , MI UM AMP: • iii. -. • 1 .., , I'M;ENE41211 r - I ��A� I. ea P41 0 V..• 1 a '.1 all PI♦�IJJJ.I.4. ' s\\_. B. s•11e41. i *,!► > -.. SCHOOL ��i� S lCWX .....I IIIII Ili r.r . .. I :.� h O r • �` 0 AM= LANE OSWFA• ( - -►AK..� SISTERS OF THE HOLY G. 3.40111111, NAMES COTWENT eDJ NlG PAL I ti CRY Y,, F /OM=' GOLl COURSE a ♦ •a .f. O MAfN1ENANCE ``' �� �4 ' .r •I• �j.+4 p sNOv • �` :�+i► /'. ROAD ` LA FRIDGE ---,. ROTS s.S.. SMARYLHURST HIGH SCf100L S••�n:: (�1B1vii, , _,E,___ ___ ., ,, _ . LOLLERE .. ''' ARA, e&441F'l / 1,.......?' 1 _ 1. • 11 !•'. .• . : ma ,•. . COOTCS ,,a�� t♦•• ,•.� . e,. Patti tj►i+• ■ RO,C6. LD -,}...641.....r„ *.:EA: 41 au:a r: 1 u S✓ I "—..�a � - : EXHIBIT E-2 _ wood ...<L - '_iJ i ' LU 08-0053 �� { . 1 I y DI.R _ 'i • . 1 -Z ' 1 ROAD L�� ��4 G 1 , +` 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Feet J' IrarenuralrEll _e. '� j 0 {'./////�//J\/ ./1("TT �glghry lit.. Nils, Q� •r/ • I.o,..�eo.T R1 ' �' iiTIT i�� II I 0 0,25 0.5 0.75 1 Miles plaMmmommal `MR^ OCTOBER 2005 AlBIGIS SERVCES/CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 354 _I M‘-- 4.1'1. it r N ID PQRTLMO - ,r, if‘ imalilwaimitVr CC1 C LRAIfiY air sore �p0 9A ta- COLOLLCOLLEGE0 , 110 z <6.S *BPpy A SF9 MT!MANIA cy_ 7y} CREEK D,SOC'14% CO STK la la IA" 40,14•11610 Alb kwy il- i„,., .. I . ibt Ij : L . ` PARR �t �.- a �, f y' • 4 — lib. 7 ir— l R la 1 t • LAKE OSWEGO '' _�� f . .j r' _ HIGH SCHOOL w —I IA �vi Ori.:1(ii, �� S ��� " , Lake Oswego Lots SCHOOL ' �r Single-Family Residential Zoning �: a fl . , ' .:•m • ���� �� ( 0 w . is o,,, �s - �� !' �,� , NERO* SA02 mum— ,_ K Building Size FQ -. r. , � H' ELEAfEM I GSITEGGLAAECGVNTRT P"s ^ Vacant or Unknown 1 1 SCERXN. CLUE GOLF COON ` p�F Pt Z (/Se i_a_ SPR!l:GEROOE �r� !• VaS E FOO n'S M ---_�„_%_ F i TI PARE .� �IAKE ` Cm 57AnON — WAY p r� 1 AVENUE PARE. Under 1000 Sq. ft. MEADOWS ROAD "•U /� Ailbil' -"I� at/ a41� �u 1,000 1,999 sq. ft. a -;!16 `N, LA.• ,. ' ``�tv ESA YUN EPARE 2,000 - 2,999 sq. ft. f NTA � ;- •• Alr , � ,,fiP .� - 3,000 3,999 sq. ft. . ;r� A. 4 y ?. !ih � IXON NGUNTALti NATVEA4.LLM rr 4,000 4,999 sq. ft. 11. . / wAwoA r :In HUNT_CLUEWO NoriP vinviroisk.-- • , .r ;__�__�0 1 ,�[, 1'` �,.. LEEGH01£ F.It � �� ��r�1.W 5,000 5,999 sq. ft. - ELEMENTARY ,s. SCHGOL 1. �� �, P057 ,`yy. , ve/4, � a �sw� WyT ' - 6,000 sq. ft. and over • `A _I OTF/CE 4 + mad.; II �V cEOAGE tl �>_'�l�! !Al � 4,- lWW RARE ROGERS _ ��� Lake Oswego City Limits A.Mlle 1i;�'. . f /4`.+��It„:I` !.lr1." .. 1® ril_ Lake Oswego Urban .� _ ail .�° ,` ` r tl` 16 :llI�./NIN i jj Services Boundary , 0--0.0•7, •-•••.. r; ° LAQGAOtE ■/ 4 _,4. tik ea 1 " _ 1F 1 .1s1� 2 _ Illili ��I411V:1 ��� �_. PnRc` HALL j Pi 1 N11 �'''1..` ~a, .*• ii 1lIPO• 1 • V/ate 41E11rig ) INAANS CONVENT Fa 1 SHOP.1EJwt . . ( f •—L .� I I , . a� - HIGH SCHOO I' . . ir a ••e - STR�DCa6- d • (�T.P. f J ; .. E•-=--• l�. I i ENT- ! •, r_- VII1 via J tUSC.Y Ti 3 `:St: • 1 1 II -� •:;y SC7ADOC- _ FA;:M i A i i COOLS an cii A �a 1 f- J ® RIME • la+� rE Q MES R"�M I En �1� 1 •a i9 -.� irr,„ � 4 SEEMS IiIP'. C , VTOODs Al , N EXHIBIT E-3 I PARE 4 ill �! LU 08-0053 • •ff 1 - ..4.4 ii ROPD ' •1 ammo 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Feet CANAL ACRES .2, NATURAL AIMA IN 1 1 olicos t ° /1( .7.1 uowSIT IAT R"`' . `•J I 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0,8 1 Miles LNE♦tort l^'� !: I -PAM —I_..._._ 1.-' = I OCTOBER 2005 A1BIG!S SERWCES?CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 355 --- . N A t ustia,44, ff- PORTLAND W PCP F- COMM IV PI '1,%Ale. '111 -"1, •-. ''' ‘':,.''.''''' .1 1) V4 1'''' Akill'i '' . ''' TRYON C O-LE,3E 111'.* • . 45 - . •i•-•ii.q- --. FV' 0 , 06,6,4, , MT Fl.:o i-N, i 4 <,,,, 4 „j_ t7.1 __ CY= T ,..,.., Pp g 10 4116.,--- -.. ----r------ --- •'_'_•=1H-,>'-'-'--_,---,---3,- - _., , . .. ...,..•-. .., .. _.; 5,,,‘ ,..,,, , _--.--4,,,..„-- . .. .... -7 !IT P, •• #1./- 1 'n . ., F".•. 4. .‘. Us •• 7t,F, _speclks. 4/fah 40144,426*(t-T - - Q164, ilit kW( __mt iv.417 ---____ ___- - -,- __t_ - „. I__ .ion r.... . Qit,- '..-,'.---f_ --1i" iii r Ii_ff.•"....,_ .— . ,3.4 1,.., qv _ ,i AN , All ETATE 1-1,LIE 1 T 1 __ ___ w 1 wil s; • „ * ,. ,. , / At-,=----_. I •))'. .4.' -. i S? _•=0$... ! an --,%1 : Rei ta,i - EBSItUal -.our- • V / ;,..71,,s: , P - k IP IIIK - 4, _,F_o ,.... _ u., gAIC CR AR - •••. Er4t • Ill' ' Irillipp dia... 5.11! *- *kr, - IIIII. 11111:1-. ... -,A1111,..1111114 II • 7,*, ,.2 :• HIGH SCHOOL • ,, scHom se 11/1111 ,i .. ---4..,,ilitg- :::'-- ie • LT /11 1.,ati„,„ - - k 1 - - _ . •••14110,_000\''.......07.7: MIMI 1 'P., E. ' ''' ' _!,..., • 11017v --.1... Mil Lake Oswego Lots 1.,, ‘,, Ilk, 17/11- , _ . .. DARK ST: . .i. . I P 4 00 I 1 _ -111 • .. . .,• --f- 1.,tt51-14,,_----',_ .4, •1',,,,T.'LI ....wow- a. d _ ......... , .. . ..: . ; _ -,,.:_-„_bs.-4.,' •• all 1 ,*10'. .4 " ..-•:elr- 1 I II a.. . , 4 , .- ','.7,fiete =I 11 /-1--. 7 'r70119RiAIL-12--- . '''-- ,../ 1 Single-Family Residential Zoning w - ' A aams# •- •144-.i.4.-Ili Is, 1,- 1 s. DAD .. ZOSSMAN • L-7-- IMIN - ,__ Improvement Value --__,__. ,_< __, ,._ , UPLANDS .,33•i.vi . _ 11 - ro 40:c. ELEMENT-a 2,..r. ' - 069/EGO LAKE COUNTRY I Tr:EASEP/r°nwev,NAGE- POST PLANT 1 Vacant or Unknown z• scHom - 4-- OFFICE mg ' 144. r k,,,At4t S , • CLUB WLF C°r1IBE , EPRINGEROOK •,. .- -Ion , - - AV sTAT'c'N PARE ---...-----17. ,-J__,-- .-- Under$100,000 WAY 4,Tit PARE I. Ili, e„„E 1 $1 00,000 $199,000 ,,l <c --,L_-L-Erzi .z i• MEADOWS ROAD /C40,p '1-1-TAIII -.1 clErra P,I. ri • 4 - III 4, 1-.1-.-i- 1 '`44‘7444.jr-4-iiiii;%••1, "- -- \ 1 it - :," ic RO t- ..=,- .R i ,., - . . Pre, -:.„.i.Jo__.,.,-_...... ,-A-t IELLE/ORItt $200,000 -$299,000 ) --- PARE,p, , al "),6C- 1-111/7,4i3OZ ".-K .. . Val, 1 cigt-; /,,,-.0, , ,,. n-i. . P vt4 P• .0.4 -rlsi‘ _ olliimit- i. * A --- --- --,,,, --,,,, 1111e .4111:-'4:'''14rer:544 ''' $300,000 -$399,000 :44,N4TA iic-Lr'%pH,' '-_,---:1-iii------low";411.17-. -,- \,,,',,;'`,'4.-;.._•,-, ,,n.'-':1 , lion(mown=liATURA6 "a, _. ..7.,(. -$499,000 -'--,....mmui, g . raffilti li i' .i•OSP/EGO M°72"ir 16 11.z604 I**Stf:;4' ia* $500,000 and over l..„1 L--, wpALARru" V,,,,,EGRom .41F lillitite Ill •-•'. il ' -APO W _. N 0;e Ii-7 I Ilip hat .,c• '' )114W , Oar' a' 'Ult • IIIII vs e• I ka''' 7 • N.f P .men f1.4. ink -r-4, cr SCHOOL Ild at gi .'"5kir Ar-, " • % .. ij • 11 U figil i r......4 41 . , 4-4..ciitr. Its OFFICE Ir.aka:, Mil 'it, • ,---,..11. _ el mi. le ..... e ,Rab '!._ .."" •I. • ,,4,-• \„.,._...111 I ' P°57 1 RIVILIPX*Tel 1 .10 ' . ' -1 . • 0E0 ':1- -- 51VIM PARE ROGERS avy, A/ Lake Oswego City L„imits, % ,''L.,- V%-14. -- . . tE,,,,Ilriiiiripill. • _ i1-4--,', ,i._ --......- ' ...'11-11iii■ ItitZ11111 t 0*IfiAi Am ._k„ pp ,._ _L. 1§., ,,,,,...?:`,„. a la -- a •j":1.7-r-i . * .0"-a*,. , 9111• aamot oswego i-_., ....:.: _ __•4:..4.".....7......„2._„&,, A/ Lake Oswego Urban _ t.,i-.. ..,„.4..... ..1==2. I- j _, I It 1 I 1 4`t' 11,111 9.i ri . *t-**1'1:11 ,T...t1 1 1 1 io..'i.° . i.,fs ° 411N B6E Services Boundary _• , .0.....,..0_. F .• Air 'ffm REiiIEBMC ' '' ' '" ' ATT_fidzie. ,...; g ..=1111111.4117 I' ' viiiwi'l" — tiw-,. ..! t• -- ;.._,Q.bui 1 erica.:x----, _...=E--III I= e' .01,. e\i... -..• Lars GROVE 71'1 OW hfi • [g., i • ir --;,, i-Li hit!' , tiA..d*. '.J,, MAI PAUL 4 7-___,I`s, , ii...' 7_ -•-• 1 ,, _ ,___ . *OIL--- ,v-v .--0.* A-, ,—__ 0 * v • .a .,,,-(r , - _ .7, • ill'4.".....4, I-1-.• ,,,.' '‘,.. -,•.(-/ 14 44/a_ k PP -a_• ink', . Ilq- :. oirataw \, • --• ., . ,--_ . i, le -,... -- 141111111*.2 1•,• . .d l k\ . .0/,, _ ._.. _.. A t ••• e ' -11 smi- 44 =Ago .., - • e..,- I _ im-,,a a-"--:\\.,, .-„ , io .._..„,. z., .. -........ ,. iii .,--al '.'1--' -:\ -''`-\-4\ ''''''',I.'' '''-',I'„ ,-,, .11. Ai - , _ ...• 4• --' -147:Filai ----.4_ -_-----...2" -- -/--''---- -r4)-- ...::03-"IkilH a 11-,-2 •.,-....„,,, - F' \'' A %III'''',. ..,.', 4-„.7-4.•u:14 ti g‘gig4 4'il'i•TI /it : --•-:?,-; - `.. ---. ---7 :,.. ... aim, ' - 4------ -c , • -,...;:51,‘‘4.... - ?Or Ir._ . \..---- "114 Ao --. -.- --..r.r.a.: 1-'`),",;4.,./„,• -.„6.3,-.•ruiriiiirw...^. \ I ,,.// ' ../ ,.1 S. lut,,it in PAUSADES 'Nt91 # scwoot. -r-- ,,s. -,-, \_,,,N. 4. ion wail',.. '‘• ' '' ... ,. -. ')CW- ,..." .1V''‘I.kir kviitai..' ,ennui al- .,, . • ' ,."---- 1 /-- -:,.., "116"11 it, - 1- , 'Tr } .... -c....$). MEE NAMES CONVENT 4/ IX Vlk .--. t.1, . El 1 ,.." *...," .,-- ,, lin•M111111111 I ""Tcu'AL ' - I / .._ '\ ..7. .1, I. h-.'.r,. I / ir / / ..'''—.7.---'- '- , va-11111iii 111 . goircouas•/ 41 '‘ . ,um/now 4/ ' ‘'‘ it '1414. W. i'qs, ,,,......p,' 4021, _ 7-.-..-' •.„. MARYMILIRST i•EiMSONOOL JEAN •. ._ • w a, •. . is :--siu mow 4...4,...-•! ..._ , , ...„,„...-„,s, . , ,,.... ..... .... ;:_i ELEMENTARY ''..!:.•",,-, "....a,'- . •-=--..,,___- ..,>---"'"'" \,., , ' ii_ d ..%1 ' ,I ,....-- SCHC'iltiou.u•A JR P_'.'•' .- 2-.*, , ii,, - 1 ---"9 7--) 1 - - * ik TP -" - - - .,,- .virr4 Ldiliq < -• <0'' t i, i_..ir =',.;„ -U_th.,: il •ta ' r V:7•-•4 ' 4 • - , Lth,CHEF. I .74,11.00 lila III . • In91.4.1 . _ 0 .. • ' 491 ‘-.-- , ,-..• .. "II .". mt.-. i 1.•inklimiallb. Ln ...,,,,.,„ &......r ,,,,, SCHOOL,. , FARM '.111 c '''d .4 tiro a' •4 , 411 ILA; 5r aaaaaa-,-44,--F,-.1- . cocci - *.. --,-,' -Atk.4,4„ -_ii- I 0 1 t%,.4.k II -.E•All r• -- .....,,,irL4,,,,"4 ' IAMB a ) - --,--•,„..?„:^ --' ," , ' 3 • i Rqs, , .1 ,m••• '•• , .111..1;kla- '- 6,, 4 .4,, ( si, ,. fl ft.2_4.-‘4111.40, ..F.r. -§&- i l• r / . ..\ .4 44....st..1,: .1 .ans...i-0 4 ± e h e, . , FEL..ad ...1 , ..-•''' _ ;----7-',.''',-...- 1 ...,....‹. ---r C... ' • .)‘, L.,-_-- EXHIBIT E-4 ----rq 1"._4i >••-,,i-c:c1(x,,,,,:i.- • zifilm,Ifiii h I ,. uir . I , ---_ M,....1..,„wa 1 ..... •,,,I. ;Mrs, • SW '- I -Jil - • . 10 ,Iry ",-.-e. • .„, _ -_- 2 I"' IR'_ " i, • ro ,,ie 1/•,,<'.e.,._ -‘, N.,,..- \c.‘,-,1c,„,-..4 ..,„-/•• - ‘;'\.y.'R.. - -- 1.> • 4 -- , , -- - _ --,1<- - • ,,-,, _,,. 7.- ,,.. •i-Ni ,i, , 0i:i Tr7 I Ij trF• rr- [---,. _ .=...T.__ii__„...L_„_;_<t„—,..r_•,i,,fl-:-ri-e-,-.._,1L,.,.L,.,_s;-,_TM_,i r,.,.-,-r.i., pilail nlii kro#,r-- -'._ - 0 1000 .M=120000.4 111300"00.6 4000 00.8 5000 1 Feeti - - L I 1 1 _ 1 l es I i_._ _, ___;T , .I. ‘ ...,-f 11, rm ,ROVFWS emir 4•*._ ---' I. . ;-- .' • , 5 . , 9.1/1 X1 _ ISM tUR . "-- i- ---r- , ._ 4. 11.___ t—Ac: i OCTOBER 2005 AIBIGIS SEFNICESICITY OF LW-OSWEGO ,------------1-7-ks- r -----gY .. -ETr,wr------ r----, - -- - ---- I 441_, _______._. _ , 1 — ,. -__i_ ___ '...1r-I.--- -T-- , 1, .,--c------',:--,.- --r --;., .:. i_ r,:t...1 i -1 356 LLI FORTIAND t/�'! A - conee�lnarr III, i� ` ?A� l' ' couFGE '�•1�II TRYoiCD PQj rr.mvAR A cREEa *,off >STATE//kw V 1. r i VL .!NI '/ *. ii r 0 Wilb 44,1 1 - . I_a MN -' ill I Er . 4 PI)JP ‘..„.kIP- - )A1 Maw AIM F - i' l v"IiirWr il%- ' - . �eiEMrdr -- ti I, - t► _ii. �� SCHOOL - }.*(�. 'lilt - -__ _ ■- ST. - r11 III i . I fXr W614464 $. ,1 Lake Oswego Lots ,k ? VIP VI t IP ..e. ' 111aratie, Single-Family Residential Zoning saoo, 111/ I- 43' .< 0 _ .'„ v � ,RAH K Improvement to Land Value Ratio CE or !!. � fLF4/ "-- - OCYo° C'E SW J; FLAHT GLUE GOLF COURSE Vacant or Unknown Z iCAUs WAY 1 ��AtlI D! 0 �� `_ __ 5 DOE H FOPS 5:1 or less MEADOWS ROAD L In 1 > ` � ;" I tali �t Jilk J ,.. /. -_- YL .6:1-1:1 ‘,.______„ . i,. w ,_ �. PAS 1.1:1 1.5:1 ■■ • } ..q J. ..._ -�[ri OION MOUNTAIN NA t I) i DNITA _ .1 L L I I , '(..� a �711 �� �� -�� - ;,• Elk 1.6:1 - 2:1 Z �® *� ' , -- i nv ,_� it� HtI I' - �`%1(.� ,,. ���-:: I f f` _l,�I 6 I i i1�`` �_ _ I'eE 1 a t k � 1,- - 2.1:1 2.5:1 �. �: , ;,iceriVR3 ID* ■ i ,A a�,ea,� • " '4t ,. , , `�t. I =1 • RVALOGA r, 'rlfa�,,E aie s +. '"• 1- ' - rs "..'Y N .. - ,r:u�ti •[ti_ f' .� 2.6:1 - 3:1 PARa a LAKE GROVE �TAslY ��•��`�r �•, r\`_ ,A i .. �• (s `-- SCHOOL •'r 41.1.. E ■i :� '� '■fir °f► '' 414 ' 'M,® '' Greater than 3:1 1110 gir `�` ,N SWIM PAPI is 1,r DICE I�; -111 „ `�,•�. ,�► J. g ` '��fi i t �� h y` — < ; 1• ,1E1 `'' c c-.t l �. `. , ,,;. ROGEPS ��/ Lake Oswego City Limits i• s:_!a VI!t ' S i V aiT■r,it>> 05�,'ego .. *'� ` `/�2 /€ Fwilis - Lake Oswego Urban �. i. , "�•.,� � .. elk, ` ,,, irtrl- �fi�i/®��■ // v Services Boundary #111'. t. .'�*`,0 7 \..j..,74.00,., sawmill `��� t :.�.Oil him l� ,L, ONE ^' iiiii -- '."..." t. � . _ Wry4 ainine -. \ I ii11 - XV - ,I-^ y TNili o al ''l1+E_ fali ”. . ANN RillrAM AIM° i - ' _ - • ' i A ♦.-1' I- ' 'i°F - iI R.I °-..., `,, A _• o -ea 6 .� � CHRrSn ■ ` s Ar �, .p` �► I ' , X FP r 1 *�'� l"' 1♦ SCHOOL • i 1 II_., 11 ` 4111111 Ilk * tf.1/i A� - i4, ib�si.i! !`�\`'t-- �` �,a4116 ®g LAU cWEGC v /1 g m , . A% •►Aa"� SNAMES MITRE OF ME r .V cm ..-.-111°Ple-i is ;I k RIX ♦ lWNW coLrcovRst ■ CC SHOP /� • JEAN a�'�.�` `. A flw - .�® .• LAIERIDGE �i_ _-c R� !t ✓� \St.' =jmr i .-.. _ • v _ HFGH SCHOOL r/--- / AMYL-URST .-.' F.. _ WALLC34 JR .. . \ a S ' r"I dl T.11 � �4• . l 1m mi, HIGH ••N i, . ,.. yI, R 1 .?t. a Ill I 1 '^—� ■ i Pa;�10., hi ma A LVSCRFH ice� \ f .. ill!■ oat r,, J FARM k . 41O E I / r� rr_. o fiossii _ . i MANT• 4 r 2 a �Li EXHIBIT E-5 i� =J zs I �� LU 08-0053 ell rit -...1 ROAU t- L. .! r - d _. lv. : vitar � ---- CARAT ACRES a■ ('y�tl,[� 1) 7( .7' 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Feet � i' NATURAL AREA y - 0G IIIIMM III �_� h k�y� i 14] 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Miles °'t`_=...- OCTOBER 2005 Ale/GIS SERVICES/CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 357 F,_,, A �hPnnarP y� 1 03 • Q COILEOE ill TIME G � (a� > 2 �S9 rE F9 •r_srvtvu CREEK 9 - 40 -*51/4 okii ay_ , 0 ,,,, t. hb, STATE r %111114- 111111 _ < II� i II f N■ N • 4,...a_ 11 :ARE �` r _ . Ilir Z c $ 4all."till. %I- p 'i% : Mil ,r1 i Ill rag 1 mu e ' " k. ` a jr I ' ' OMCR/a *?4' kati4 --'- . p w Vaiti � I ' —1 � �` �' " /it tip �` ■ E=Lfi ... I ' 1, '►1111 ` fie •./ .,. Wffi[I.I,� . _ LME SCHOOL .9� __ , ,4,' YKv FOAE571F.(,ys �� _ ,�,�. � ` ,�/ - 57 i. - MGM 5r;H001. \ _N - .. , �I 1[ .ftl__+7TMi '- Cc vT` 'P_ _ neo ■■ iii -tea Lake Oswego Lots Pi. ° -1- * IE1 1 1 .mit. _, , LO °„ 'P Single-Family Residential Zoning • • ■■ ( Year Built dL �� �+a ! �J UPLA1®S i MI r i ' )j-.u, ti ,F� hr TMENf CC ELEA�KT = f-' osvFEco LA>a coc:mcr cs .. vosT kRU<._ 7 0- --' J .^~" ELEMENT - *-, ccwooLFcom� J is Awn FmE - Vacant or Unknown g SPRACSROOZ \ -�- ������]]]��.::;���---"'���_! A STAT70H WAY ! rwss 1 `�" y r_in_ OUR Sr A uE euc Pre-1950 MEADOWS ROAD 1 1950 = 1959 laoao �o -4 a . $. _Pip. c� 4IIwar � . ys � _`�' `P;R _ 1960 1969 �- -` f•;s-rat;�#Ylr • i- '° 1970 - 1979 ., q 0. 1♦■ i` 11 r.I� , la /, O_i__. NATURAL AREA ��� `/ I_ f n'- r e f �o ,1 :�� 1980 - 1989 # '% I wAwoA ASWEGO - LAwF pLe-.u� " .'ha IYs`!n r 460 _LT �}4 1990 - 1::r 1 (� . �P .>' if +►••' n'.' �="�r ` 000 or • 0, �A_ • m u cMY �s11110'� ■■ ,y��." 4 ti` ,`j .1Hr'' Lra,(i II , � i� i► 1- o s : 1 1 , ` 4F1 J!!. !!• u1 aroma � ■1.r s �s,), s , ;� .00PlB �, .' ■ t .-! �.• <�,::` ' . a + ,�, - F1= -A W., P ., /�/ Lake Oswego City Limits - • r`.- + ,,1 •�'`�,� s III! ■ N�'�. �\ ' ''�°'nc� pSy►'eg° ',� - ` "e ::• r„_'_`Li!! W ,/ Lake Oswego Urban � 71 . ' IS_ ei lam; ` ji��lc. • !.. F-MILLE�I�d�D ®B - "q Services Boundary 1111.11E *0 1 fllt�� i S \1; �. (� �,1i• `1.7 ` +l� ! , ��f��l ��'.. , �-.Y11 J `iiii _, �,� S c,',' �`,�IL • �� r 1 \ ` . I �y` 4... .a , lb� num. i�� �j ►APi `�� ,� Pj V01 f } i10 w# Ihnu tick 1t • ♦11116 ,I' 3 !Vt.51 !ig Mini i# A ..„,,,,,, A.,.....„ MOM �`. '.:1 Y�I< !aw). I- ,7 I r r ,Ie/ L_ fir F,p,?:,FA I pi ,x ..:CroPsn -v, 1G .' I ` h f tm --1,-pi-1r .�L,- PAL16bES ,+ ^ .�� 1`�� SCHOOL a I, ` ,..�4� <{7l� i y5 !!Si-''b+� ' III''� c.. SCr)OL r L....0, _ � �� lAir a F �, SISERS CF THE HOLY Lo I Qiiik , • ¢ h r� i e�\ !. Rs®� LAgorweoo la • ` ... HAerescoN.t KUNICVAL CO :RANT!iur:ce -� -W -ev 11 7r L, ,ti t, l'N�. , Allb _die WIWIoo>.Fcoucs!<',, I ' 00. �? SHOP � �. , All ROBy [' ` JEAN PI 1 ' .. ♦ e,.6 LAI�R/OLiE .i' .-. -.c @ r C ti rLAKERIiroa I' G' nwruaRST Allt_ - ti BREW! I - - .•.L d �Cy mrsOE fLEA/EMAAYi. �. SCHOOL i �'"1- �1 %� !t: STRUM • LUSCHEB 4 IMI (/ -47 �'� - s 11 _ .,1; SG7fOOl , FARM - _- 1 ` '. ■or . IN t III • COOLS UI %igdr fro _ i � ,,, � � 1. I1 ...,1 ,RY„M EXHIBIT E-6 -f - .1 , WOODS =1,, - , Jo y 40 LU 08-0053 A1A a la ow �� (X, // 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Feet Jzeal _ NATURAL AREA 1 LA, e • 1 ,0m1- ¢,n i r 1) ,AROW]9 rem kr„,,, I , ■ 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Miles MT 0.vII L9I �-y---?TF[ r-�), >� - - OCTOBER AIB GIS SERV'CES1CI]Y OF LAKE OSWEGO 358 0 Process Proposed Infill Standards • 2001 — Infill Task Force formed Planning Commission • 2003— Infill code amendments adopted Public Hearing • 2005-07 —Task Force reformed/expanded —Code concepts and drafting • 2008— Open Hearings �a December 14, 2009 • 2009— PC Review 1_ N :• iior • Milli 2 Infill 2 Task Force Charge Task Force Recommendations Key Themes/Discussions: • Identify changes to the 2003 standards • Citywide standards vs. neighborhood • Duplexes and Attached Dwellings level standards • RID Review and Variances • House size • Sloped Lots • Relationship to Neighbors • Flag Lots and Serial Partitions • Technical adjustments • Flexibility • Page 1 of 5 EXHIBIT E-7 LU 08-0053 1 359 o Task Force Recommendations Design Review Concepts into Code Planning Commission Options: • Neighborhood Planning/Design Review • Staff level design review—similar • Lot Coverage/Floor Area Ratio to RID • Structure Design/Setback Planes • Review for only a limited set of • Yard Setbacks houses—narrow. deep lots • Sloped Lots • No design review • RID Review/Planned Developments • Variances/Miscellaneous Code Provisions • Duplexes/Single Family Attached Dwellings • Flag Lots/Serial Partitions • Lot Coverage % Establish a graduated scale for height and lot coverage- " '. M--• 40 .MK»�.. 35 ' — R-10 Zone R-1.S Lake Grow ._ is i 25 - T. — — t s °_— sons. LL Ni.L_. s,M- —— — "� 15 r_..Existin Lot/] ��\ ri _ _ _;--- .-= . I Coverage- Prop agent .i I I I I t wLiI I I 10 _Coverage La Size(:ar<) 5 111111 Height 18 19 2D 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Page 2 of 5 EXHIBIT E-7 ill LU 08-0053 2 360 • Relationship to Neighbors Relationship to Neighbors Side Yard Design Options 10'setback Planning 20'setback Planning Commission: r Commission: ■ No yard encroachments into five foot Increase ` side yards. No eaves or chimneys tnayY setback fortall ba' _ _ project. t buildings over s� 50 feet in length 2 For corner lots, no , ,;, 50 feet in length balcony exception ¢ , i • Sloped Lots Height Adjustment Steeply Sloped Lots 6 foot exception to base height • Received testimony during hearings on Base height 28' infill standards. 11.161 4 foot adjustment to • Adequate main floor area at street level ��_-_� - --��•�.. —f base height without a variance. for R-6 FAN topography Planning Commission ,; c Planning Commission—other requests testimony zones? 411 Page 3 of 5 EXHIBIT E-7 LU 08-0053 3 361 • Residential!mill Design Revlerii Approved as of M 1y dtfi 2009E 5 S, s .? RID Review ' , a ; R ` Planning Commission: • k =k ' • Process—same as variances )- • ° _ •_ r i • Limit applicability for new construction and major remodels(50% increase in floor area) —Lake �� v? and open space setbacks only V— 4 40 , • For remodels(<than a 50%floor area increase), 1 .,e allow front and rear setbacks and lot coverage to 4 • be adjusted up to 20% only. Side yard • adjustments only for the continuation of existing walls. I o �~~ s Compatibility analysis—20 closest properties . / l • Miscellaneous Code Provisions Flag Lots A , ,3.: • Non-conforming structures: Connecting Lane -Allow rebuilding of an existing structure in the same non-conforming footprint if destroyed by az paves wan] • natural causes. zo'easement -Allow remodeling and reconstruction within the • same non-conforming footprint with no limitation on value of construction. it Planning Commission -Time frame for rebuilding? -Eliminate 2.5% adjustment for floor area Page 4 of 5 EXHIBIT E-7 III LU 08-0053 4 362 • • Flag Lots' Serial Partitions Access Lane = • Street connections required with land divisions Concept - over 1.75 acres in size. Ell illi f" Planning Commission •16'paved w/ 0- —Size threshold for - c - 2'shoulder on - I_ - R-7.3 each side street connectivity. J R-. - t,- I •4 parking ..- \__ 1-11 spaces �I ( I -'I Planning CommissionI '-=- House Orientation and Access I R-�s. Access - Exceptions? _rs: am • • Page 5 of 5 EXHIBIT E-7 LU 08-0053 5 363 364 Exhibit F Written Materials • • • • SUMMARY OF PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR INFILL Infill(Comprehensive Plan Change) ORDINANCE NO 2523 Two Comprehensive Plan policy amendments are proposed. One addresses neighborhood plan implementation and the other focuses on design review for single family houses and duplexes. Neighborhood Plan Implementation The proposed change is a simple insertion of text into an existing policy to make it clear that new neighborhood zones or overlay zones are an appropriate means of implementing neighborhood plans. New text is shown in underline, below. Comprehensive Plan Goal 2 (Land Use Planning)Section 1,Policy 18 18. Develop and adopt specific Neighborhood Plans and implementing measures consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as the means to enhance neighborhood • livability and achieve desired neighborhood character. If appropriate, implementation may be accomplished through creation of a new zoning district or a new overlay zone. A Neighborhood Association may request the Planning Commission and City Council to initiate Neighborhood Plan Map and text amendments at any time, without fee, upon finding that the proposed changes are in the public's interest and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Design Review The second proposed change is a new policy that would direct the City to create a residential design review process to assure that new residential development(single family, duplex, and attached housing)fit in to the community. New text is shown in underline, below. Comprehensive Plan Goal 2 (Land Use Planning)Section 2 Policy 6 6. Establish a design review process for residential development to ensure that new and remodeled structures are compatible with the character and scale of development planned for the surrounding neighborhood. EXHIBIT F-1 • Infill Policy Summary(Ordinance No.2523,LU 08-0053) EXHIBIT F-I (08/25/08) Page I 365 The purpose of residential design review is to assure that any new or remodeled single • family home or duplex fits well within the neighborhood in which it is located. Design review is intended to assure that development is appropriate in terms of size and scale, the relationship to neighbors, and the relationship to the street. The proposed policy for design review was supported by the majority of the members of the Infill Task Force (vote was 8 in favor and 5 against). The issue was discussed extensively and Task Force members generally agreed that the success of a design review process would be dependent on the following items: • The thresholds that would require a house to be subject to design review (size/height/need for a variance). • The complexity, length, and cost of the process. • The criteria for judging the compatibility of a structure. One of the key issues addressed by the task force was house size and whether new houses in Lake Oswego are too large. After discussion and review,the Task Force concluded that compatibility was not simply a matter of size; it was more often an issue of design. Big houses can be compatible if designed properly and small houses can be incompatible if poorly designed. For this reason, the Task Force recommended that the City pursue a design review program for new and remodeled homes in the City. To better explain how a design review process might work, the following alternatives were developed. The alternatives include a number of different thresholds for triggering • design review, including house size, height, yard width, and percent of maximum lot coverage or Floor Area Ratio. The simplest version sets a 5,000 square foot size threshold for design review. The threshold could be set higher or lower depending on community desires. If a lower threshold was established, more houses would go through the process. In doing research, staff found that some California communities trigger design review on any home that is taller than one-story. Residential Design Review Alternatives What are some alternative thresholds for what would trigger design review? • Houses/duplexes over 5,000 sq. ft. in floor area(including the area of the garage). Basements shall be included in the sq. ft. total if considered a story. • Houses/duplexes that exceed the base height requirement of the zone. The use of the six-foot height exception for roof features would require design review. Exceptions to the front and side setback planes would not trigger design review provided they do not exceed the base height requirement for the zone. Chimneys would be exempt, but all other height exceptions would trigger design review. • Houses/duplexes that exceed 80%of the allowed FAR or 90% of the allowed lot coverage on a site. This requires design review for the homes that are beginning to push the upper FAR and lot coverage limits in the zones. Based on data collected • Infill Policy Summary(Ordinance No.2523,LU 08-0053) EXHIBIT F-1 (08/25/08) Page 2 366 • from August of 2003 to July of 2005,these design review thresholds would capture about half of all new single family development. A higher percentage would be captured in the First Addition Neighborhood. Floor Area and Lot Coverage (8-03 to 7-05) Number of Single Family Projects R-6 R-7.5 R-10 R-15 FAR 6 of 8> 80% 14 of 28> 80% 27 of 40> 80% 8 of 19> 80% Lot Coverage 6 of 8> 95% 16 of 28> 90% 19 of 40> 90% 7 of 19>90% The following table provides a comparison of 80%and 90%FAR thresholds. Size Trigger Examples 90% and 80% of Maximum FAR Zone Lot Area for Maximum 90%of maximum— 80%of maximum— Example house allowed DR required on these DR required on these by proposed house sizes house sizes FAR R-7.5 7,500 sq ft 4,225 sq ft 3,803 sq ft 3,380 sq ft R-7.5 10,000 sq ft 4,850 sq ft 4,365 sq ft 3,880 sq ft R-10 10,000 sq ft 5,000 sq ft 4,500 sq ft 4,000 sq ft R-10 15,000 sq ft 6,250 sq ft 5,625 sq ft* 5,000 sq ft R-15 15,000 sq ft 6,350 sq ft 5,715 sq ft* 5,080 sq ft* *5,000 sq ft limit would trigger DR • Houses/duplexes with floor area greater than 2,500 sq. ft. when on lots that are: o Less than the minimum lot size of the base zone, including lots within Planned Developments. o Less than 60 feet in width at the front building line. • Houses/duplexes with side yards less than the minimum listed in the base zone or where the total side yard dimensions are less than totals listed below: • Lot Conditions Total of Both Side Yards Less than 65 feet wide 15 feet 66-100 feet wide 20 feet More than 101 feet wide 30 feet (Note: These thresholds need to be tested.) • Additions to houses/duplexes that cause any of the thresholds listed above to be exceeded. • Infill Policy Summary(Ordinance No.2523,LU 08-0053) EXHIBIT F-1 (08/25/08) Page 3 367 • What are some alternatives for the proposed review process/procedure? ■ Establish a five member Residential Design Board (RDB)to make decisions on houses projects that go through design review. The Board should be made up of four design professionals and one at-large citizen. All should reside within the urban services boundary of the City. • The Residential Design Board should follow a process similar to the current RID process where the Board will make a decision and then provide notice of the decision. Notice will be sent to all properties within 100 feet plus additional properties so that no less than 20 properties are notified. Hearings would occur only if requested within a certain time period following the issuance of the notice. • An application to RDB would require a site plan, floor plans, building elevations, an analysis of surrounding development, and a list of building materials. The plans submitted may be preliminary concept plans, but must be of sufficient detail to allow design review and to allow development of final plans that conform with the preliminary plans. The RDB would not review plans for compliance with the building code. Conflicts resulting from building department review of the plans would need to go back to the RDB or be resolved through a new process to address minor changes in plans. • The fees should cover the cost of the process. Design review may be combined with other processes such as variance requests. In such cases,the fees may be reduced. • Approval criteria should require conformance with design guidelines that are developed as part of a design handbook and any specific design guidelines that are developed for an individual neighborhood. Design guidelines are considered essential for the success of the design review process. • Infill Policy Summary(Ordinance No.2523,LU 08-0053) EXHIBIT F-1 (08/25/08) Page 1 368 • Review Process—Flow Chart ApproximateTiming Pre-application Screening with Staff -- I Pre-application Conference 15 days ■ Neighborhood Association notice Application Submitted 15-30 days I Application Deemed Complete 30-45 days 1 Review and Preliminary Decision by DRB 15 days I Notice of Preliminary Decision 7 days 8 Surrounding properties I Decision Final if Hearing Not Requested- 30 days IIIHearing Scheduled if Requested I -- Notice of Hearing 15 days I Hearing before DRB I Notice of Decision—Opportunity for Appeal to City Council • Infill Policy Summary(Ordinance No.2523,LU 08-0053) EXHIBIT F-1 (08/25/08) Page 5 369 • • 370 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS FOR INFILL Infill (Code Changes) ORDINANCE NO 2524 The proposed code changes are intended to implement the recommendations of the City of Lake Oswego's Infill Task Force. The Task Force was originally formed in 2001 and produced a set of recommendations that were codified in 2003. The Task Force was reconvened in 2005 to evaluate the 2003 code amendments, make refinements, and address issues that were not resolved by the 2001 group. The summary below describes the proposed code changes by topic area. Each description is followed by a listing of the code sections that are proposed to be amended. 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendments—Neighborhood Planning/Design Review Issues: Incompatible houses sizes; City-wide code standards that don't always fit the unique characteristics of neighborhoods. Proposals: Two Comprehensive Plan text amendments have been proposed. One recommends using overlay zones to implement neighborhood plans and protect neighborhood character. The second recommends instituting a design 110 review process for single family,duplex, and attached dwellings. See the materials regarding Ordinance 2523 for details and a summary of the proposals. 2. Lot Coverage and Maximum Floor Area Ratio Issues: Floor Area Ratio (FAR)and lot coverage tables result in abrupt step changes; FAR calculations sometimes result in inequities (garages and high ceilings are exempt). Proposals: • Adjusts lot coverage to eliminate the abrupt step change in coverage based on house height. Provides more flexibility and slightly greater lot coverage in order to encourage lower scaled houses. • The FAR is one method the City uses to limit house size and tie the floor area to the area of the lot. The proposal revises the FAR scale to eliminate abrupt step changes in house size based on lot size. A formula is proposed. • Amends FAR standards to include garages. The changes do not address room height or volume. • Current code allows a bonus in lot coverage and FAR when the garage is located to the rear of the primary structure. The proposal defines "to the rear of the primary structure" as at least 20 feet behind the front. • Amends the code to eliminate the bonus in lot coverage and FAR for detached garages in the First Addition Neighborhood. The original intent, to break up massing, is being subverted through the construction of multiple garages. 110 EXHIBIT F-2 Summary of Infill Related Code Amendments (Ordinance No. 2524, LU 08-0053) Exhibit F-2 (08/26/08) 1 371 I FAR—Garage Issue Two houses with exactly the same size and bulk. Garages are currently exempt from FAR. Garage I Meets FAR— large garage Exceeds FAR—small garage Section 2 - Lot Coverage and FAR—Sections to be amended: 50.08.040 Lot Coverage - R-7.5, R-10, and R-15 50.07,035 Lot Coverage -R-6 50.06.040 Lot Coverage - R-0, R-2,R-3, R-5, and WR 50.08.042 FAR- R-7.5, R-10, and R-15 50.07.037 FAR - R-6 50.06.035 FAR- R-0, R-2, R-3, R-5, and WR 3. Structure Design and Setback Planes • Issues: Tall houses close to the property line can be incompatible. Tall houses on corner lots can overpower the 4441, , streetscape. Current wall plane standards ""' _, need more flexibility. l Proposals: Applies the existing front setback plane �;�- `=_ concept to corner lots and side yards to o . - 7.7- 7_ push the mass and bulk to the center of the + " : : lot. • Creates a menu of design options from which applicants might choose to reduce the actual and perceived scale of neighbor-facing side elevations. Options include wall plane limitations, off-sets, Setback Plane:The roof must fit behind porches, and landscaping. the plane established by the lines. Section 3 - Structure Design—Sections to be amended: 50.22.025 Special Yard Requirements 50.06.050-060 R-0, R-2,R-3, R-5, and WR 50.07.040 R-6 50.08.045 R-7.5, R-I 0 and R-15 Summary of Infill Related Code Amendments (Ordinance No. 2524,LU 08-0053) Exhibit F-2 (08/26/08) 2 372 • 4. Yard Setbacks Issues: Houses are too close to the street on corner lots in the R-7.5 zone. Side yards are too narrow in the First Addition when two abutting lots both have five- foot setbacks. Proposals: • Provides a minimum 15-foot setback for corner lots in the R-7.5 zone. • Provides a minimum 7.5-foot setback for side yards in the R-6 zone. Section 4 -Yard Setbacks— Sections to be amended: 50.08.030 R-7.5 50.08.025 R-6 5. Sloped Lots Issues: Provide greater flexibility on steeply sloped lots. Proposals: • Makes a distinction between sloped lots and steeply sloped lots (a steep slope is one with an average slope of 25%). • On lots with sloping topography, provides up to a four feet increase in height on the downslope portion of the lot to allow for more floor area at a single • level. • On steeply sloped lots with at least 10 feet ti • 1 of elevation change across the building i'. 2K' b. envelope, allows an increase in height from i '"'^ ; 35 feet to as much as 45 feet, provided " , 3;' certain conditions and design standards are met. ' k.moi • Adjusts how the front setback plane is - measured for slopping lots. For downslope Eie`• lots, the base height is measured from the street centerline. For upslope lots,the front setback plane follows a 6:12 slope or the actual slope within the building envelope, whichever is greater. • Allows an 18-foot minimum setback on steeply sloped lots. • Does not require support structures to be enclosed. • Establishes the front setback plane based on the average slope of the land on steeply sloped lots. Section 5 - Sloped Lots—Sections to be amended: 50.02 Definitions 50.06.050-060 R-0, R-2, R-3, R-5, and WR 50.07.030-040 R-6 50.08.030-045 R-7.5, R-10 and R-15 • Summary of Infill Related Code Amendments(Ordinance No. 2524, LU 08-0053) Exhibit F-2 (08/26/08) 3 373 6. RID Review • Issues: The Residential Infill Design(RID)Review process has been used for too wide a range of design adjustments. A very limited number of neighbors receive notice of the review process. Proposals: • Limits application of the current Residential Infill Design (RID)process. If approved, the RID process could no longer be used for adjusting lot coverage, floor area ratios (FAR), and height. • Provides notice to properties within 200 feet of the site. • Makes requested adjustments to the Floor Area Ratio a variance process rather than a RID process. Section 6 - RID Review—Sections to be amended: 50.81.010 Notice of Minor Development Application 50.72.020 Residential Infill Design Review Standards 50.68.015 Classification of Variances 7. Planned Developments/Open Space Dedications Earlier this year, the City Council amended the Community Development Code to restrict the use of the Planned Development process and to ,. • ' rp � eliminate the requirement for common open space tracts and Planned Developments on parcels F ; � smaller than 75,000 sq. ft. in size. The change requires all lots in these small developments to meet the minimum lot size of the zone. Further G S code amendments to the Planned Development section are not part of the current package of changes. 8. Variances • Issues: Some code requirements discourage the remodeling of existing structures by making it too difficult to modify existing dwellings. In some situations, the Class 1 variance process can be used to reduce side yards to less than five feet. Proposals: • Allows variances for continuation of nonconforming building walls as long as the house does not grow larger than allowed in the zone. • Allows for variances to preserve trees. • Allows for variances for minor remodeling projects. • Allows for Class 1 variances where survey errors have resulted in nonconforming homes. • Requires Class 2 rather than Class 1 variances for reductions in side yard setbacks that are reduced to less than five feet. Section 8 - Variances— Sections to be amended: 50.68.015 Classification of Variances • Summary of Infill Related Code Amendments(Ordinance No. 2524, LU 08-0053) Exhibit F-2 (08/26/08) 4 374 • 9. Miscellaneous Code Provisions Issues: Remodeling projects require additional flexibility. Proposal: • Allows for reconstruction of nonconforming houses after fire or other destruction. • Allows increases in roof pitch for nonconforming structures where the height limit of the zone is not exceeded and no additional living space is created as a result. • Provides new approval criteria and process for remodeling projects that exceed code standards by no more than 2.5%. Section 9 - Miscellaneous Code Provisions- Sections to be amended: 50.70.020 Nonconforming Structures 50.70.005 Nonconforming Structures 50.79.010 Ministerial Development Classification 10. Duplexes and Single Family Attached Issues: Infill standards don't apply to duplexes and attached single family units. Proposal: • Applies infill standards to duplex and single family attached housing. • Provides greater flexibility in meeting garage standards. • Section 10 Duplex and Single Family Attached- Sections to be amended: 50.06.065 R-0, R-2,R-3, R-5, and WR -Garage Appearance 50.07.047 R-6 - Garage Appearance 50.08.055 R-7.5, R-10 and R-15 - Garage Appearance 11. Flag Lots/Serial Partitions. Issues: Flag lots are isolated from the surrounding neighborhood. Greater flexibility for some types of flag lot development is needed. Proposal: • Requires the front of the lot to be the side from which access is taken. • Requires a"connecting lane"with houses fronting on the lane. • Sets standards for the "connecting lane." • Changes setbacks to provide more flexibility. • Requires a five-foot setback from the access drive to existing house on parent parcel. • Requires a 10-foot setback from the access drive with at least 20 feet for a parking area. • Requires street connectivity for properties of 1.75 acres or greater. Section 11 - Flag Lots/Serial Partitions- Sections to be amended: 50.68.015 Classification of Variances 50.20.020-030 Flag Lot Standards 50.57.020 Standards for Construction • 50.60.005-035 Street Connectivity Summary of Infill Related Code Amendments(Ordinance No. 2524, LU 08-0053) Exhibit F-2 (08/26/08) 5 375 O . 376 Exhibit F-3 Infill Task Force Refinements to the Proposed Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code October 2008 The Infill Task Force met on August 21, September 24, October 1, and October 8 to review and finalize the proposed amendments. The proposed changes below represent the recommended changes to the versions of the plan and code amendments that were distributed in advance of the September 22 Planning Commission hearing. New language or new deletions are highlighted. Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Ordinance 2523 Page 2 Comprehensive Plan Goal 2 (Land Use Planning) Section 2 Policy 6 6. Establish a design review process for residential development to ensure that new and remodeled structures are compatible with the character and scale of development present or planned for the surrounding neighborhood. 110 Community Development Code Amendments - Ordinance 2524 — Attachment B Page 8 Section 50.02.005 Definitions—Floor Area Floor Area. The combined square footage area(measured from the exterior of the surroundin exterior walls framin of a building or portions thereof of all stories of a building excluding: • vent shafts, • court yards, • garages,(except as modified in: o the R-5 zone(Section 50.06.035)(1)(b)(i), for residential development; o the R-6 zone (Section 50.07.037(1)), for outright permitted residential development; o the R-7.5, R-10, and R-15 zones (Section 50.08.042(1), for single family dwellings); •—allowable projections, • decks, • patios, • uncovered exit stairs,and • uncovered, above-grade driveways. Exhibit F-3,LU 08-0053 10/23/08 Page 1 377 •Where a square footage limitation is imposed by this Code upon a building or structure, the method of measuring the square footage shall be presumed to be by"floor area" unless otherwise stated. Page 13 Appendix 50.07-D The Task Force requested that a new perspective drawing replace the proposed diagram. Staff is having a new drawing prepared. Pages 18, 19,and 20 Structure Design—Treatment 2—Side Yard Features- EXCEPTION The following language is proposed for the exception section in each of the three code sections: 50.85.045 (3)(b)(i), 50.07.040(4)(b)(i), and 50.06.060(2)(b)(i): EXCEPTION: Window bays may be utilized to satisfy the requirement for offsets. Such windows shall extend a minimum of twelve inches outward from the main wall of a building and shall form a functional bay or alcove in an interior room wig-the strueture. Bay windows used to meet this requirement shall not be exempt from setback requirements., Page 22 Structure Design Corner Lots—Side Yards That Abut Streets The following language is proposed for each of the following sections: 50.85.045 (4) 50.07.040(4), and 50.06.060: a. Corner Treatment 1 - Covered Side Porch. The side yard elevation shall • include a covered porch. The porch shall be a minimum of 80-square€eetfeet in area, a minimum of five feet deep, and shall extend along a minimum of 25% of the side elevation that faces the street. The porch must meet setbacks. The : i» entry to the house shall be along tt,e F on* 1 b. Corner Treatment 2—Balcony. The side yard elevation shall include a second floor balcony. The balcony shall be a minimum 30-square€eetfect in area, and a minimum of three feet deep. The `b�allcony may encroach four feet into the setback. shall meet cetb.aek . T rentry-to the-heuse-sha l'be ateng the-rront elevation. Note: It is unclear whether the Task Force wanted the four loot encroachment for the balcony to also apply to the side porch. Page 24 Appendix 50.07-H The Task Force requested that a new drawing illustrating the "change in roof form" be prepared to accompany the proposed diagram. Staff is having a new drawing prepared. Page 27 Section 50.02 Definitions Steep Slope. The Task Force requested that a drawing be provided to illustrate how slopes are to be measured. Staff is having a new drawing prepared. • Exhibit F-3,LU 08-0053 10/23/08 Page 2 378 • Page 28 Appendix 50.07.030-A The Task Force requested that a new drawing be provided to better illustrate the R-6 zone height adjustment methodology. Page 28 and Page 29 Base Height The Task Force asked that a definition be provided for Base Height. Section 50.02.005 Definitions-Base Height Base Height. The height allowed by the underlying zone district prior to the application of any height exceptions that may be authorized by the code. Page 28-29 Section 50.06.055 (5)(a) a. Single family dwellings- building height may be increased by one foot for Ievery five additional feet in yard setback on all sides, beyond the minimum base underlying zone code standards provided in subsections I and 2 above; or Page 28 Section 50.06.055 Height of Structures(R-0, R-2, R-3, R-5, and WR zones) The Task Force determined that the sloped lot height adjustment methodology that was developed for the R-6 zone should not be broadly applied to other zones. It may be appropriate on lots that are less than 6,000 sq. ft. in size and where the local neighborhood association agrees to the adjustment. III2. Except as provided in subsection (l)(e)above , the base height of a structure in the R-0, R-2, R-3 and R-5 zone shall not exceed 28 feet on flat lots or 35 feet on sloped lots. Examples of p •tted ptions e illustrated nY.a. ...J VT JvI ITITTTG Appendix 5 T above e-na g-r'ade--(sec Append 50.07.0', -) Page 29 Section 50.08.035 Height of Structures (R-7.5, R-10, and R-15 zones). The Task Force found that this provision should not be applied broadly. It may be appropriate in areas such as McVey-South Shore and Hallinan where substandard lots exist(many lots in the area are below the minimum lot size of the R-7.5 zone). Additional work is needed to coordinate with these neighborhood associations to determine if the concept is suitable for these areas. op$ h* tw h ll b 1 x-iriruTirva�c-rrcF�rrcuciv�szrmc�arcc�rrc�rr-vim II/ withirt-the-hu-iklift-etwelepe-ex-eept-that-iti-ne-ease-shall-the-base-height-be Exhibit F-3,LU 08-0053 10/23/08 Page 3 379 4110 Page 46 Planned Development Standards The Task Force requested that the Planning Commission revisit the 2007 proposal for Planned Development setbacks that was submitted as part of the code amendments related to open space requirements within planned developments. The proposal provided minimum standards for setback adjustments within all PDs. The Commission removed the proposal from the recommendation to the Council because it went beyond the issue of open space and because they wanted to consider the proposal in the context of the other infill amendments. The original Task Force proposal follows: Section 50.17.015 Authorization 5. Except as required by LOC 50.06.050(5), the reviewing authority may grant exceptions to the minimum side yard setbacks of the underlying zone, without the necessity of meeting the requirements of LOC Article 50.68 (Variances) if the requirements of 50.17.015M are met, and: a. Proposed lot sizes are less than the minimum size required by the underlying zone, or b. Lesser setbacks are necessary to provide additional tree preservation or protection of abutting natural areas. 20' separation of portions exceeding 18' c. Side yard setbacks shall not be reduced to less in height—standard setback 10' than 8 feet except under the following circumstances: i. Structures on abutting lots within the development are separated by no less than 16 feet when A all portions of the structure within the standard setback are no greater than 18 feet in height. 18' ii. Structures on abutting lots within the development are separated by no less than 20 feet when 6' 10' any portion of the structure exceeds 18 feet in height within the standard setback area. 1 0' PL This limitation does not affect the underlying base zone yard setbacks when those setbacks are less than 8 feet. Page 50 Article 50.70 Non-Conforming Uses The Task Force recommended that the non-conforming use section be amended to separate non-conforming use requirements for intentional demolition and accidental destruction. They want to assure that if a house is accidentally destroyed it can be rebuilt in the same footprint. They also want greater flexibility for remodeling projects so that there are greater incentives to keep existing buildings. Staff and a sub-committee of the Task Force are working on a proposal. Pages 53 and 56 Garage Appearance and Location The Task Force recommends that Sections 50.06.065 (1)(b)(ii)(4)(C) and 50.08.055 (1)(a)(ii)(D)(3)be modified as follows: • Exhibit F-3,LU 08-0053 10/23/08 Page 4 380 • An enclosed outdoor living space is located between the front of the house,the garage, and the public right-of-way. The enclosure shall consist of wood and, wrought iron, brick, stucco, stone, or other masonry fencing(excluding concrete block) and include an operable entryway gate(see Appendix 50.06.065 (2)(b)(ii)(4)(C)); and.... Page 59 Appendix 50.20.025(A) The Task Force acknowledged that the lots fronting the street are similar to comer•lots. Section 50.20.025 Lot Configuration Requirements. 1. Determination of Front Yard: creation, tThe front yard shall be determined as follows: from ch-acces -is-taken. Except for a lot that fronts on a public street.the front yard(s) of a flag lot shall be measured from the access lane or from a projected extension of the access lane through the property (see Section 50.20.030 (6) for setback requirements). (Note: A front yard occurs on either side of the access lane of the flag lot. See Appendix 50.20.025(4-A)). If this standard ' t' ble due to pl� nt of l t1lIJ JlullUU.I,J 1J 11V1 j.Jl il�.•llLil a easement. Appendix 50.20.025(4-A) Front Yards for Flag Lots and Lots Abutting Access Lanes Flag lot access lane Front yard I jj measurement locations Lots fronting on the street must meet the front yard requirement on the street and the setback requirement on the access lane. 411 Exhibit F-3,LU 08-0053 10/23/08 Page 5 381 Page 59 Flag Lots The Task Force recommended that the Planning Commission consider reducing lot width in certain areas as a way of discouraging flag lots. 1111 Exhibit F-3,LU 08-0053 10/23/08 Page 6 382 Proposal for Design Review for Famil-Sin le and Single-Family Two-Family Dwellings — January 25, 2007 A small work group assembled on January 22, 2007 to craft a proposal for establishing a design review process for single family and two-family dwellings. The group included: Jim Bolland, Heather Chrisman, Sherry Finnigan, Carolyn Krebs, and Emogene Wagoner. Mary Lou Colver e-mailed her comments to the group. The elements of the proposal follow: Summary of Proposal: Require design review for single-family and two-family dwellings where the dwellings exceed certain size and dimensional thresholds. Establish a five member Design Review Board to make decisions. What would trigger design review? • Houses/duplexes over 5,000 sq. ft. in area(including the area of the garage). (There were mixed opinions on the work group about whether basements should be included in the area measurement to trigger design review). • Houses/duplexes that exceed the base height requirement of the zone. The use of the six-foot height exception for any roof feature (including setback plane exceptions • would require design review. Note: Chimneys and flag poles would be exempt. • Houses/duplexes that are over 80%of the maximum allowed FAR or lot coverage in the zone. Note: This requires design review for the homes that are beginning to push the upper FAR and lot coverage limits in the zones. Zone Lot Area for Maximum house 80%of maximum— Example allowed by DR required on proposed FAR these house sizes R-7.5 7,500 sq ft 4,225 sq ft 3,380 sq ft R-7.5 10,000 sq ft 4,850 sq ft 3,880 sq ft R-10 10,000 sq ft 5,000 sq ft 4,000 sq ft R-10 15,000 sq ft 6,250 sq ft 5,000 sq ft R-15 15,000 sq ft 6,350 sq ft 5,080 sq ft* * 5,000 sq ft limit would trigger DR • Houses/duplexes with side yards less than the minimum listed in the base zone or where the total side yard dimensions are less than totals listed below: Lot Conditions Total of Both Side Yards Less than 65 feet wide 15 feet 66-100 feet wide 20 feet More than 101 feet wide 30 feet EXHIBIT F-4 Note: These thresholds need to be tested. LU 08-0053 • Residential Design Review 1 01/22/2009 383 • Additions to houses/duplexes that cause any of the thresholds listed above to be • exceeded. • Unresolved Issue—Planned Developments The work group expressed a desire to require design review for homes built on lots within PDs where lots are smaller than the minimum lot size of the zone. The City must provide a clear and objective option for obtaining a building permit so we can not automatically require design review for these lots. It would be possible to lower the FAR threshold or the baseline size requirement in PDs. What is the proposed review process/procedure? • Establish a five member Residential Design Board to make decisions on houses projects that go through design review. The Board should be made up of four design professionals and one at-large citizen. All should reside within the urban services boundary of the City. • The Residential Design Board will follow a process similar to the RID process where the Board will make a decision and then provide notice of the decision. Notice will be sent to all properties within 100 feet plus additional properties so that no less than 20 properties are notified. Hearings occur only if requested within a certain time period following the issuance of the notice. • The fees shall cover the cost of the process. • The design review process may be combined with other processes such as Class 1 variances or RID review. In such cases,the fees may be reduced. The work group agreed that all RID decisions should go to the Residential Design Board. • Approval criteria will be similar to RID criteria based on compatibility with neighboring development and complementary to the streetscape. The criteria will include conformance with any design guidelines that are developed as part of the proposed design handbook or any specific design guidelines that are developed for an individual neighborhood. • Residential Design Review 2 01/22/2009 384 Design Review for One- and Two-Family Dwellings • Proposal: Create a residential design review board to review and approve plans for new and expanded one-and two-family homes. Applicability could be triggered by any of the following: - A structure with over 3,600 sq.ft.of floor area plus the area of the garage. - Multiple structures on a lot where the total combination of floor area,garage area,and accessory building square footage is greater than 4,000 sq.ft. - New replacement homes that have a 25%greater floor area and garage area when compared to a structure that previously occupied the site within the previous 5 years. Task Force Position: The Task Force has been split on the concept of design review for one-and two-family dwellings. There is no consensus position. Given the lack of agreement,draft code language has not been prepared. Unresolved Issues: There are a number of unresolved issues regarding residential design review. These include: - Procedures/Hearings—Should the residential design review board hold a public hearing on each application or should it make a decision then send notice of the decision and provide interested parties and opportunity to appeal? Hearings always require more time. - Notice—How much notice should be provided? Notice to property owners within 100 feet is the minimum amount required by state law. - Fees—Should fees cover the cost of the process? - Board—How large should the board be? Is it the decision making body or is it advisory much like the role of the advisors in the Residential Infill Design Review Process. Other Communities: There are a number of communities in California that require design review for single family homes. A summary is attached on the following pages. Other than within some historic districts,staff is not aware of any community in Oregon that conducts design review on one-and two- family dwellings. • EXHIBIT F-5 LU 08-0053 385 w co co Design Review Boards City Zoning #Staff to Requirements for Bd Members Fees for Review Requirements for process of Support Bd review/applications Berkeley The DRC is a subcommittee 2 Membership should include a DR.-signs&awnings-$345; Applications must include Site Plans, of the Zoning Adjustments minimum of two licensed architects, proj value<50K-staff Landscape Plans,Elevations,Floor Bd. The responsibilities, one licensed landscape architect,and review/$436,DRC,$818— Plans,Cross-Sections/Vicinity Map, review proceedings, two laypersons. >50K-staff review/$700, Preliminary Color and Material procedures,standards, DRC,$1350—Final Samples Board(10"x 18"); for Final criteria,purpose,etc.of the review/value<50K,$621; Review,all of the above plus site design review is part of the value 50/149K,$725; photographs,model,perspective city codes. 150K>$2077 drawings.Online application packets are available(attached) Carmel Have ordinance packages that 2 Do not require any particular number Not available online Process requires a Preliminary Site include design objectives and of design professionals.5 member Assessment prior to submittal of have detailed/illustrated board;duties include-conduct public design plans,which involves design guidelines to evaluate hearings,review evidence and act on submitting topographic survey of the projects. Codes covers permit applications. property showing existing structures, purpose& trees and other improvements/then an applicability/commercial& on-site visit by staff to direct residential design review,and applicant for the next step. conditions of approval;one section outlines DRB • procedures _ Del Mar Design review is part of code Seven-member citizen committee Design Review Application is required/Site Plan, (DRO);no building permit appt.by City Council;general Determination—$880; Urban runoff Threat Assessment/site will be issued for a structure requirements are"persons who by DR,<500sgft,$1600;DR, photos/Material Board/Public that requires a Design Review experience,training,education or 500-1500 sqft,$2345; Noticing Package permit until that permit is occupation have demonstrated talent >1500 sqft,$3120 issued/single&multi-family & interest in developing the structures/landscaping/fencing aesthetics of environmental design.." • III S • S S City Zoning #Staff to Requirements for Bd Members Fees for Review Requirements for process of Support Bd review/applications I lillsburough Design Review consistent 3 Planning Five-member Bd.of volunteers, First mtg w/staff-no fee; The Architecture&Design Review with Town's Zoning staff assist consisting of citizens who have prelim review by Bd-$700; Bd.conducts public Ordinance;with Design Bd. background and/or experience in new houses-$1500; hearings/considers design of new Guidelines they were trying design or construction;appt.by additions,$840; houses,additions,landscaping. for minimal potential negative Mayor/City Council fences/gates,$675;see Fencing/gates and other exterior impact to neighborhoods attached changes. Developed Residential Design Guidelines/detailed application is required. Laguna Beach Standards of design are Zoning staff Board of Adjustment/Design Review Not available online Application must include;site survey, written into the codes and (5.6)supports Bd.;six members;zoning division panoramic views/with neighboring reflect building and zoning DRB has 5.6 employees that provide staff structures/colored elevations,a ordinances support to the Design Review Board model,color&materials board,site photos,viewshed analysis,landscape plans,grading/drainage plans, lighting I,os Altos Has Design Guidelines for They have an Architecture&Site one-story residential DR- Application includes full-size plans, new homes&remodels that Review Committee,composed of $750.00;two-story location&type of easements; reflect codes and zoning three members of the Planning residential DR-$1500 setbacks,locations of structures on Commission,reviews all proposed adjacent properties/floor projects for design/site planning, ratios/elevations/cross sections/roof screening,landscaping,and plans/grading&drainage plan/tree materials. protection and landscape plan Monterey All projects must meet Planning Interest in and knowledge of Commercial/industrial/apart Application should include General applicable zoning standards Department architecture,design and landscaping ./2 story commercial information/Neighborhood before scheduling ARC staff are important considerations for additions-$800;commercial Compatibility checklist,Site Plan, review. The ARC evaluates supports/2 ARC appointments/seven members additions/remodels/exterior Floor Plan,Roof Plan,Elevation, access,on-site circulation, improvements-$200 details and sections. grading,tree impacts, Residential/1 or 2 story or building placement,landscape 2nd story additions,$270; 1 areas,landscape planting, story additions/exterior architectural style,bulk,mass alterations-$125;for signs, &color _ large$175,small.$100 w CO V w CO CO City Zoning Ai Staff to Requirements for Bd Members Fees for Review Requirements for process of Support Bd review/applications Redondo Beach Design guidelines are Admin.Design Review-Planning Planning Commission Guidelines comprised of design Review guidelines applicable to the R-1 zone i.e. staff reviews.Mandatory reviews by reviews$1400 standards/mandatory/(fall under established- lots ranging from 5000 to Planning Commission Planning Commission Design concern from 7500 sqft/lot frontages 40-50 Review,carries fees—design trend of tearing feet or under;also cover guidelines/discretionary(falls under down modest multi-family Admin Design Review,no fees/. homes and developments/mass& Covers replacing with bulk/guidelines developed mass/bulk/setbacks/streetscape/garage larger homes that thru workshops&public placements applications for both have mass and hearings bulk out of character with the established neighborhood Santa Barbara Design Review is done by the 3 Staff Nine member board/members must There is a$75 fee for Application&feesNicinity Map& Architectural Board of members be qualified electors of City&:2 postponement of a Project Tabulations/Exterior Review/ABR guidelines are support ABR licensed architects practicing in the scheduled review Elevations/Site Sections/Floor-Roof part of the codes(zoning& with one City;2 licensed landscape architects meeting/other fees are not Plans/Rough Sketches/Preliminary building)&cover other Planning practicing in the City;3 members available online Landscape Plans/Color&Material design restrictions/regulations Commission with professional qualifications in Samples/Exterior Details/ Liaison& but not limited to building design, City Council structural engineering or industrial Liaison design;2 members representing public at large Tiburon See Design Guidelines;they Have at least one design professional Filing fee is$300.00 Tiburon requires approval of a Site are NOT requirements/those on the DRB,but it is not a Plan&Architectural Review are included in the ordinances requirement/BD. is comprised of five application for all new construction& which cover setbacks, members appointed by the Town exterior changes to existing buildings. building height limits,etc. Council. Also required: Floor Plan/Site Cross Section/Architectural Elevations/Landscape Plan/Exterior Details/Color&Material Palette. • • III S S S a H `r • Ilit 1 i d' 'k J - i �1 't ....t - s ;V si sr JI � � TJ - a W. . r�•n- •t. a 1 '1 • 7 < h � ,, �t,� ire +M S ~ } { v y • N�i"r•.F++ :a•^i'V" .I.-:Sr w, .F .- >< 4. �' .�s y. � is ��I: 'C a. y e f �A t f Palo Alto 4 -� S i nc le-Family U e t" tC E B V J•' 'I r rL T • i rp t %P r .rKy_.I�1 ,.'h i iIndividual Guidelines eview i iM' �4��5 f � ` 4w ve h - qr. ¢ ' G r; t « e�V4.��i11I „ w A5vYr ? v ah+i "° ,0Ws►+nC qx}_ tune 10 2005 EXHIBIT F-6 (LU 0 -0053) to Page 1 of 26 W to O CITY OF PALO ALTO Department of Planning and Community Environmet 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Phone: (650) 329-2441 Fax: (650) 329-2154 EXHIBIT F-6 (LU 08-0053) • • Page 2 of 26 • • • These Guidelines were approved by Steve Emslie, Director Planning and Commuinity Environment, on June 10, 2005 after review and comment by the Planning and Transportation Commission at a public hearing on May 25, 2005. Acknowledgements Planning and Transportation Commission Annette Bialson Karen Holman Patrick Burt Lee Lippert Phyllis Cassel Bonnie Packer Michael Griffin Future of Single-Family Neighborhoods Advisory Group Co-Chairs Annette Ashton John Northway Caro11 Harrington Staff Lisa Grote Clare Campbell Amy French Gloria Humble Russ Reich Consultants Arnold Mammarella of Origins Designs Alexandra Martynetz of Origins Designs EXHIBIT F-6 (LU 08-0053) to -a Page3of26 W Co N EXHIBIT F-6 (LU 08-0053) • • Page 4 of 26 i i i _ • , & t S Introduction Guideline One Basic Site Planning:Placement of Driveway, Garage and House 2 Guideline Two Neighborhood Compatibility for Ileight, Mass and Scale 6 Guideline Three Resolution of Architectural Form, Massing and Roof Lines 10 Guideline Four Visual Character of Street Facing Facades and Entries 12 Guideline Five Placement of Second-Story Windows and Decks Pr Privacy 14 Note: Consistency with these guidelines is required for each proposal to be approved EXHIBIT F-6 (LU 08-0053) CO Page 5 of 26 CO EXHIBIT F-6 (LU 08-0053) • • Page 6 of 26 • • S he Single-Family Individual Review process and These "updated"guidelines replace the 2001 guidelines the applicability of these guidelines were estab- that were modified in 2004, as recommended by the lished by PAMC 18.12.1 10 to preserve the Planning and Transportation Commission. The updated character of Palo Alto neighborhoods by placing specific guidelines do not change the objectives of the previous requirements relating to streelscape, massing and privacy edition, but intend to more clearly emphasize and better of new two-story homes and upper story additions within the illustrate them.The IR process is not design review, nor R-1 zone district. intended to prescribe specific architectural styles. Applicability Goals How to use • New two-story homes. • Preserve the unique character of • Each guideline covers an aspect of Palo Alto neighborhoods,recogniz- residential development essential to • New second-story additions to ing that the visual unity of a street meeting the goals of the Individual existing one-story homes. and shared architectural and site Review(1R)program. features of nearby property will • Expansion of an existing upper result in varied design responses • Each guideline has a criterion story that exceeds 150 square feet. per each particular neighborhood statement that must be met to ob- context. tain IR approval. • Modifications to previously ap- proved IR projects. • Promote new construction that is • The illustrations show examples of compatible with existing and evolv- houses that do not and do meet • Existing portions of a structure ing residential neighborhoods'site each guideline.Some examples are to be remodeled are exempt from development patterns,mass and tailored to specific neighborhood these guidelines. scale,and streetscape appearance. types. • Encourage new two-story houses • The"Key Points"that follow the and second-story additions that illustrations provide additional balance diversity of style with re- direction and reminders that are spect for the surrounding context. useful in meeting the guidelines. • Foster consideration of neighbors' concerns regarding privacy,scale, massing and streetscape. EXHIBIT F-6 (LU 08-0053) tO D1 PALO Ai Page T of 26 vIDUAL REVIEW GUIDELINES • 1 W cn tlifline -, i•-m-1 um 1- L.ia-i ri-- ir o i °ñe _ _, but L J ® 1 1, n _ _ o ._M � i �lli Basic Site Plan- : ' ' ning: Placement of »: < : Driveway, Garage I . ... and House _ MIN t I .. MI 11 Approval Criterion: ( I� 1 / . Jr . o.. y� The driveway, garage and house shall be placed and configured to reinforce the ... l aT, i • I. neighborhood's existing site �j ' `�,g \` . patterns (i.e., building footprint •:•': 1' r. um configuration and location, . 4-trri- I. 1 setbacks, and yard areas) and • ) • the garage and driveway shall -- I -- i � Adjacent house footprint Initial inappropriate site layout Adjacent house footprint be subordinate to the house, • Stocked,overly square floor plans contribute to boxy, landscaping and pedestrian high impact building moss legend • Side yards ore leftover spaces;footprint ignores open entry as seen from the street. Q space pattern between homes Fins Roo,foolp1M1 11 seroMt Moor • Garage and driveway location do little to minimize (second floor roof s'h�ow,i their impact on the streetscope;relates poorly to the wall doshedWest abutting property \ P,opory Ilne • 1A: Does meet "guideline BIT F-6 (L 1h8-0053) 2 • PAI a SINGLE-FAMILY INDIVIDUAL RENEW GUICFIINES III Page 8 of 26 III 0 /--- 0 S a.i 1_. ( 6 1 ❑ li�i�l ;'Ip • 4 •\ 1 J ❑ E' � �M ft--T- ui�� i t 1 I • 1111 =_--1 _ -- iS611111414nning 1. Locate driveways and minimize •_ _ .._ paving to diminish the driveway's I. - - presence and to highlight yards and I I i I pedestrian entryways. II t t a�� I • t 2. Locate garages to be minimally vis- „_ -` �in •. ' I ible or significantly less prominent I I ,_I ; . than the house.Attached garages f' I�I<R► , . _ could be a one-car garage,narrower ra...u.ii, �x, ;:.: , i ; in width relative to the house,set- ���■ �br I` back from the house's front facade, or otherwise subordinated to the �� ;,.• , house. thesite plan aridfootprint ` 3. Configure pa p t.. i �. of the house so it is a"custom fit" 1 :> I I •tJ . .:. I.Y. with the neighborhood. Avoid im- T I� $ :1 posing a compact rectangular build- �• I ing footprint on the site if adjacent homes have sprawling,elongated otr rr I irregularly shaped footprints. _.,--1 • ;. , 1 4. Create landscaped open space •• — -_- _-- __ _ • __ _ between homes to respond to the _ - —— neighborhood context. Adjacent house footprint Alternate appropriate site layout Adjacent house footprint • Elongated footprint and narrow,carefully positioned upper floor 5. Locate an upper floor well back from take cues from adjacent homes and minimize building moss the front facade and/or away from `i`'`"I • Yard areas are integral to the overall site and building design; side lot lines if the home is adjacent Qhal Um loofa nl open space reinforces the neighborhood pattern to small or one-story homes. Second(toot fooronm • Garage and driveway location enhance neighborhood pedes- t (loot coi shown man and aesthetic qualities,ore clearly subordinate to house, 6. Avoid placing a second story such will,doted lines/ landscaping,and entry,and reflect neighbor's site pbn that it would emphasize the garage. \ Papery line 1 B: Dees meet guideline m EXHIBIT F-6 (LU 08-0053) ,.2Ato Alea®et9AOf 26VID.u.AL REVIEW GUIDEt1NES • 3 Wi- . -- - - ---___— --\ CD rt i iti ..r �`\ :WMIP _ .._._. 1 `` sir` — I ' .-Ill 1:111 . ' 6. t It, / ' r / `' ) in • _��.,, f.. f i " MINI . t1! TjI • �. L r r / \ . . ,.,. _,, ir r'- l r ""'"...'%<-----,.,...... .).............,(1,. — -_,____ .. �llt Adjacent house footprint Initial inappropriate site layout 1t Adjacent house footprint • Compact footprint centered on lot and prominent upper floor are intrusive to the neighborhood character of low profile homes with spreading footprints legend • House ignores neighborhood pofterns such as entry courts, integration of house interiors with yards;sited to be an Q FIr51 floor Indpnnl "object"building, not part of a broad horizontal landscape Second floor loorpr ni ' (Second floor roof shown • Garage and driveway are equal,not subordinate with dashed lines, streetscape elements \ Property line 1 C: Dees . , meet guideline ., E HIBIT F-6 (LU 08-0053) 4 • PLO SINGLE-FAMILY fNDIYIDUA: REVIEW GUIDFrINFs .- :_;1 .. III Page 10 of 26 S r • • / • ,.. ,7_:-.. )i7 I I >l-°, i 1l l l l l l l U lilili i I III i111 ill'i i -- -- i - _ , -- -- -- ,J , iz, I I f x ., j • 4i',z. . irV,** k- �I-1',�I- d — -_I • ``,--i- • 1 . ' • . L_____ : •' N• Adjacent house footprint Alternate appropriate site layout Adjacent house footprint • House footprint spreads on sire,utilizing and organizing the entire site; second floor is set far back to diminish its impact on low one-story context Legend • Yards, patios, and entry court integrate with the landscape El Firs'Ibo tacq,aN and ore inspired by the neighborhood pattern Second Hoot boom • Garage is o subordinate one-story wing and transitional mass- (Second floor fool shower ing element,garage,entry court adjacency fits neighborhood with dashed lines) pattern without garage becoming a visual focal point Ploonly Ins D: Does meet guideline m -4 : 1- -6AA( 0;-00 3 PAIo•ArPSgeE-l1ntofr26DUA, REVIEW GUIDELINES • 5 0 0 ,'.eli ne 0 30' ..--...f 5; Neighborhood 20' ---- �` 'a' - — = - Compatibility for io� - __-- �j — - = _ Height, Mass and ;� i `°1 i � 0 ® I LIL1Lf , Scale* I -- -- -- Approval Criterion: y ��, t "-��� �\� -t= _ri......----7..-._ --..--.41MIN . Ili Pt-"F.,-,-,- III ,,-., . 1 ....- _.---- __ link . ;,r _ ______ The scale (perceived size), =,,,, - --� —T — mass (bulk or volume) and _ - III ! ® IL!—oil "Al y . height (vertical profile) of a - _ -__- - `�—", t� new house or upper story ad- `` J dition shall be consistent with the existing neighborhood Existing 1-story house Inappropriate height,mass&scale Existing 2-story house pattern with special attention • Eaves, ridgeline extend above neighbors',toll to adapting to the height and wall planes exaggerate perceived height • Vertically proportioned building massing with no massing of adjacent homes. transitional forms • Additive,monumentally scaled forms exaggerate contrast to neighborhood * Meeting this gnrideline may require a house to be substan- tially lower dual the rrraxi- mrutt height limit (30 feet)set forth in the. R-1 regulations. . 2A: Does meet guideline EX Et F-6 (LU 0; 1053) , e. 6 • PAL O SINGLE-FAMILY INDIVIDUAL REVIEW GUIDELINES • ,:c'4.' 11111 Page 12 of 26 • • • 12041 ___________ _ ^—______.�._ ._._.____.-------___-- 30' , • & Scale — ____ .__._.__, --� 20' 1. Avoid overwhelming adjacent i i rj one-story homes with large masses, �� 10' monumental forms and sharp con- l�3 ❑ I R_-5 I III trasts in height. Incorporate a lower ! l �� =- �. ram, l _� _ _ _ height and profile and place more floor area on the first level than the - second level whenever possible. 2. Avoid first floor levels placed high ^c y� =— — - above ground level,tall wall planes, �" "Y _� boxy forms,and strong vertical ele- II� +\ , /. „ -ill it ICI. Of 0 \I - _ ments,which accentuate mass and e �...�AI�� �,; r , �;� — ___ . scale. a al rafillf N 1 mit [ft -01 A iY... ,1 tU II III tlw prul '"2.inn^ 3. Avoid a significant height contrast - - -r _� between adjacent roof edges includ- _ .1 ing single-story roof edges. --- ----- 4. Place floor area within the roof volume to mitigate height,macs and scale. Existing 1-story house Appropriate height,mass&scale Existing 2-story house 5. Locate smaller volumes in front of • Eaves and ridgeline heights relate to neigh- large volumes or choose appropriate burs;second floor contained within roof form roof pitches and forms to manage • Receding roofline redistributes volume away perceived height. from street,reducing visible mass;horizontal dormer further downplays mass 6. Avoid large unused attics and tall • Neighborhood scale acknowledged by ceiling heights at perimeter walls. broad porch with low eave line Instead,use the underside of the roof form to define ceilings to pro- vide interior volume. 28: Does meet guideline o EXHIBIT F-6 (LU 08-0053) -•-•-- PALO PALO At Pager 13 iofn26DUAL REVIEW GUIDELINES • 7 iab N 30' _.—._-__._ _.____._._._._.___.--._._._._._._._.__r-.-•---._.-•-.-•-•-.-•-_-._.__.----.- '-- s I _ � Ira... - �._ •.•z ,4-c 2„ ill' •='-'=--77-Z.r ..., I —_— Existing 1-story house Inappropriate height, mass& scale Existing 1-story house • Broad upper floor roof is almost twice the height of neighboring roof lines and calls attention to height incompatibility • Additive/stacked massing forms disrupt the mass- ing profile of the streetscape • Wide second floor volume defines scale,which is not mitigated by the tockedon one-story mass 2C: poet': . , meet guideline if"' EXHIBIT F-6 (LU 08-0053) 8 ••PA•L O SINGLE-FAMILY iNDIVIDLIA� RFvitw GUIDELINES •-. ' . - fa Page 14 of 26 • ! S �._---------__----- -. --.-•---------- H ,I 1--� __ TIC 10' • ..... , 1 -,--:-_,-____- _-_-__. i ...._ Existing 1-story house Appropriate height,mass& scale Existing 1-story house • Low upper story roof profile obscures impact of second floor on height context • Horizontal lines,subtractive massing blend with streetscape • Wide,horizontally proportioned one-story base defines scale 2D: Does meet guideline F-6 (LU 08-0053) 0 43 - PMo AIIPage,15.Iof,261)U,A, REvIEW GUIDELINES • 9 041. cr-Th,....2. .. El T JI I j�e �/ [ �? Existing 1-story house 1 V it ID En 7__, ____i\ Resolution of Ar- Existing_single story`house _ _ chitectural Form, Inappropriate 2nd-story addition Massing and Roof Lines r�D ® ------ / • Awkward layer-coke silhouette I ❑ ; i : • Stories not interrelated;an obvi- EMI I I ous addition Ed. 11 ) / • Disjointed massing highlights Approval Criterion: _ I r��{•�� mrIr�7� ,,ff II r� second floor and garage The architectural form and 3A: Does meet • uideline Appropriate 2nd-story massing shall be carefully addition crafted to reduce visual mass, / • lower roof form enwraps second 9 Ir �'"1I„�1I �f ------ floor,integrates massing and distinguish the house's 110, I ; --wax/=. =�+�` • Clear simple rooflines,no dis- architectural lines or style. Roof 11 �� IP 91 ► _ y -_ ; jointed,awkward,or leftover roof I' I� segments profiles shall enhance the form, ' . a6_01,^ - • Horizontal wall and eave lines ---- _ f- reduce moss,distinguish propor- scale and proportion of prima- iron and style ry and secondary house vol Does meet guideline r xz tr' umes, while rendering garage Appropriate 2nd-story and entry forms subordinate addition v , „/�it • New rooflines transform architec- in mass and scale to principal � ��mi... ..,..:, ��� T rural style Ian alternative la dernali• building forms. Upper floor _—_ ILI � �., T r lion) additions shall also be bal- itk y y Double gable Front wall defines Z "I� ' �' �j E F 3 form;tapering rooflines control anced and integrated with the :' _`=�=- 'Y'° existing building. and� -' • Entry porch identity due to form and location;subordinate in mass, 3C: Does meet guideline = scale EXHIBIT F-6 (LU 08-0053) III 46 SINGLE-FAMILYTo • PArO $INGIF• AMIIY INDIVIDUAL REVIEW GUIDELINES Page 16 of 26 III ! S S 4W S ...4'C' �. r © —� T !III f 1. Avoid forcing bii,eidisbnegstrniaOrseesfla_IdnnidemSen_ © ©© moflines to fit aetailedr interior q ®* d esign-driven for planTest roof P layouts and maing proes early in rll I the design procs and just floor �® planstocreate© sional design. A���`�_� ®© ©® 2. Consider using the vocabulary of a —� particular architectural style to define a home's visual form,compose its massing and determine roof pitches, eave lines and details. _- ---;- __:—.--;--,,-..-5-- �\ T- — 3. Avoid awkwardly placed second _� If `_� c • ••i floor additions,poorly combined roof �It� .�� r1li ••• _ . 1rIIt forms and inconsistent roof slopes when planning an addition.Primary 011Pil�:� Tall- JI r and secondary volumes should be I'II.�no ,-..L.......—,1IEEE carefully proportioned and spaced for I� 11= a unified design. Inappropriate roof forms Appropriate roof forms 4. A good basic massing strategy is to • Disorganized layout randomly blankets large floor plan; • Simple I.shaped roof geometry organizes the floor plan use a few simple,well-proportioned masses accented with a few smaller accentuates moss • Proportions and scale aided by the hierarchy of primary • Primary roof form large,bulky;multiple Locked-on and secondary forms do mers. such as bay windows or gables cluttered, busy' dormers. Using too many elements • Roof silhouette reduces visual mass;boys,dormers used can create clutter. • Over reliance on gables creates unbalanced compost- selectively tion;increases scale • Architectural style clarified;garage is a subordinate 5. Adjust roof layout,ridge orientation, • Shed roof over garage calls attention to itself and does design element and roof pitch;vary eave lines,and not relate well to the other roof forms lower cave height facing the street or adjacent homes,where beneficial to reduce mass and enhance form. 3D: Does meet guideline 3E. : Does meet guideline , o EXHIBIT F-6 (LU 08-0053) Y PAra Ail-Rage F1 7..Af:26unt:Revrtw GUIDELINE s • 11 1 .p 0 0 i .deline � ,,,,, �� „„ ......... /' y Inappropriate facade and entry IF our ' tl �tr�� '111� �,� design •l -- ��= l.`. � • Random collection of vaguely historical 4 r�� �`g; II1 i Lim elements without a unifying theme ! ; •UI U� h . • Multiple,competing features and focal Visual Character of � ' ` points detract from the composition and �`�4 entry Street Facing Fa- � • Garage form and door are the largest facade features;garage door lacks cades and Entries architectural character Approval Criterion: 4A: Does meet guideline Publicly viewed facades shall be j ",-- / �_ Inappropriate front and street-side I ;IIr facade composed with a clear and co- _ • Short side elevation faces street with .�p. formless wall hesive architectural expression I - D�1 • Entry pavilion does not add to the (i.e., the composition and articu facade design;appears tacked-on lotion of walls, fenestrations and • Shape, proportion,and composition of 1' — windows visually,stylistically chaotic eave lines), and include visual "`�� focal point(s) and the supportive use of materials and detailing. 4C Does meet guideline e: Entries shall be consistent with the existing neighborhood pat- _ � � ��- tern and integrated with the /2„ tea Inappropriate facade and entry �. ri �� S • Ambiguous,tentative facade composi- home in composition, scale and ;,' ,�-11-r( Q tion is neither modem nor traditional yn� �� - dest n character. The carport " """""' I ' a� g p Focal point of the facade is an overbear _-______ re. a ing two-story volume or garage and garage door i` 'i` - Garageisgeneric, e e c,unnecessarily9 promi- design shall be consistent with nent appendage to tower form the selected architectural style of the home. ,, 4 :f Does °R':' meet r F ITT . EXHIBIT F-6 (LU 08-0053) 12 • PA o SINGLE-FAMILY INDIVIDUAL Rfvi W GUIDELINES Page 18 of 26 • • S Appropriate facade and entry l ��'\) design 1 / rr �. �111 r III !t■ © rlll� �lu� :_�L• • accurate use of o known architectural r �s• �' style unifies the facade --� i -�r, " u ii ul c�Tr C7CQ @5 Entries ,mil'■ II• Welf•composed,stalely facade;entry is '` - 1 11 rani i ! �1 • lu ii it a simple but carefully detailed void in �"^ M ;, �4' 1. New facades and additions should wall •. ` -` have a unified visual character,not • Using two staggered garage doors re- �, r1441.. a collection of fragmented forms and duces garages'scale and prominence ,~ elements.Give special attention to elevations on the side of the house and corners that may be highly vis- 4B: Does meet guideline ible from the street. 2. When composing facades,employ a clear use of line,order,hierarchy, Appropriate front and street-side facade ea `�` , and stylistically consistent windows, "'' - _4`0-0 ,/' O cu ■11 \ �'-%' and give attention to pmportion and • Design acknowledges the corner loco- - " 7 Ij�i.-, �, .,. .�.^___ifi adequate spacing between visual fo- lion with two composed building sides ��r - - cal points. • Entry feature is integral to the facade, .I ,' ti i �• i�� 4 humanly scaled,and richly detailed a w—=— ' _. 3. To add visual interest and character • Windows,ahhough varied,relate stylis- 101.111.1".1111.1. -& - _r • to the design,incorporate architec- tically and proportional*os o-family rurally distinctive eaves,window of windows;'detailing reinforces build- patterns,shapes or groupings and use ing character of materials. 4. Avoid using aver-scaled or manu- 4D• Does meet guideline mental entries that aggressively stand out on the house or in relationship to other houses in the neighborhood due :a_,^ to size.height or vertical proportion. Appropriate facade and entry _ `°' Where there is a prevailing neighbor j ,If 0l"-� " !* �t y L hood pattern for an entry type,such • Visual character created by the carefully r as front porches or entry courts,that stepped massing of modern architec •ii?VLSI .11 at ( D i� 1 ...� .,.- t iL•.w� ri turd forms "" i.l: I� '"wiiiim: r ;;� :" entry type should be considered for ii;....■,,.� the design. • Refined entry sequence defined by '� 1t i: ...mom garden walls leading to front door at `,_. •r lower vaulted form \ 5. Design garages,garage door openings and door panels to be modest in scale • Subdued presence of garage improves and architecturallyintegrated with side facade visible from street ^�� $r the home,when garages are visible from the street. 4F: Does meet guideline ;. o EXHIBITAA F-6 (LU 08-0053) 'I-" ' - PAIO AIT,Page i 1'9,Of,26!nr REVIEW GUIUEIiNES • 13 CD 03 Proposed house Existing house rreline ,► ' ve • 1' 11 „Av. o `��',� j Solid arrow indi- cafes unrestricted Placement of Sec- -_ \$,=�-.�1/ o �`,, ��� �r views and Story Windows „,i'Not. ' ! ,, _ _ a Dashed arrow and Decks for o ,�'Not. :2 `4- indicates ed or Il:' �►�'/� obstructed views Privacy* .,• i —.--�_i• '— Approval Criterion: __ ,., • 1 .. The size, placement and orien- I r I-r-L e • S I Insufficient Privacy tation of second story windows a. J ' B t R. • Floor pion arranges bedrooms and and decks shall limit direct i , f I i • • 'Z / deck along side wall, increasing e K 1 potential privacy impacts M v Ma sight lines into windows and = g a — t. F • Side(acing boy window,large master j'`.a bedroom window,second floor deck patios located at the rear and Ti' r1�—n+ with low roiling look into neighboring sides of adjacent properties in �� ' r II home's bedrooms,dining and living area,and patio • close proximity. • House siting,window alignment between homes contributes to privacy 1- impacts .2 1c. , r' B 1J I a c Complete privacy is not a realistic expectation. Designs $ L; tit' a `-I- —a a _ ha wt should reduce opportunities - for individuals to be casually c s "---•—......__________g observed by others and mini- sn B mize intrusions upon pre-ex- isting privacy situations, such as the nmai.n outdoor living urea or primarypatio. SA: Does meet guideline '��./. EXHIBIT F-6 (L i 8-0053) 14 • PA TO SINGLE-FAMILY INDIVIDUAL REVIEW GUIDEIINts 0 Page 20 of 26 0 I S S • Proposed house Existing house ' I, ID v 3 -,x Solid arrow indi ,1 I� I Win- ows & Decks cafes unrestricted W. I', l j' a views ' f_® a 1. Gather information on neighboring a Dashed avow /'�!�\ I _ 'h® homes and yards and locate poten- - — limited or tir.74, — IF / fa_ 7 tial privacy-sensitive areas on your \k 7-1. 1`_1.'"F .r #4 /11 0 site plan before you design. 2. Design the house to mitigate pos- sible privacy impacts by providing non-transparent glazing,significant landscaping,permanent architec- tural screens or sufficient distance �-1 ! between houses. When necessary B c L .i to achieve greater privacy,re-orient Sufficient Privacy i . o the direction of windows or decks or • riti WIN �B '-�� }', D a. adjust window size or sill height. 1. Floor plan adjustments relocate win- dows and rear deck away from side — lot line;site plan adjustment(house slid B~ 't g 3. Avoid windowless building walls, forward)reduces window alignment # K U especially walls visible from the • 1 %' F U. street. Use smaller u er floor Corner windows,narrow recessed _ PP windows,and high sill levels improve '1 ' windows and/or selective glaz- privacy ing at privacy sensitive locations. • Deck tucked into building form;angled J ' . Windows may still remain oper- shape and visual screening improve _ - able,particularly for ventilation for privacy bathrooms and egress for bedrooms. T B a 4. Second story decks are permitted B Ts. only to the extent that they result in B�. _ o minimal loss of privacy to side or B o N `_ .I Ott lw y. rear facing properties. Deck size BI ---4. 1 and potential use may be consid �.+ v eyed in determining potential loss of " ' I B j in privacy. 1 L -., I 58: Does meet guitdeiine e EXHIBIT Fs-6 (LU 08-0053) CO P r..i Alr,.PageF21 ,of'>26;,- Rr viEw'.GUIDELINES • 15 c EXHIBIT F-6 (LU 08-0053) • 0 Page 22 of 26 • . ;, CITY OF PALO ALTO »cr.., . y!o m DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNTIY ENVIRONMENT in o ;- o N4;lii�ti �', SINGLE FAMILY INDIVIDUAL REVIEW co "'�""' GUIDELINE CHECKLIST This worksheet is designed to help homeowners, builders, architects. design professionals said neighborhood to N residents apply the Single Family Individual Review Guidelines to a particular project and neighborhood. IL, O Individual Review is required only for new two-story houses, new second stories and second story expansions f. M exceeding 150 square feet. For the applicant, completing this checklist will help you to explore important design m N considerations as you prepare your project for Individual Review. The checklist can also provide an opportunity = g for adjacent property owners to record their comments regarding the proposed project. X tp wa It is important that you also review the Palo Alto Zoning Guidebook for the R-! Property Owner and Builder. atailable at the Development Center. PRO.II:CT INFORMATION: Applicant's name: Project address: Scope of Project: New house Nett 2 'Story Addition 2"Story Expansion Is house on a comer lot'' _ Yes No is house in a Flood Hazard Area? _ Yes __ No Which direction is North? -Left - Right —Front • -Rear Left-rear _Right-rear _. Left-front ` Right-front al PRIVACY Guideline NI. How are second-story windows placed to respect privacy between properties? Offset or stagger the windows facing neighbor's tt indotvs. .. The use of clerestory windows or windows located high enough to lessen the prit acy impact. • The use of translucent glass. Other(please explain). Guideline does not apply(please explain). Guideline#2. How will second-story balconies or decks be located to minimize the loss of privacy for neighboring properties? Enclosing oalls or similar architectural features incorporated into the deck design. The deck location is pulled away from side property lines. Locating the balcony to eliminate direct site lines to neighbor's R ind.ows or patios. The use of screening devi,es such as trellises or awnings. Oilier(please explain). Guideline does not apply (please explain). Individual Review Guideline Choi l.lisl0 Page t of-1 April 2tKW 411 MASS AND SCALE: _ • Guideline#3(a). What method will be used in the design of a two-story house or second story addition sensitive to the predominant neighborhood scale? 9 co By the use of dormer w indow s. 0 Lowering the height of the second-story roof. `_ Dividing up the mass by the use of smaller building elements. Set back the second-story from the front of the house. t9 v. Other(please explain). Li" O ,7 Guideline does not apply (please explain). m N Guideline#3(b). How will the new second-story addition balance the overall form, mass and IL 0. composition of the existing building? By the use of donner windows. Lowering the height of the second-story roof. Dividing up the mass by incorporating smaller building elements. ' Setback the second-stony from the front of the house. Other(please explain). Guideline does not apply (please explain). Guideline#4. What method is used to make the new two-story home or second story addition • sensitive to the existing neighborhood height pattern,particularly the height of adjacent houses? A building hei tht that is consistent with the neighborhood pattern. Reduced plate heights of second story walls. Reduction of second story- mass. Other(please explain). Guideline does not apply (please explain). • Guideline#5(a). How is the front facade designed that will provide a visual interest,a sense of human scale,and a visual focal point that complements the overall design and enhances the residential scale? Entr forms. 13a% windows. Chimneys. Ciarden Walls. Other(please explain). Guideline does not apply (please explain). individual Review Guideline Chcs Mist rage 2«t -1 • April 2(X')l 412 • Guideline#5(b). What method is used to compose second-story window locations, patterns, . 0 proportions,and shapes? M • Entry forms. tt) Bay windcn s. t7 Chimneys. 0 Garden Walls. 00 _' Other(please explain). D _ to Guideline does not apple (please explain). se, N IL O 1— N Guideline 46. Deleted (kli'_tl(t:} m N Guideline #7(a). How does the roof profile effectively mediate the house's scale and proportion? X m I41a Incorporate a consistent roof slope throughout. Articulate the roof into primary and secondary roof forms. Make/use roof slopes and materials consistent t‘ith the building style. Other(please explain). _ Guideline does not apply (please explain). Guideline#7(h). What method is used to complement the new roof with existing roof? Incorporate a consistent roof slope throughout. • Articulate the roof into primary and secondary roof farms. Make/use roof slopes and materials consistent with the building style. Other(please explain). Guideline does not apply (please explain). Guideline#8(a). How will the setback of the new house respect the setback pattern of the neighboring houses? . Incorporate side setbacks for new construction and second-store additions that arc consistent with the j neighborhood patterns. Maintain the existing pattern on the lot. Other(please explain). Guideline does noi apply (please explain). Individual Review Gmmlrleline Checklist f'<rfe 1 of-t 40 April2(X}a • • 413s Guideline#8(b). What method will be used to balance the scale of the new two-story house or second story addition with its site? N incorporate side setbacks for new construction and second-story additions that arc consistent tt ith the G neighborhood patterns. ' Maintain the existing pattern on the lot. O :. Other(please explain). Guideline does not apply (please explain). N m tL O Guideline#9. What method is used to integrate the entry features into the overall building design m N that relate to the surrounding properties in terms of scale and proportion? = Pedestrian scaled features. W a Entry courtyards or recessed entries. Other(please explain). Guideline does not apply (please explain). STREETSCAPE: Guideline#10. Where is the garage and driveway located to mitigate their visual impact on the street and what method is used to make it subordinate to the house,landscape, and pedestrian entrances • The new garage follows the setback and location of neighboring houses. The garage doors are compatible with the architectural style of the house and/or contribute to the aesthetic character. Three-car garage turned sidcwat s to the street. configured as two tandem spaces and one single space.or split and offset as two distinct garages(a two-car garage on and a one-car garage). Other(please explain). - Guideline does not apply (please explain)- Ylra•e attach additi000l sheers jOr other comments regarding the appheotion ofTe Guidcelines to the prrliect. Individual Review Guideline Cht' klist Pcige-t of 4 April 2004 • 414 • r • • • Q • v• , . *mac t--t ,,, ID ? 7Fi2 3 d St. 792.5th.St. •1 6th St. 504 7th S , y ID a' 720 6th St. t -_589 7th St, - � A „ . No R • 1, �,s C k4t ., Y, L ill- i i .. UL • CO f 1 er r ,.. 1 E ! .IjI1- i 1. se �$t3 9 p 711 7th St. """T21 7th.S1 760 7th St. 785 7th St. . 848 7th St. 657 9th St. ! .CB W 4,500 - ti R-6 - Floor Area and Lot Size w `-- 'r 11 `: t. max. 4,000 _ _ 53910th.St. — 705 10 St. • 1 \ 1 3,500 ' •. Y •504 7th St. t a lj 705 10t t.2 (a 539 10th St. 721 th St. i. � ♦720 5th St. 00 3,000 �` 7.5 7th v— 760 7th .t. 657 9th •t. — Current Policy . 72 5th St.A • 511 6th St.1400 D •ve. 711 7th St. m !T ♦ Approved Inf'ill 2,500 - 5287414-St otsy/t>—i :t. _ }Proposed Code W •662 9th t. _ — 762 3rd t. 11 2,000 II41 1 : . 1t,' It ItIl till 1111 lilt 1111 1111 Ills 1111 1111 111 ' 1111 V 4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000 6,500 7,000 7,500 8,000 8,500 9,000 9,500 10,000 10,500 11,000 11,500 12,000 Lot Size (sq. ft.) i 01 - 0) R-6 - Floor Area and Lot Size m (III i 4,500 � iT N v r 0 00 4,000 - 0 0 w - s3,500 1 a L) • es 0 • 3,000 — f 1 ■ • — Current Policy 2,500 • ♦ Approved Infill m X —E—Proposed Code 01 • V 2,000 1 1 4 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 F -, 1 1 1 1 . 1 -1 1 1 i i 1 1 ! ! I t i t I t lilt Ill lit 1 1 1 1 4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000 6,500 7,000 7,500 8,000 8,500 9,000 9,500 10,000 10,500 11,000 11,500 12,000 Lot Size (sq. ft.) • • • 1 • • • SIm x ats w P i y j./\ cy ;`i ., t 1 ..t a x.� . �; ` .. ''~ Li F ' rl ��e�- 36fr3-taeg rove:_ C ' 3885 Upper Dr. 4311 Upper Dr. 3729 Eleanor Ct .: M . ._ 3723 Eleanor Ct. o 00 0 7000 • W R-7.5 Lake Grove - �.. D01Jiver.,Dr. 5000 3122 U r Drive CU 3663 Lake L • 4000 431E Upper Drive <". 300 Upper L • • t Proposed Code s -, <L — • TM g 3000 - • 4311 Upper Dr. $465 Upper Dr. _ 3885 Upper Dr. • 3562 Upper Dr. • Approved Inflll 3723 Eleanor Court • ,s —.—Proposed Code-10% 2000 - •3729 Eleanor — rx,� F —Existing Code —Linear(Proposed Code- 1o%j 3485 U .� 1000 - pt fll 0 i l i i i t iIl i I i i l i iIl i l i I l i t i i i iIi i i i i i i i iIi i i II '� • ; = 6000 7500 9000 10500 12000 13500 15000 16500 18000 19500 20500 1 ", . 00 Lot Size (sq.ft.) •I ,per Dr. . v -1 . fha 03 Vm G1 k m a R-7.5 Floor Area and Lot Size c 7,000 EEEEEEE . ■■E.E_ -+EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE . EE" �' r wmommw E�EEEEECEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE o EEE=EEEEElimml EEEE:EEEEEE: im.-Ei mi s,o 0 o EEE EEEEEE.... E....IE.........E:�C.:.. mom .....-EEEEE EEE..EE ..Es-m.... G .EE EEE....... EEEEEE.. EE.--_.....EEE.. w ... ..EEEEEE .. . EEEEE E '�%mmEE ./_. . 5,000 . . ...... EE..E.E.....0 ...EEEE � �... EEE EEEE••EEEEEEEEER : ::m®EPEi: :EEEEE EEEE....EEE...impiri �.....m .EEEE. E.EE E EE.E.E.■mi �� .minim E■�ii EEEEE. EEEE L 4,000 E.E.EEEE nnaeam C-' Eu. E EEEEEE .EEE ..... ..a® �.._.r�I/ aEE m.E.EEEE NE.. Q EEEEn� -' " .alinomEiEEO. EEEE: EE G _..mmwim aCm -_...� E E EE .EE■,EE.EEEEEEE..E.EEEEEEE.. IT EEE a.wE EE...EE EE EEE.... . W_.i.ME� EEoE�..E...E..EEE.E ......EEEEEE EEEMEEEiMMOM EEE.DEEEEEEEi ... .EC EE .. EEEEEE EEEEE . . EEEEE .. 2 000 E .�... .EE.E. . .®. .. EEEEEE .EEE EEE.EEEEEEEE� aramu.E EE ..EEEEEE... M■.ECeEE I EEEEEi • Approved Infill lEEEEM E ... .EEEE E E ...E ... Proposed Code EEEE. .EEE. ..� .EE�iiEEECE�®���� _ QEUE..w '�'■'� 1 ,0 0 0 EE EEEEE! Existing Code EEE... E ��MI E.EE BINAE•E•EE•••E� -Proposed Code-10% I.EE.EE.. MOM EEEE EEEEEE EEEEEIEEE�EE�EEEEEEEE x EE.�EEEE:®.EEEEEE:: EE EEEE:w.EEEEEEEE.■EE a 5,000 7,000 9,000 11 ,000 13,O00 15,000 17,000 19,000 21 ,000 71 V 0 i r • S • CO 7 p Llt. ._ ~ ,�. .'./1�� (_I to li, d1..,, • - ��tjr 3407 Lake Grove 3544 Cedar Way 15481'Twin Fir 15495?win Fir df _ Oj :` • . �^ - ��' ,,...+ I 'ti% t filic f tiff ha h `- co W �. >Nt1r F�l �• 15795 Twin Fir 16G13--•.FIr Land _'L;i-1as C}r ,: 3118 Douglas Cir. _ L 15791 Twin Fir , 7000 ------ .. . R-10 Lake Grove ; ' t 6000 - ,- 3178 Douglas . 5000 -— -----"— - ..---3407 take Grove-3114-Douglas-@'. 3545 Red Cedar sa •; F. 4H:-..;11:.:4 . L 15495 Twin Fir 155 Douglas Cir_ 15501 Twin Fir♦ t -..*:;, -' 't 15118 Douglas Cir. 3 11 4000 wiles-Cir. ^4 w lc( a15795 Twin Fir ♦ 410101 L ♦15784 Twin Fir Rd. 16653 Fir Lane -318d Oruljiirs�•Cir. 3000 15791 Twin Fir ___ -••_..—_ �h, 0 3160 Douglas Cir. — •, 3540 Red Cedar —Poposed Code " 2000 - A Approved[MI — Pmpmedcode-109i 3155 Douglas Cir.' .. —Existing Code 1000 —Linear(Proposed Code-10%) — Iiiiltill ! ) li IIII'] liiiii1iI IliiiiIliiII . iii IIIiiIIIII i iii l 1 6000 7500 9000 10500 12000 13500 15000 16500 18000 19500 25000 — ni Lot Size (sq.ft.) 3178 e,Qugliite .'''•- y — CD 0 rn mx M a R-10 Floor Area and Lot Size 0 8,000 cti r I C — 0 co 7,000 - o _ w 6,000 5,000 • co • 4,000 • • O 3,000 • • • • • •2,000 . • Approved I0011 1,000 —Proposed Code —ExistInp Cods —Proposed Code-10% k = 0 5,000 7,000 9,000 11,000 13,000 15,000 17,000 19,000 21,000 Lot Size • • Exhibit F-8 0 Floor Area and Lot Coverage Examples R-6- First Addition I_ot I Allowable ' Maximum f Allowable f Allowable , As , Percent As Built 1' Percent ' As 7 Area FAR 1 :Ftdor Area f:Coverage , Coverage : built of FAR i Coverage I : of Buiit z' I (sq ft) I ,--(sci ft) -. Area ' Floor .; Capacity:; ' (sri ft) i Coverage Height (sq ft) CopacltY ,, (ft.) p yy `ik 705 10th 9,000 0.42 3,780 0.31 2,790 3,659 97% 12,217 79 % 26 _ 848 7th } 9,000 0.42 3,780 0.31 2,790 3,643 96% 12,795 100% 25 721 7th 6,360 0.48 3,053 0.35 2,226 3,037 99% 12,139 96% 29 752 7th 14,999 0.30 4,500 _ 0.26 3,900 1 5,237 116% 2,690 69% 28 511 6th 6,000 0.48 2,880 0.34 2,040 2,594 90% 2,036 100% 31.3 567 10th 7,490 0.46 3,445 0.33 2,472 _3,279 95% 2,471 100% 28 400 D 6,000 i 0.48 2,880 i 0.31 1,860 2,482 186% 1,696 91% 28 i 444i7t,' 'N 1.4:1, . , .. .at _,,_ , ,., , ' •,-;."4 It'41' - 111II`',,r11! 1411III11I11I111M nil li'i.� -I11E '`' ' 4 d41,fl. h 705 10 St. 848 7217 5t. - . 114 _ Jjf J yam, , , a t • + r� slia -tea, ">ta.,-'-s 752 �� ? 71'1 6th5t. -- r '1.0 /fit fig- - _ i �r3- -' • i Page 1 of 5 EXHIBIT F-8 LU 08-0053 421 R-7.5 - Lake Grove • tat Allowable ; l' axirnunl , Allo ,itfl; Al1oi,'.iable ! . s Percent As Both 1'e 7 t.e:ri Area f FAR i Floor ', Coverage ; (ovc r age built { of:FAR C©veiage o f f. 1 (sq to i err a°t Floor •! Ca acsty (sq ft) Coves iii. 1 Ha I 3885 8,419 0.37 3,115 0.25 3,015 3,122 F 'e,m*4; 2,087 69% 28 Upper ' �t �� , U er ,� Drive ;`- 3663 1,0452 0.38 3,972 0.35 3,658 3,882 - 2,887 79% 27.5 Lake Grove ' Fs ,' Ave. 4300 11,873 0.37 4,393 0.25 2,968 3,969 9 _ , ' 2,802 94% 28 Upper 4- Drive _ ^_ . 17446 9,101 0.39 3,549 0.35 3,185 3,430 .4 2,647 83% 28.25 Bryant ' ' Road ' I - -f-i!f ,k PfPl '-il:...-'1Naq l'" , .fir' I cS i a 5 Upper Dr. ! Lake Grove Air4300 Upper Dr."triq L , .., .,\ 4 d 0 i - t x 17446 Bryant Rd. * ' • Page 2 of 5 EXHIBIT F-8 422 LU 08-0053 R-7.5 - Other Locations 0 - 1 Lot.--- Allowable M,axnrium Albt;a—ble 1 ACIQwa / , , erce l As iil r ent Jos Area FAR Fldor , , Coverage i Cover'age. built �'of FAR ,' Coverage y :of Built (sq ft) I Area Area .'` Floor Capacity (sg ft) -Coverages Heigh. (scl ft) (sci it) . ; Area.. Capacity: (ft] 17407 13,993 0.35 4,898 0.25 3,498 4,864 99'- 3,553 10 >, 23 Red Fern Ave. 4210 8,880 0.40 3,552 0.25 2,220 3,419 96% 2,208 99% 22 Virginia Way 4676 Fir 9,151 0.39 3,569 0.35 3,203 3,569 100% 3,036 95% 22 Wood Road :�• ., • rF '4 r,� `' tom { 5 = del�Y f ��11 ry 1},4 . � ii P 1 -' 'n"' i4 '1( 4. J 'elm w ' IS d 17407 Red Fern Ave. --411,0 Virginia Way 4676 Firwood Rd. • Page 3 of 5 EXHIBIT F-8 LU 08-0053 423 • R-10 - Lake Grove tailo ,i..i i {C or FCove-r0,4(' .I (-01C i 3 E 1 . i. of f AR (scl l4.) ArOa I •y,ri�a 1 f-l' , ;7 ar:lt,r, ds�� 'f" #,..v_ 41. I . rij (sr3 ft) ,rA?a -v 7Cdr 3407 Lake 13,207 0.37 4,887 0.25 3,302 4,265 87% k 3,302 100% 30 Grove Ave. 3178 16,125 0.35 5,644 0.25 4,031 5,356 95% 3,354 83% 30 Douglas Circle 3114 14,083 0.36 5,070 0.25 3,521 4,907 97% i 3,643 103% 29.3 Douglas Circle 3122 Upper 10,160 0.38 3,861 0.25 2,540 3,845 100% 1 2,529 100 28.5 Drive i 0 Rid T yr. ).�1 .}� +Fte t a • 1 ;i rya•yenl 1• _ - •:i:yt.�." .}• " .'�'. �1_i L.J ',_g tiL, Li 1 �, , - i` L a � I ., _ , . ,,, .., __,..- , _ 1 _ ri 3407 Lake Grove 1378 Dougl.c cl i `` + ''' % i ouglas Cir., %` i 1 a� ij I 3122 Upper Dr,"------:._,_ -'; • Page 4 of 5 EXHIBIT F-8 424 LU 08-0053 R-10- Other Locations 0 .t Ilowahte 1Maximu`',-.'AI ,, _ .;, Areo FAR' Floor Area -.Cover,�ge ,E Isq tt 1 ' (sq ft) j -Area isci ft) 2815 2,084 0.38 4,592 0.25 3,021 4,753 10496 4,384 145% 34 Arrow head Court* _ 1024 9,175 0.52 4,771 0.38 3,487 4,800 101%`-:- 3,500 100% 34 North I i Shore Rd. 333 11,799 0.25 2,950 0.25 2,950 3,287 111% 2,724 92% 38.25 North Shore Rd. 2815 Arrowhead Court and 333 North Shore Road received variances or Residential Infill Design Review for FAR and Lot Coverage. Other properties that exceed lot coverage and FAR received exceptions for having detached garages. • ' T n V .h. 4,••..,,,,. ,f -., , v. 28 . ,,1r _:• 'ct r •�1i 1024 North Shore : ';;+g ' 333 North Shore Rd. • Page 5 of 5 EXHIBIT F-8 LU 08-0053 425 • • • 426 RID Handout City of Lake Oswego Residential Infill Design Review Purpose: The purpose of the Residential Infill Design Review (RID) process is to: 1. Provide an alternative process for the review of building permits for construction or alteration of outright permitted residential dwellings and accessory structures in residential zones where the clear and objective development standards of the code conflict with or prevent development that may otherwise be compatible with the character of the neighborhood and surrounding residential development. 2. Ensure that new development is consistent with the character of development envisioned for neighborhoods in Lake Oswego. 3. Ensure that new development is compatible with existing, surrounding residential development. Description: The RID process is not a variance. Rather it is an alternative means of meeting the purpose and intent of zone requirements. To receive approval under the RID process, an applicant must submit an application to the City and the application must be found to • satisfy criteria that assure compatibility of the proposal with surrounding development and the neighborhood character. The process includes two steps: 1) pre-application conference(s) and 2) application review. Depending on the complexity of the project, the pre-application conference may result in more than one session. For simple projects, planning staff provides information and advice to the applicant and the applicant files an application. For more complex projects, a second pre-application conference is scheduled and members of the City's Infill Advisors Team attend and provide comments and ideas to help make a project fit the City's approval criteria. The Infill Advisors Team is made up of architects and builders who are on contract with the City to provide technical advice to the staff and applicant. Following the meeting with the Infill Advisors Team, an applicant can submit an application for residential infill design review. Upon receipt of a complete application, staff reviews the proposal for compliance with approval criteria and makes a preliminary decision to approve or deny the application. Notice of the preliminary decision is sent to the applicant and surrounding property owners. If appeals are not filed, the decision becomes final. If appealed, a hearing will be scheduled before the Development Review Commission. EXHIBIT F-9 • LU 08-0053 Page 1 of 5 EXHIBIT F-9 LU 08-0053 427 RID Handout - Continued • Fees: a. Pre-Application Conference (with staff) $469 b. Pre-Application Conference (with Infill Advisors Team) $1,500 c. RID Application Fee $1 ,500 Guidelines for Requiring Pre-application Conference with the Infill Advisors Team: (Guidelines are being developed and will be provided to the Task Force. Draft language is provided below.) The Community Development Director shall determine whether a pre-application conference with the Infill Advisors Team is required. If the Director finds that the following conditions or factors exist, a pre-application conference will be required: • The application is for a new residential dwelling. • The project results in a substantial remodel or addition to an existing structure. • The project is highly visible from the public right-of-way or from adjoining or abutting property. • The project would result in an increase in structure height or allowed floor area under the floor area ratio requirements. • The immediate neighborhood has a history of concerns or complaints regarding infill development. • The Director may determine that no pre-application conference with the infill advisors is required if the following factors or conditions exist: • The project results in a minor remodel or minor addition to a structure. • The project is not highly visible from the public right-way or from adjoining or abutting properties. Procedural Requirement & Notice: RID reviews are classified as a minor development and follow the requirement of LOC 50.81, Review of Minor Development Applications. This currently includes a mailed "Notice of Tentative Decision" to property owners within 100 feet of the subject property. RID Review Steps: (Note: The steps outlined below are intended to describe the general process for a typical RID review application.) 1 . Initial contact is made with staff to determine if a house design can meet the clear and objective standards of the underlying zone for height, setback, floor to area ratio (FAR), lot coverage, etc. • Page 2 of 5 EXHIBIT F-9 LU 08-0053 428 • RID Handout - Continued If the design meets the standards, an application for a building permit can be submitted. If the design does not meet the standards, an applicant may file for a RID review application or variance. A pre-application conference is needed to determine what application is appropriate. 2. A pre-application conference is required for all RID review applications. There are two types of pre-application conferences: a. Staff conference: This pre-application conference is with city staff and neighborhood association representatives. This level of review is required of all RID applications including minor remodels or small additions. The fee is $469. If the proposal is deemed to be a substantial remodel (for example adding a new room) or new construction, the City generally requires a second pre- application conference with the Infill Advisors Team. b. Staff with Infill Advisors Team conference: This conference includes city staff • and hired experts in the field of design, including architects and designers. Neighborhood Association representatives are invited to this meeting. This second conference typically occurs if the applicant is proposing either new construction or a substantial remodel. The fee to meet with the Infill Advisors Team is $1,500. 3. After the pre-application conference, a RID application may be submitted. The fee for RID review is $1,500. Upon receiving an application the City has 30 days to review the application for completeness. If it is deemed complete the City will send out a "Notice of Complete Application" to the applicant and the neighborhood association. All RID reviews are City Manager decisions based on the criteria found in LOC 50.72.020. Planning staff are designated by the City Manager to make these decisions. For new construction and substantial remodeling projects, staff receives input from the Infill Advisors Team. Based upon compliance with applicable criteria, the City will make a tentative decision on the application. The City will then send out a "Notice of Tentative Decision" to the applicant, neighborhood association and property owners within 100 feet of the subject property. Recipients of the notice have 14 days to provide comments. If comments are received, the tentative staff report is revised to incorporate those comments. A "Notice of Decision" is then mailed with a 15-day appeal period. • Page 3 of 5 EXHIBIT F-9 LU 08-0053 429 RID Handout - Continued If no comments are received within 14 days, the decision becomes final. 4. The application is either approved or denied. a. If the application is approved, an application for a building permit may be submitted. b. If the application is denied, an applicant may: 1 . Appeal the decision by following the appeal process as described in LOC 50.84.005 - Appeal of Minor Development Decision. The first appeal hearing body is the Development Review Commission (DRC). The DRC's decision may be appealed to the City Council. The Council's decision may be appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). The appeal fee for the DRC and Council is $466. 2. Redesign the proposal to meet the clear and object standards or redesign to resubmit for RID review. • Page 4 of 5 EXHIBIT F-9 LU 08-0053 430 RID Handout - Continued Residential Design Review Process Determination if project Code Standards satisfies code Satisfied —Apply YY for Building Permit • Potential Code Problem - Applicant Files Request for Pre-application Conference Pre-application Conference with Staff Z - New Construction/ Minor Remodel Major Remodel Pre-application Conference with Infill Advisors Team - Staff Decision and Notice Denial Approval No Appeal - Code Standards Appeal/No Appeal Satisfied —Apply for Building Permit Development Review Commission Hearing and Decision • Page 5 of 5 EXHIBIT F-9 LU 08-0053 431 • • 432 M EXHIBIT F-10 Removed from this packet given that the same information is provided in Exhibit F-11 . Exhibit F-10 can be viewed on the City's website at: www.ci.oswego.orus/plan/CDC-2008/CDC-2008-Link to LU Pages.htm (Select LU 08-0053) • Note : Exhibit F-10 describes Residential Infill Design Review projects approved as of May 16, 2007. Exhibit F-11 includes projects through May 1, 2009 . • 433 • • 0 434 i Infill Task Force Issues Summary Sections 5, 8, 9, 10, and 11 June 11 , 2009 bt - .s _� ' r... . �i l_ ri�E M 4 y 4 at ' 4:-..-: --f.* r&-,,t itSec,- I,*' ,..;,rte..- - I ,.„ ,---itt,..-r,,,._ .,.„, ,,,,,-,„ s, ' . ,„ a-4• '` r 4 1., '''-x•.: 1'3� " !R! s-g ` 7 4 1 E } I !< •- i* r-,,,Lri, _,, . . , {. jjj III - ..,.,-, , ,-,,,,,,-,: -.,,,,,,,, ,....,.... __ s,, . 4 1 ,,,, , , . , ,...„._ s,.i ,k, .:t s.f t a f-� 2v T iM rga z k E t' b , ys d" s•t Ili. - - J # _ EXHIBIT F-12 LU 08-0053 • Infill Issues Summary Page 1 June 11, 2009 435 Section 5 - Sloped Lots , Sloped Lot Concept: • Provide greater flexibility on sloped lots by creating a sliding scale for height allowed and elevation change across a lot. Issues: In the R-5. R-6. and R-7.5 residential zones the base building height is 28 feet. On lots where the ground elevation changes by 10 feet or more across the building envelope, height is allowed to increase to 35 feet. This provides for greater flexibility in the design of a house on a sloping lot and allows more floor space on each floor without having to "stairstep the house down the hillside. Proposal: Original proposal: Amend the height requirements in the residential sections of the community development code to provide greater flexibility. Within each zoning district, create a sliding scale that allows height to increase with an increase in elevation change across the building envelope. No change proposed in the DD (Old Town) section given that height standards were addressed in 2006/07 updates. • Final Proposal: The final Task Force recommendation for height adjustments only applied within the First Addition Neighborhood and the R-6 Zone. The proposal allows for a four- foot increase in the down slope direction. Sloped Lot Determination (Explanatory graphic — not a code change) , , , , I /' 1 1 I Measure from high to low point across building envelope. • Infill Issues Summary Page 2 June 11, 2009 436 • Maximum Height Measurements (Explanatory graphic- not a code change) Proposed FAN Adjustment See Code Section 50.07.030 6 foot exception Base height— to base height zone dependent LA 4 foot adjustment to base height for topography III • Infill Issues Summary Page 3 June 11, 2009 437 Sloped Lot Concept: • • Provide greater flexibility on sloped lots by increasing heights on steeply sloped lots. Issues: The current code allows 35 feet of building height on lots where the ground elevation changes by 10 feet or more across the building envelope. For very steeply sloped lots, the 35 foot height limit impacts floor plans and sometimes forces desired main floor functions to be on multiple levels. Proposal: Amend the height sections with the code to provide greater flexibility. On steeply sloped lots, allow heights up to 45 feet provided certain conditions are satisfied. The height is proposed to increase proportionately to the slope. A one foot increase in height is proposed for each 3% increase in slope over a baseline slope of 25%. The amendments are not needed in the R-6 zone (no steep slopes) or the DD zone (provisions already allow taller structures under certain conditions). Increased Height on Steeply Sloped Lots • // Maximum height is 45 feet // when the average slope across the building •' envelope is 55% or greater. • • .i -- 45' 12 A 12:12 slope is a 12 100% slope. • Infill Issues Summary Page 4 June 11, 2009 438 • Sloped Lot Concept - Continued: • Provide greater flexibility on sloped lots by increasing heights on steeply sloped lots. • Mitigate the visual impacts of increased height. To mitigate for the visual impacts of increased height. appearance standards are required. New standards are proposed for rear wall planes, support structure finish appearance. and landscaping. The photo illustrates an example of what is to be avoided. kik ,e.• r. _; is 3 y 1 it 4,,„..4.,,,,:,..,• , _mr_.,,,,,•_.,. ._, .,.., ,,, .. 1 ,. 4..,-1. .. .....,-:, 3+w. ---. : . i . t� �y---.4 ` `7.-1 y u - Off of South Shore Boulevard. • infill Issues Summary Page 5 June 11. 2009 439 Sloped Lot Concept: • Adjust the front setback plane for sloped lots. • Reduce setbacks on sloped lots. Issues: The current code establishes the front setback plane at a 6:12 slope. This standard is a problem for both upslope and down slope lots. In upslope situations with very steep slopes, the ground surface may slope up at a greater slope than Current Standards —Upslope Lots the front setback plane. This could 35' height allowed ••• result in a requirement that one on sloped lots ;• must build into the hillside to use :' the lot. On down slope lots where the lot falls away from the street, Front Setback the front setback plane Plane (6:12 slope) � 6 unnecessarily reduces the height 12 of a building at the front of the lot. ,•..••`� °` The purpose of the front setback The front setback plane is to force the mass of the plane restricts height building toward the center of the lot on upslope sites and off of the street front so that Setback • the building does not dominate the pedestrian scale street. On down slope lots. the floor level of the building is often lower than the street so building mass is not an issue. Front yard setbacks can create problems when siting houses on steeply sloped lots. A large setback on an upslope site can force buildings into the hillside. On down slope lots, a large setback can push the building further down the slope or can create a need for a taller building. Proposals: To address front setback plane problems on upslope lots, it is proposed that new standards be established so that the front setback plane is set by a 12:12 slope or the average slope of the ground surface, whichever is greater. For down slope lots, it is proposed that the measuring point for establishing the height of the front setback plane be the elevation of the centerline of the adjoining street. Regarding front yard setbacks, it is proposed that setbacks be reduced to 18 feet on steeply sloped lots. S Infill Issues Summary Page 6 June 11, 2009 440 • Sloped Lot Concept - Continued: • Adjust the front setback plane for sloped lots. • Reduce setbacks on sloped lots. The reduced setback concept was not proposed for the R-6 Zone (First Addition Neighborhood) because there are no lots with slopes exceeding the 25% threshold. The concepts are not proposed in the DD (Old Town Neighborhood) given that all structures go through development review and the front setback plane is not a requirement. Front setbacks in the DD zone are 10 feet. The following illustrations depict how the setback planes are to be applied on down sloping and up sloping lots. Code Section 50.07.040 Setback Planes—Down Slope Lots • The street center- Base zone height limit— follows the ground slope line provides the elevation for measuring the Front setback height of the set- ___ plane- 6:12 slope back planes. ------------_of.—______-- i Allowed Centerline Height Front ROW >IE Setback *I Measured at the front building line, the front setback plane begins 20' up from the average street centerline elevation • Infill Issues Summary Page 7 June 11, 2009 441 The proposed infill amendments change the way in which front setback plane elevations 1111 are measured. In instances where lots slope down, away from the street, the base elevation to establish the front setback plane is measured from the centerline of the adjoining street. This generally allows more bulk toward the front of the lot, but because the lot is sloping away from the street, the effect on the pedestrian environment and streetscape should be negligible. For ease of application, side yard plane heights on down sloping lots are proposed to be measured in a similar manner. Code Section 50.07.040 Measurement Locations Street center line locations for measuring base elevation of L setback planes. ----+ + + +-1----. 1' - - ` + 1 0• j I Front I setback Side yard • plane setback plane i\ • location location 4 Note: Elevation measurement points are located by a perpendicular line I extending from the street centerline to the property corner and not by an extension of the property line to the street centerline. If the centerline is curved, the line shall be perpendicular to a Iine that is tangent to the curve. • Infill Issues Summary Page 8 June 11, 2009 442 • code Section 50.07.040 Front Setback Plane— Upslope Lots Maximum height allowed on sloped lots Front Setback Plane 1 (follows 6:12 slope 1 or the actual slope of the lot—whichever 6 provides the greater r �'' 12 building envelope). 1 1 24' 1 1 1 ROW Setback 10' Section 5 - Sloped Lots — Code Sections to be amended: 50.02 Definitions 50.06.050-060 R-0, R-2, R-3, R-5, and WR 50.07.030-040 R-6 50.08.030-045 R-7.5, R-10 and R-15 • Infill Issues Summary Page 9 June 11, 2009 443 • Section 8 Variances VARIANCES Concept: • Allow variances for continuation of nonconforming building walls as long as the house does not grow larger than allowed in the zone. Issue: It is sometimes difficult to gain approval of additions to existing buildings where the proposed expansion involves continuation of an existing nonconforming building wall. Proposal: New setback encroachments that follow existing nonconforming building walls should be processed as Class I variances. The rationale is that the continuation of an existing wall would not significantly increase the nonconformity or have a negative impact on adjoining properties. 30'rear yard setback • • I `m Existing nonconforming yard encroachment 1l rl. I ,,J. f Filling in the"notch"should not be an onerous process, since the nonconforming Iwall currently exists. An additional issue to consider is the size of the encroachment. It is proposed that the new encroachment be no greater in area than the existing encroachment. The Class 1 variance is proposed for continuation of nonconforming walls where the square foot area of the proposed encroachment is no greater than the area of the existing encroachment. This type of variance would apply, rather than the Class 2 process, even if the normal 20% Class 1 setback standards are exceeded. The Class 1 process is not as onerous as the Class 2 process but it does include public notice and an opportunity for public involvement. The fee is approximately $3.016 (pre-app. and application fee). • Infill Issues Summary Page 10 June 11, 2009 444 • Examples of Wall Extensions of Nonconforming Walls Permitted as Two exterior walls define space to Not permitted — must an extension of be occupied — but proposal does be defined by two two walls. not occupy all of the space. existing walls extension of two walls. i I i i i i I i i i _.I Permitted provided setback is not less than 50% of standard 4111 1111 Infill Issues Summary Page 11 June 11, 2009 445 VARIANCES Concept: • Develop criteria for variances to preserve trees. Issue: The preservation of trees is a high priority for the City. The current variance criteria do not include the preservation of a tree as a consideration. Proposal: The proposal is to amend LOC Section 50.68.015 Classification of Variances, for Class 1 variances to adjustments to yard requirements to protect trees. The amendment would allow a structure to encroach into the front, side and/or rear yard setbacks if it was for the purpose of preserving one or more trees and the encroachment is no greater than 50% of the yard setback required by the underlying zone but no less than five feet. 25'front yard setback • " l 'e 1 I I • Preserved Front yard encroachment to I save a tree Tree • T • I I � � I I I Infill Issues Summary Page 12 June 11, 2009 446 VARIANCES Concept: • Allow for Class 1 variances where survey errors have resulted in nonconforming homes. Issue: The current code does not recognize survey errors as grounds for variances. Proposal: Amend Section 50.68.015(1) Classification of Variances. Add survey errors as a Class 1 variance. To be eligible for this Class 1 variance, the survey needs to be a pre-existing survey that was done prior to the initiation of the current development project. Questions considered by the Task Force included the degree of error and whether such adjustments should be a ministerial process approved under clear and objective standards (e.g. a dimensional error of 2.5%). A similar ministerial adjustment is proposed under the Miscellaneous Provisions. VARIANCES Concept: • • Require a Class 2 variance rather than a Class 1 variance for reductions in side yard setbacks that result in yard setbacks of less than 5 feet. Issue: Task Force members have agreed that the reduction of side yard setbacks can cause significant problems in regard to compatibility and character of a neighborhood. It has been recommended that stricter standards be developed for side yard setback variances. The existing code allows for Class 1 side yard setback reductions of up to 20°/0 of the requirement for single-family dwellings and associated structures (LOC 50.68.015(1 a)). A reduction of up to two feet is allowed for all other structures (LOC 50.68.015(1b)). Proposal: Limit the applicability of the Class 1 variance so that it would not apply if the variance results in a side yard setback of less than 5 feet. Section 8 - Variances — Code Sections to be amended: 50.68.015 Classification of Variances Infill Issues Summary Page 13 June 11, 2009 447 Section 9 Miscellaneous Code Provisions MISCELLANEOUS CODE PROVISIONS Concept: • Allow for reconstruction of nonconforming houses after fire or other unintended destruction. Issue: The current code allows the reconstruction of a nonconforming structure if the structure is damaged or destroyed by any means to the extent that the cost of rebuilding the damaged portions does not exceed 50°/0 of the then current replacement cost of the entire building. The Task Force has stated that this is too limiting and that a nonconforming structure should be able to be reconstructed if it occupies the same building envelope as it did prior to the destruction, regardless of the replacement cost. Proposal: Amend LOC Section 50.70.020 Destruction, Movement and Replacement of Structures, to allow for the reconstruction of nonconforming structures without a threshold to reconstruct. The proposal has been written to apply only to single family and two-family dwellings and does not apply to other types of development within the City. In addition to avoid conflicts • with Federal Emergency Management Agency floodplain insurance standards. the provision should not apply to the Flood Management Area of the City. Within the City's Flood Management Area (the 100-year floodplain plus areas inundated by the 1996 flood). there are special provisions that the City is required to adopt in order to remain eligible for the federal flood insurance program. One of the provisions is that if a structure within the flood management area is damaged to the extent that repair costs exceed 50% of the current replacement cost of the building, the structure must be made to conform to the code. S Infill Issues Summary Page 14 June 11, 2009 448 • MISCELLANEOUS CODE PROVISIONS Concept: • Allow increases in roof pitch for nonconforming structures where the height limit of the zone is not exceeded and no additional living space is created as a result. Issue: The roof pitch of a nonconforming structure should not be an impediment to a remodeling project if the structure otherwise complies with the underlying zone. Proposal: Amend LOC Section 50.70.005 Non-Conforming Use, Structure Defined; Rights Granted, to allow for an increase in the roof pitch. Roof pitch should be allowed to change on the non conforming portion of a structure. • PL PL PL Required setback • Infill Issues Summary Page 15 June 11, 2009 449 MISCELLANEOUS CODE PROVISIONS Concept: S • Develop new approval criteria and process for remodeling projects that exceed code standards by no more than 2.5% or up to 6" for dimensional standards. Issue: It is difficult. time consuming, and expensive to gain approval of small adjustments to the dimensional standards of the development code. Proposal: Develop a ministerial review process with clear and objective standards for approval of small adjustments to the dimensional standards of the development code. Key issues regarding a new ministerial process include: • Decisions must be made under clear and objective standards such as any of the following: - The adjustment is for an addition or alteration of an existing structure. - The adjustment is intended to alleviate survey errors or similar lot line errors. - The adjustment will alleviate problems with an existing non-conforming portion of a structure. - The adjustment will result in greater tree protection including root protection. • • Ministerial applications are staff level review without the opportunity for public input. No public notice or appeal process would be provided. • A new fee would need to be developed for this type of application. Section 9 - Miscellaneous Code Provisions — Code Sections to be amended: 50.70.020 Nonconforming Structures 50.70.005 Nonconforming Structures 50.79.010 Ministerial Development Classification • Infill Issues Summary Page 16 June 11. 2009 450 • Section 10 Duplex and Attached Single Family Dwellings DUPLEX — ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING PROVISIONS Concept: • Apply infill compatibility standards to duplexes and attached single family dwellings. Issue: The current infill compatibility standards (front setback plane, side yard plane, and garage appearance standards) do not apply to duplex development and attached single family dwellings in R-5, R-3, R-2, and R-0. (Note: In the R-5 zone, standards currently are applied to single family detached development and in all zones, three or more attached units must meet the CDC building design standards and go through development review). Discussion: Subcommittee 1 of the Infill Task Force discussed the issue of unit size and FAR limitations. It was determined that most duplex or attached SF lots would allow a unit of at • least 1.800 square feet so special exceptions to FAR for duplexes and attached SF units were not needed. Proposal: Amend the code to apply the compatibility standards. Develop special provisions related to garage location standards to assure each duplex unit or attached unit may have a garage. The application of the front setback plane and side yard plane requirements were addressed in Section 3 Structure Design/Setback Planes. Garage location standards are addressed below and on the following pages. Infill Issues Summary Page 17 June 11, 2009 451 DUPLEX — ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING PROVISIONS - Continued • Apply infill compatibility standards to duplexes and attached single • family dwellings • Garage Appearance and Location (R-0, R-2, R-3, and R-5 Zones) Garage Standards - Subcommittee 1 of the Infill Task Force originally proposed that duplexes and single family attached units (2 units only) on narrow lots be exempt from garage appearance standards. After discussion with the full task force the proposal was revised to require design features to soften the impact of the garage on the streetscape. Rather than a full exemption from the garage standards, the final proposal, allows the garage to occupy up to 75% of the lot frontage provided certain design standards are met. One of the provisions requires that the horizontal plane of garage doors be offset by at least two feet. The concept is illustrated below. The proposal assumes that a two car garage is being provided for each unit: (88 feet lot width — 20 feet for side setbacks = 68 feet of potential building width) x .6 equals 40 feet of width for both garages. Smaller width lots require a greater percentage of the facade to be occupied by a garage. Garage Offset Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 • Single Family Attached /Zero Duplex Units - Lot Line Units — Lots 1 and 2 Lot 3 Garage Door Section 10 Duplex and Single Family Attached — Code Sections to be amended: 50.06.065 R-0, R-2, R-3. R-5, and WR - Garage Appearance 50.07.047 R-6 - Garage Appearance 50.08.055 R-7.5, R-10 and R-15 - Garage Appearance • Infill Issues Summary Page 18 June 11, 2009 452 i Section 11 Fla • Lots / Serial Partitions FLAG LOT Concept: • Create new flag lot standards that encourage a greater sense of neighborhood and connectivity. Issues: The Community Development Code includes standards for flag lots. Typically, these standards allow for one to two lots to be created behind an existing house by creating a driveway within a "flag pole" that connects to the street. This development pattern typically isolates the houses that are in back and they tend to lack a strong relationship to the street and the neighborhood. Flag Lot Development Pattern • i H I i Li J l n Infill Issues Summary Page 19 June 11, 2009 453 Flag Lot Objectives: • The following objectives were used to guide the development of the standards within this section. 1. Create stronger neighborhoods and neighborhood character — Flag lots don't contribute to neighborhood character— they are hidden and pulled away from the street, often with the house facing the back of the parent parcel house. 2. Connectivity — Make flag pole access ways connect so there are directional options and a greater network of streets and pedestrian ways. 3. Tree Protection — Protect trees to the greatest extent practicable. 4. Infill — Allow for infill to occur at planned densities. 5. Coordination — Require coordination among property owners so that connecting lanes are provided. 6. Incremental Development — Allow individual properties to develop independently while contributing to the overall connecting lane concept. • S Infill Issues Summary Page 20 June 11, 2009 454 FLAG LOT Concept: • • The front yard of a flag lot is the side from which access is taken. • New dwellings shall be oriented towards the access drive. Issue: New houses on flag lots are being constructed with the primary entrance to the house oriented to the rear of the parent lot, rather than to a shared lane or street. This house orientation coupled with other existing code provisions isolates the house from the neighborhood. Discussion: There are two parts to this proposed code amendment: the first proposes to clarify the location of the front yard as it relates to flag lots. The second reinforces the street edge (access lane) by orienting the front of the house towards the access lane. A strong street- house relationship creates good neighborhood character. Proposal: Draft code language is proposed to clarify that the front yard of a flag lot is adjacent to the access drive. The Lot Configuration Requirements (LOC 50.20.025) are being amended and a new subsection is proposed in the existing "Flag Lot" Section under "Building and Site Design Standards — 1. Building Orientation" (LOC 50.20.030). • Front r ara ., 1 i Flom / YYO The front of — The front of — the lot(yard) the house is where • '~ is oriented access taken Front r c towards the , Front L C aCCeSS C Yare �� � e - drive c ..,_. - - e s L a - - L —► -•-4. r: I eat rr.c Street Street • Infill Issues Summary Page 21 June 11, 2009 455 FLAG LOT Concept: • Require a 5' setback from the access drive to the existing house on the parent lot. Issue: This addresses situations where access easements are granted rather than a dedicated roadway. When access easements are granted, the setback is measured from the edge of the existing parcel line rather than the edge of the access lane. This method of measurement may restrict the ability to provide an appropriate access. Discussion: The purpose of this standard is to insure that an adequate setback exists between the access lane and structures on the parent parcel. The current R-7.5 code requires a minimum 5' side yard setback on one side with a combined total of 15' feet for both side yards. The R-10 and R-15 require a minimum of 10' and 15' for the side yard setbacks. "Parent Lot" is currently not defined. The `Parent Lot" may be defined as - The originally plated lot from which subsequent lots are Fran created. 3f0 A c Proposal: c The draft code language is being inserted as a new subsection s under '4. Setback Requirements L (a), in the existing `Flag Lot" a _ Section of the code under "Building a Front and Site Design Standards'. (LOC Yard 50.20.030). 5'minimum setback from the access I �\ lane for the , • 1 structure on the parent lot Front Yard t Street 111, Infill Issues Summary Page 22 June 11, 2009 456 FLAG LOT Concept: . • Require a 10' minimum setback from the access lane with at least 20' to a parking area (or garage). Issue: Houses should orient to the access lane in the same manor as a house orients to a street. Often houses on flag lots sit in such a way that they block the future extension of the access Lane to abutting properties. Discussion: The purpose of this standard is to encourage the front of the main structure to be oriented to the access lane in order to provide a residential edge, while at the same time, still allow for off street parking spaces and provide flexibility for the side and rear setbacks. Proposal: Projected The proposed code extension language sets the front of of the the house back from to the access lane to access lane. The current through the • code for R-7.5, R-10 and R- property Front 15 requires a minimum 25' Yard -- front yard setback. 201 • The draft code language is being inserted as a new subsection under "4. 10'setback — '� io• with minimum Setback Requirements (b)," of20'for • A in the existing "Flag Lot" parking area c I Front Yard — Section of the code under c • "Building and Site Design a 20' Standards" (LOC S -+-� 50.20.030). L a Note: The proposed code amendment only applies to e --• flag lot access lanes, not I I lots that front on a thru Front Yard street resulting from a major partition. Street 11111 • Infill Issues Summary Page 23 June 11, 2009 457 • FLAG LOT Concept: • Change the setback requirements to provide more flexibility. Issue: Fixed setbacks do not allow for the flexibility needed to address unforeseen circumstances such as those related to the physical constraints of a site, existing natural resources such as trees, or pre-existing development. Flexibility in setbacks allows a house to be sited so that it is sensitive to and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Discussion: This code section addresses the side and rear yard setback relationship between houses. The purpose of the proposed code language is to provide flexibility between setbacks to insure that options are provided when siting a house. Proposal: This assumes that the front yard setback to the access lane is 10', _ as proposed under the previous amendment discussed in this report. This proposal provides flexibility while maintaining the _ • Front same overall combined setback h Yam �— Side yard to total. side yard relationship 10'setback — is a key to The draft code language is being with A A compatibility inserted as a new subsection (C), 20nfoor , in the existing Flag Lot" Section parking 5 From area • of the code under '`Building and S Yard — B Site Design Standards — 4. L "^10. The sum of the sides(A& Setback Requirements" (LOC a C C and the ""'• rear yard(B) 50.20.030). e - setback on flag lots are>_ 45' I I Front Yard Street • Infill Issues Summary Page 24 June 11, 2009 458 • Set Back Priorities Similar rear setbacks New Flag Lots Tree Protection ' V�. Similar side yard setbacks • I � • Infill Issues Summary Page 25 June 11, 2009 459 FLAG LOT Concept: • Exclude access lanes from the Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) and lot • coverage calculations. Issue: Typically, larger houses are allowed to be constructed when the access lane is included in the lot coverage calculation. Discussion: The purpose of this standard is to treat the portion of the lot that includes the house and yard as the portion subject to the FAR. In order to exclude access lanes from the FAR it required that the definition of "Net Buildable Acre" to be amended, not the definition for FAR. Proposal: The definition for Lot Coverage already excludes the access lane from the calculation. Amend the definition of Net Buildable Acre to exclude access lanes. • S Infill Issues Summary Page 26 June 11. 2009 460 FLAG LOT Concept: • • Develop a "connecting access lane" standard with houses fronting on the lane. Issue: The purpose of this section is to provide specifications for private connecting access lanes for 2 and 3-lot partitions that are created next to each other. Discussion: Currently, there are no specific standards for a private connecting access lane. The flag lot standard requires that the minimum driveway width be at least 12'. In practice, this becomes a 15'-16' total driveway width in order to provide clearance for fire engine doors to be opened without obstruction. This may be reduced if approved by the Fire Marshal. Current standards allow a 12' wide driveway with 4' shoulders to serve one to three parcels created through a minor partition process. Access for a fourth parcel requires the driveway to be expanded to a 20' wide private or public street. Proposal: Access lane width is proposed to be dependent on the number of units served and the likelihood that the lane will ultimately connect with another lane to provide a through connection. Options are needed to allow a narrow driveway-like connecting lane to serve four or more parcels as illustrated in the diagram below. • Concept: Four one-lot partitions providing a common through access lane (16' wide with 2' shoulders). 1 2 — 3 4 As proposed, up to eight lots could take access off of the access lane. Access by nine or more lots would require development of a public or private street. • Infill Issues Summary Page 27 June 11, 2009 461 SERIAL PARTITION Concept: • Standardize the land division process, regardless of the number of lots created. Issue: In general terms, there is a perception that developers use serial partitions to avoid subdivision standards. Specifically, standards and improvements that are circumvented through serial partitions include: street improvements (ROW dedication and improvements), dedication of 20% open space, street trees, and minimum density. Discussion: The intent of the draft code language is to insure that the necessary public improvements and dedications are required, regardless of the type of development proposed (minor partition, major partition, subdivision or PUD). In order to require a connection or construction of a street the City depends on the Local Street Connectivity standards. However, this article is currently only applicable to "any development that results in the construction of a street" or development on five or more acres. Proposal: The proposal amends the Local Street Connectivity article to apply to almost all land divisions. The threshold for applicability should be reduced to 1.75 acres and connectivity should be required for access lanes. Section 11 - Flag Lots/Serial Partitions — Code Sections to be amended: 50.68.015 Classification of Variances 50.20.020-030 Flag Lot Standards 50.57.020 Standards for Construction 50.60.005-035 Street Connectivity • lnfill Issues Summary Page 28 June 11, 2009 462 • Exhibit F-13 Planning Commission Supplemental Report #9 07-02-09 Code Exceptions, Planned Developments, and Variances The following excerpts are taken from the Community Development Code. The language addresses a variety of exceptions that may have an effect on setbacks and other dimensional requirements. Key sections authorizing exceptions are highlighted. Article 50.14 Accessory and Temporary Uses. Section 50.14.005 Accessory Uses. I. Accessory uses are allowed in conjunction with the principal use and shall comply with the requirements of this section and all requirements for the principal use, except where specifically modified by this Code. 2. A greenhouse or hothouse may be maintained accessory to a dwelling only if there are no sales. 3. A guesthouse may be maintained accessory to a dwelling provided there is no kitchen space • or cooking facilities in the guesthouse and the square footage is less than 400 square feet. 4. Pool covers shall not exceed 15 feet in height. 5. A side or rear yard setback may be reduced to three feet for an accessory structure in a residential zone if the structure complies with the following four criteria: a. The accessory structure is erected more than 40 feet from any street. For the purposes of this section, an alley shall not be considered a street.The side and rear setbacks for a detached garage obtaining access from an alley may be reduced to 3 feet or to the degree the garage maintains access that provides an outside front wheel turning radius of at least 25 feet, whichever is greater. b. The accessory structure is detached from other buildings by 5 feet or more. c. The accessory structure does not exceed a height of l 0 feet nor an area of 600 hundred square feet. d. The parcel is zoned other than R-6. The setback exception authorized by this subsection does not apply to setbacks required by LOC 50.22.035 (Special Setbacks). The setback exception also does not apply to noise producing accessory structures such as heat pumps, swimming pool motors, etc., unless abutting property owners of the proposed site of the proposed noise producing accessory structure agree in writing that said accessory structure may be located within the accessory structure setback exception permitted under this subsection. Flag.Lots. The setback exception authorized by this subsection does not apply to flag lots.However, a side or rear yard accessory structure setback may be reduced to 6 feet on a flag lot when the above criteria (a-d)are met. Exhibit F-13 EXHIBIT F-13 Exceptions, Planned Developments, and Variances LU 08-0053 463 S 6. "Dish" type antenna may only be placed in rear yards, on the ground, and must be screened by landscaping. 7. Except as provided in LOC Article 50.16, boat houses and docks along Oswego Lake and its canals may be placed on a property line. [Cross-Reference: LOC 50.07.045 -Accessory Structures in R-6 Zone.] (Ord. 2398, Amended, 12/06/2005, Prior Text; Ord. 2316,Added, 03/05/2002) Section 50.14.010 Temporary Structures, Uses. Temporary structures and uses are permitted only as follows: 1. In any zone: • a. Temporary structures and use of recreational vehicles for temporary shelter for relief of victims of a disaster or emergency. b. One temporary construction office not to exceed 1,000 square feet located on the construction site. This use does not include real estate sales or promotion. c. Temporary structures in conjunction with installation or maintenance of utilities. d. Upon property for which the primary existing use is other than residential,temporary uses and non-substantial structures*for public or non-profit education, fund-raising, weekend fair, athletic events or jamborees/tournaments,artistic,musical/concert performances,or other similar uses, subject to obtaining a Special Event Permit pursuant to LOC 20.06.500. Such use shall not exceed 15 days unless • approval is granted by the City Manager,upon a determination that the public interest is not adversely affected and that the impact upon the surrounding neighborhood is minimal. In no event shall the use exceed 120 days. Any weekend fair shall occur between Friday and the following Monday,provided the number shall not exceed one in any calendar quarter. Examples of weekend fairs include Festival of the Arts and classic car shows. All produce and debris will be removed at the end of the business day. Temporary security facilities for the weekend fair,including overnight security by the occupancy of a caretaker or security personnel in trailers or recreational vehicles,is permitted. 2. In commercial and industrial zones: a. A tent,trailer or other portable structure for sales,promotional or educational events; such use not exceed two consecutive weeks and a total of I4 days in any six month period. b. Seasonal retail sales as detailed below: i. Christmas tree sales from November 26 to December 31. ii. Outdoor restaurant uses in conjunction with an existing indoor year-round restaurant.No additional parking is required for the outdoor use. iii. "Pushcart"vendors in the EC and GC zones.Food vendors will have all required Health Department licenses and certificates. Such uses limited to food and flowers. c. In the GC and EC zones,one sidewalk sale each calendar quarter when located in area abutting the seller's permanent business. Business licenses are required for all the above temporary commercial activities. 3. In commercial,industrial,and public use zones: a. "Saturday Market" type sales of produce from temporary sales shelters(including vehicles) from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturdays and 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Sundays subject to obtaining a Special Event Permit pursuant to LOC 20.06.500. The type of products sold may include additional products, • Exhibit F-13 Exceptions, Planned Developments, and Variances 2 464 • such as art,crafts,and food for consumption at the Market,so long as such non-produce sales are secondary to the Market's sale of produce. Such Market sales may locate in only one location each in the East End and West End Commercial Districts and Lake Grove Industrial Park District and shall have sufficient parking on-site or shall arrange to utilize the parking areas of an adjacent business which does not normally operate on weekends. All produce and debris will be removed at the end of the business day. b. Fairs, carnivals,and other similar major public gatherings,and non-substantial structures* for uses related thereto,not to exceed 15 consecutive days and not to exceed twice in any 12-month period, and subject to obtaining a Special Event Permit pursuant to LOC 20.06.500.Temporary security facilities for the fair,carnival, or other major public gathering,including overnight security by the occupancy of a caretaker or security personnel in trailers or recreational vehicles,is permitted. Business licenses are required for all the above temporary commercial activities. 4. In residential zones: a. Overnight use of tent or similar structure,but not a trailer or recreational vehicle,for family use within the rear yard of a dwelling. b. The showing of model or"showcase"homes,and non-substantial structures*for uses related thereto,within a subdivision for a fee is allowed for a period not to exceed one month, subject to obtaining a Special Event Permit pursuant to LOC 20.06.500. Only one showing is allowed per phase of a subdivision. *Examples of non-substantial structures include:tents or three-sided booths,stages,and removable decks, secured to the ground by no more than stakes or pins,and that can be easily disassembled and removed from the site without significant damage to the site. 1111 (Ord. 2398,Amended, 12/06/2005, Prior Text; Ord. 2346, Amended, 06/10/2003,Prior Text; Ord. 2316, Added, 03/05/2002) Section 50.14.015 Use of Recreational Vehicle as a Dwelling Unit Prohibited. A recreational vehicle shall not be used as a dwelling unit. This section prohibits any use of such facilities for dwelling purposes for more than 72 hours in any seven day period. (Ord. No. 2316,Added, 03/05/2002) Article 50.17 Planned Development Overlay. Section 50.17.005 -Purpose,Applicability. 1. Purpose. The purpose of the Planned Development Overlay is to provide, for parcels of sufficient size, greater flexibility in development of land as compared to a standard subdivision, encourage variety in the development pattern of the community, encourage developers to use a creative approach in land development, conserve natural land features, facilitate a desirable aesthetic and efficient use of open space,create public and private common open spaces, and provide for flexibility and variety in the location of improvements on lots. If these public purposes are accomplished, exceptions to certain zoning standards may be granted as provided by LOC 50.17.015. 411) Exhibit F-13 Exceptions, Planned Developments, and Variances 3 465 2. Applicability. Use of the Planned Development Overlay (PD) is allowed in any zone for • subdivision proposals, except when the property is located in the R-7.5, R-10, or R-15 zone, at least one of the following circumstances must exist: a. The property is greater than 75,000 square feet in size; b. An RC District or RP District or its associated buffer is located on the property-; c_ A tree grove greater than 15,000 square feet in size exists on the property; or d. The property includes resources identified as Class I or II Riparian Corridors/Wildlife Habitat or Class A or B Upland Wildlife Habitat as mapped on Metro's Title 13 Regionally Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat Inventory Map (adopted by Metro on September 29, 2005 and amended on December 8, 2005), see LOC Appendix 50.46.010. [Cross reference: LOC 50.17.005 (2)(d) is automatically repealed upon enactment of an updated Sensitive Lands Atlas, which includes the resources inventoried between 2003 and 2007 per Ordinance 2499, Section 6.] (Ord. 2499, Amended, 06/17/2008, Prior Text; Ord. 2309A,Amended, 03/05/2002; Ord. 2316, Added, 03/05/2002) Section 50.17.010 - Procedures. 1. The establishment of a PD Overlay for projects containing more than one phase shall occur in conjunction with the approval by the Planning Commission of an Overall Development Plan and Schedule(ODPS) pursuant to the provisions of LOC Article 50.71. The ODPS shall contain a section which identifies the zone requirements to be applied in the PD Overlay. These • requirements may be adopted by referring in the Final Order to existing provisions of this chapter or by creating special zoning standards pursuant to the Planned Development Overlay section. (LOC 50.17.005 to 50.17.025). 2. A request for a PD overlay for a project that will contain only one phase may be considered by the Development Review Commission.No ODPS shall be required, but the requirements of subsection (1)of this section for the adoption of zone requirements in the Final Order shall be complied with. 3. Following approval of a PD Overlay: a: If any modifications were made from the underlying zone requirements for lot area, dimensions, setback, residential FAR, garage appearance and location, front building plane, side yard elevation or lot coverage for any lots within the planned development, then any subsequent request for modification to these standards by variance shall be processed as a modification to the development permit granting the Planned Development Overlay,pursuant to LOC 50.86.025; further exceptions to the modified underlying zone requirements are permissible through the Residential Infill Design Review process (LOC 50.72) without modification of the Planned Development Overlay. b. If no modifications were made from the underlying zone requirements for lot area, dimensions, setbacks,residential FAR, garage appearance and location, front building plane, side yard elevation or lot coverage for any lots within the planned development, then any subsequent request for modification to these requirements of the underlying zone shall be processed as a • Exhibit F-13 Exceptions, Planned Developments, and Variances 4 466 variance,pursuant to LOC Article 50.68 or, for qualified residential developments,processed according to the provisions of LOC Article 50.72. c. For PD applications filed prior to August 14, 2003, the following standards do not apply: i. The FAR standards of LOC 50.08.040; ii. The FAR standards of LOC 50.06.035; iii. The height exception standards of LOC 50.06.055; LOC 50.07.030; and LOC 50.08.035; iv. The frontsetback plane and side yard plane requirements of LOC 50.06.060; LOC 50.07.040; and LOC 50.08.045. v. The garage appearance and location standards of LOC 50.06.065; LOC 50.07.04$ (2)(a); and LOC 50 08 U55.. Ord. 2398, Amended, 12/06/2005, Prior Text; Ord. 2333, Amended, 07/15/2003, Prior Text; Ord. 2314, Amended, 03/05/2002; Ord. 2316,Added, 03/05/2002) Section 50.17.015-Authorization. 1. In considering an application for a PD Overlay,the reviewing authority shall apply the height,Floor Area Ratio (FAR),lot coverage,garage appearance and location,use, open space and density requirements of the underlying zone and, if applicable, the setback requirements of 11111 LOC 50.06.050 (5). The FAR and lot coverage requirements may be applied with reference to the total area of the project as a whole and not on a lot by lot basis. 2. a. Except for the special setback requirements of LOC 50.06.050 (5), the reviewing authority may grant exceptions to the lot size, front setback plane; maximum side yard plane, lot dimension and front and rear setback requirements of the underlying zone if the applicant demonstrates that the proposed PD provides the same or a better sense of privacy,appropriate scale and open space as a PD designed in compliance with the standard or standards to which an exception is sought. The considerations in granting the exceptions are set forth in subsection (b) below: b. In making the determination under subsection(a), the reviewing authority may consider: i. Whether the applicant has reserved or dedicated more than the minimum amount of open space required by the Park and Open Space Development Standard. ii. Whether the requested exception allows the lots to be designed in a manner that provides better access to common open space areas from within and/or outside the PD,better protects views, allows better solar access,maintains or improves relationships between structures, maintains or improves privacy and/or improves pedestrian or bicycle access to surrounding neighborhoods. iii. Whether the requested exception will allow a more attractive streetscape through use of meandering streets, access through alleys or shared driveways,provision of median plantings, or other pedestrian amenities. iv. Whether the requested exception will enhance or better protect a significant natural feature on the site, such as a wetland, a tree or tree grove,or a stream corridor. Exhibit F-13 Exceptions, Planned Developments, and Variances 5 467 v. Whether the requested exception will provide better linkage with adjacent neighborhoods,parks and open space areas,pathways, and natural features. vi. Whether the requested exception will allow the development to be designed more compatibly with the topography and/or physical limitations of the site. c. In the R-7.5,R-10, and R-15 zones, where the parcel being developed is less than 75,000 square feet in size, the following additional provisions apply: i. Rear Yard Setback Exceptions. 1. For lots where the rear yard setback abuts open space land,the rear yard setback may be reduced by up to 50% of the base zone requirement, 2. For lots where the rear yard setback do not abut open space, the rear yard setback may he reduced by the percentage of the gross site area that is designated as open space, but in no case greater than 20% of the base zone requirement. ii. Lot Size Exceptions. Lot sizes may be reduced by the percentage of the gross site area that is designated as open space, but in no case greater than 20% of the base zone requirement. 3. The following standards apply to PD and cluster developments: a. Lots which are located on the perimeter of a development located in a R-0, R-2, R-2.5, R-3, R-5, R-6,R-7.5, R-10 or R-15 zone, and which are adjacent to lots in an R-7.5, R-10 or R- 15 zone upon which are constructed single-family dwellings,may be not less than: i. Development in R-0, R-2, R-2.5, R-3,R-5, R-6 zones: 75% of the minimum lot area per unit of the adjacent zone. ii. Development in R-7.5, R-10, and R-15 zones: 80%of the minimum lot area per unit 410 of the adjacent zone. b. Housing types located on the perimeter lots described in a. shall be single-family, zero lot line or duplex dwellings, except three attached dwelling units may be placed on three lots which abut at a common point with the middle lot being.a corner lot. c. In a PD or cluster development located in a R-0, R-2, R-2.5,R-3, R-5,or R-6 zone which abuts a R-7.5, R-10 or R-15 zone and which does not contain separate lots for the dwelling units,the building setbacks shall meet the requirements of the zone in which the development is Iocated. 4. If the proposed PD is part of an approved ODPS as described in LOC Article 50.71, requirements of the ODPS approval regarding arrangement of uses, open space and resource conservation and provision of public services, will be considered when reviewing the considerations in subsection (1) for the PD. 5. ' Except as required by LOC 50.06.050'(5). the reviewing authority may grant exceptions to the minimum side yard setbacks of the underlying zone,AN the necessity of meeting the requirements of LOC Article 50.68 (Variances) if the requirements of LOC 50.17.015 are met; and: a. Proposed lot sizes are less than the minimum size required by the underlying zone, or b. Lesser setbacks are necessary to provide additional tree preservation or protection of abutting natural areas. [Cross-Reference: See LOC 50.68.017 (2)Variances Not Allowable-relating to Planned Development Overlay zone requirements.] • Exhibit F-13 Exceptions, Planned Developments, and Variances 6 468 • (Ord. 2499,Amended, 06/17/2008,Prior Text; Ord. 2333, Amended, 07/15/2003, Prior Text; Ord. 2346, Amended, 06/10/2003, Prior Text; Ord. 2309A, Amended, 03/05/2002; Ord. 2316, Added, 03/05/2002) Section 50.17.020- Special Requirements, If common private open space or common buildings are included in the plan, a homeowner's association or similar organization must be established to provide for maintenance of the facilities or open space. The articles of incorporation or other evidence of incorporation of such organization shall be included in the application. (Ord. 2398, Amended, 12/06/2005,Prior Text; Ord. 2316,Added, 03/05/2002) Section 50.17.025-Expiration, Revocation. If 15%of the structural construction of the planned development has not occurred within three years of the date of the order granting approval for the PD Overlay or if development has occurred in violation of the approval granted,the reviewing authority may initiate a review of the Planned Development Overlay to determine whether or not its continuation in whole or in part is in the public interest. The reviewing authority may decide that the Planned Development Overlay is to be removed and the plan or plat be resubmitted and made to conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, that the approval be retained, or that the approval be modified in any i manner consistent with laws in effect at that time. (Ord. No. 2309A, Amended, 03/05/2002; Ord. No. 2316,Added, 03/05/2002) Article 50.22 -Exceptions to Site Development Standards and Special Determinations. Section 50.22.005- General Exception to Lot Area and Dimension Requirements. 1. If a proposed partition or subdivision would result in any existing structure becoming non- complying with any regulation of this Code, the proposed partition or subdivision may be approved if the standard causing the non-compliance can be adjusted under this section and, following the adjustment, the structure is thereafter in compliance with the adjusted standard. An adjustment is only allowed if it does not exceed a 15% deviation from the lot coverage, yard setback, or height requirements; or a 10%deviation from the lot area,lot width, lot depth, or lot frontage standard being adjusted; and complies with the following criteria: a. After taking into consideration any proposed mitigation efforts, the adjustment will not have a significant negative impact on the neighborhood and adjacent properties, in terms of: (1) Scale (2) Noise (3) Parking (4) Loss of privacy (5) Buffers from existing properties 41111 (6) Neighborhood character Exhibit F-13 Exceptions, Planned Developments, and Variances 7 469 b. If more than one adjustment is requested,the cumulative effect of the adjustments will • not cumulatively have a significant negative impact on the neighborhood and adjacent properties in terms of the criteria listed in subsection (1)(a) above. c. City-designated historic resources are preserved in accordance with LOC Chapter 58. d. Any impacts resulting from the adjustment are mitigated to the extent practicable. e. If in an RC or RP district,the partition or subdivision shall comply with LOC Article 50.16. 2. A lot which does not comply with the minimum lot area or dimensional requirements required by this Code at the time of application for development may be occupied by a permitted use in the zone in which the lot is located. Any proposed use of the lot must comply with all other applicable code provisions, including but not limited to setbacks, height limits, and lot coverage requirements. The lot lines of a lot which does not comply with the minimum lot area or dimensional requirements of this Code at the time of application may be adjusted as long as the adjustment does not increase the degree of noncompliance. [Cross-reference: See LOC 50.20.030 (2) for flag lot height requirements.] (Ord. 2346, Amended, 06/10/2003, Prior Text; Ord. No. 2316,Added, 03/05/2002) Section 50.22.010 - General Exceptions to Yard Requirements. 1. Except as provided in LOC 50.22.025 (2), the following exception to the front yard requirement for a dwelling is authorized for a lot in any zone. If there are lawful dwellings or 111 detached garages(including dwellings or garages deemed lawful non-conforming or through a variance approval), on both abutting lots with front yards of less than the required depth for the zone, the front yard for the lot need not exceed the average front yard of the abutting dwellings and/or detached garages. If there is a lawful,non-conforming dwelling or detached garage on one abutting lot with a front yard of less than the required depth for the zone, the front yard for the lot need not exceed a depth one-half way between the depth of the abutting lot and the required front yard depth. The front yard setback for a single family detached dwelling in the R- 5, R-7.5, R-10 or R-15 zones shall not be reduced to less than 15 feet. 2. Except as set forth in LOC 50.07.025 (2), a front porch may project up to 5 feet into the required front yard setback provided the front porch is no more than 10 feet in width and if covered, the roof peak is no greater than 16 feet in height. (Ord. 2398,Amended, 12/06/2005. Prior Tcxt; Ord. 2333, Amended, 07/15/2003, Prior Text; Ord. 2316, Added, 03/05/2002) Section 50.22.015- General Exception to Structure Height Limitations. 1. Notwithstanding LOC 50.07.030 (2), 50.08.035 and 50.08.055 (5), the following type of structures or structural parts are not subject to the structure height limitations of this Code in the following zones: • Exhibit F-13 Exceptions, Planned Developments, and Variances 8 470 • Structures or Structural Parts Zone Exempt from Height Limitations Residential Zones- Chimneys, flag poles,ham radio aerials, and other similar structures. Residential Uses Residential Zones- Chimneys, church spires. belfries. domes. monuments, radio aerials. Non-residential uses fire and hose towers, flag poles. and other similar structures. Commercial, Chimneys, tanks. church spires; belfries. domes. monuments, fire and Public Use. and hose towers, observation towers, masts, ham radio aerials, cooling Industrial Zones towers, elevator shafts, smokestacks. flagpoles. radio and television towers,and other similar structures. 2. Aerials other than ham radio aerials are permitted to 10 feet over the building height maximum in a residential zone. Collocated telecommunication facilities in residential zones may exceed the height limits of the underlying zone,but shall not exceed 10 feet above the existing structure height. Collocated telecommunication facilities in commercial,public use, and industrial zones may exceed the height limits of the underlying zone, but shall not exceed 20 feet above the existing structure height. [Cross-Reference: LOC 50.22.045 -General Exceptions for Building Projections and Decks to • Setbacks.] (Ord. 2398, Amended, 12/06/2005, Prior Text; Ord. 2333, Amended, 07/15/2003, Prior Text; Ord. 2316, Added, 03/05/2002) Section 50.22.020 -One Year Exception to Height/Setback/Lot Coverage Requirements for New Subdivision Lots. A residential building permit applied for within one year of the date of recordation of the final plat of a subdivision shall be reviewed pursuant to the setbacks,height and lot coverage standards in effect at the time of the application for the subdivision. (Ord. No. 2316, Added,03/05/2002) Section 50.22.025 - Special Determination of Yards and Yard Requirements 1. Corner Lots. In the case of corner lots with more than two street frontages,the City Manager shall determine the front yard requirements, subject to the following limitations: (1) at least one front yard shall be provided having the full depth required generally in the zone; (2)No other front yard on such lot shall have less than half the full depth required generally. 2. Through Lots. Unless the prevailing front yard pattern on adjoining lots indicates otherwise, front yards shall be provided on all street frontages. Where one of the front yards that would • normally be required on a through lot is not in keeping with the prevailing yard pattern, the City Exhibit F-13 Exceptions, Planned Developments,and Variances 9 471 Manager may waive the requirements for the normal front yard and substitute therefore a special • yard requirement which shall not exceed the average of the yards provided on adjacent lots. 3. Determination of Front Yard for Flag Lots Created Prior to September 6, 1998 and Lots Accessing by Easement. The front yard shall be the area abutting the property line of the "flag" portion of the lot parallel to the street providing access to a flag lot created prior to September 6, 1998. If this standard is not practical due to placement of structures on adjacent lots, topography or similar reasons, then the front yard will be that portion of the lot abutting the property line of the greatest length abutting the access portion of the flag or easement. (Ord. No. 2316,Added, 03/05/2002) Section 50.22.030-Oswego Lake Setback. Except for: 1) a boathouse, 2) retaining walls(seawalls)permitted pursuant to LOC 45.15, 3) within the Flood Management Area defined by LOC 50.44.005(2),water dependent uses and lake-related infrastructure permitted as development pursuant to LOC 50.44.030(1)(e) and (g), and 4) any structure located below finished grade, a structure shall be setback a minimum of 25 feet from the property line of the parcels which constitute Oswego Lake, its bays and canals in all zones except in the WR zone, as shown on Appendix 50.22-A. The exception in LOC 50.14.005(5) for siting accessory structures within 410 setbacks shall not apply to this Oswego Lake setback. (Ord. 2398,Amended, 12/06/2005, Prior Text; Ord. 2346,Amended, 06/10/2003, Prior Text; Ord. 2316, Added, 03/05/2002) Section 50.22.035 - Special Street Setbacks. 1. Purpose. To preserve an obstruction-free area along public rights-of-way in anticipation of future street improvements, such as additional lanes,pedestrian and bicycle facilities, transit facilities, drainage management improvements, lighting, and street landscaping. 2. Establishment of Special Street Setback Reference Line. A"special street setback reference line" is hereby established for the streets identified in subsection(6)below. On these streets, required yards shall be measured from the special street setback reference line. 3. Method of Measurement. The reference line shall be established by measuring the prescribed distance from the center of the right-of-way or as described in the special street setback requirement. 4. Priority of Other Plans. Special street setbacks are minimums. If a greater amount of additional right-of-way is warranted by improvements identified in a traffic impact study, corridor study, or transportation system plan, then the greater amount shall prevail. • Exhibit F-13 Exceptions, Planned Developments, and Variances 9.0 472 • 5. The special street setbacks set forth in subsection(6) shall not be reduced. 6. Special Street Setback List: • Exhibit F-13 Exceptions, Planned Developments, and Variances 11 473 • Affected S:_eets From To I Special Se 5ack Bangs'Rd. South of_lyssa 30 feet Terrace Bergis Rd. Cornell St. Stafford Rd. 30 feet Bemis Rd. Cornell St. Skvla.nds Dr. 25 feet Boons Ferry Road Mercantile Dr. West Sunset Dr. 50 feet but will be superceded by the City Council's adoption of a corridor study. Bonita Rd. 30 feet Bryant Rd. Boones Ferry Rd. Lake View Blvd. 40 feet Bryant Rd. Lake View Blvd. Childs Rd. 30 feet Burma Rd_ 25 feet `C. Ave State St. alley Country Club Rd. 30 feet Carman Drive North and east of 30 feet Kruse Way Carman D:i,,-e South and west of 40 feet Ivuse-Way C:o nell St. Larch St. BerMMs Rd. 30 feet Egan Way East', est leg only 20 feet Fielding Rd. 2C. feet Firwood Road 30 feet berttveen Boones Ferry Rd. and Waiusa Dr.: 20 feet west of Waluz?a Dr. • Gasuie=La ^0 feet InYerttrie Rd. North of Washington 20 feet C . Kirus Rd.from Country Club Rd. North City Limits 30 feet Lake Grove Ave 20 feet Lake View Blvd. Bryant Rd. Iron Mr.Blvd. _= feet_ except between South Shore Boulevard and Summit Court. Lamont Way 20 feet Lanewood St Through south le_ 20 feet of Douglas Circle Laurel St. Dyer St. Hallinan St. 30 feet Lower Dr. 20 feet McVey Avenue State Street South Shore Blvd. 40 feet :adrona S: Boons Ferry Bryant ad.(south th 50 feet from railroad ow) North Shore Rd. Abutting the railroad 30 feet measured from the right-of-way south line of the railroad right-of-way. Oakridre Rd. Quarr •Rd. Bonaire Ave. 35 feet t`ia_laidge Rd. Quarrl,Rd. Boones Ferry Rd. 30 feet Overlook Dr_ 30 feet I Exhibit F-13 Exceptions, Planned Developments, and Variances 12 474 Pilkington Road South of Rosewood St Special street setback line be measured 30 feet from the east line.of Rosewood Plat. Quarry Rd. Boone,. ==_ Rd. Galewood St_ and 30 feet extension to Carman J_. Ree;e Rd_ Boones F errs-Rd. Upper Drive 30 feet R ;Doc 5-. ?ill.inetou Rd. Tuaia n: St. 25 feet South Sha:e Blvd. 40 feet Stafford Rd South Shore Blvd s.nth r iry limits 40 feet State Street 50 feet Summit Dr. Lake View Blvd. Ridgewood Rd 20 feet Sunset Dr. 20 feet Tualatin St. 20 feet Twin Fir Rd. Boones Ferry Rd. Upper Dr. 30 feet Upper Dr. Iron Mt.Blvd. City limits 25 feet Wahiga Dr. S 011711 of Firwood Rd 20 feet Wes .Sunset Dr. West of Lake Grove 20 feet Desi n District Boundary • The special street setbacks set forth above shall not be reduced. (Ord. 2346, Amended, 06/10/2003, Prior Text; Ord. 2316, Added, 03/05/2002) Section 50.22.040 - Rooftop Decks. Rooftop decks are prohibited on the pitched portion of any roof exceeding two percent slope. Decks on flat roofs shall not extend above the coping of the roof. (Ord. 2316,Added, 03/05/2002) Section 50,22.045- General Exceptions for Building Projections,Decks, and Walkways and Pathways to Setbacks. 1. Projections from Buildings. Cornices, eaves, canopies, sunshades, gutters, chimneys, flues, belt courses, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental features, and other similar architectural features may project not more than 2 feet into a required yard or into required open space as established by coverage standards. 2. Patios and decks on or above grade,but no more than 30 inches above grade, may project into a required yard, but may not be closer than three feet to any property line. Patios and decks above 30" shall be subject to the zone setback. Such intrusion into the required yard are to be undertaken solely at the risk and expense of the owner. Any structure which is placed in a Exhibit F-13 Exceptions, Planned Developments, and Variances 13 475 required yard, and is required to be moved for any reason, shall be moved without expense to the 411/ City and the person who bears such cost shall have no recourse against the City to recover such cost. 3. Access Walkways and Pathways. Walkways and pathways, regardless whether on grade or elevated, that provide principal access from the adjacent public right-of-way to a dwelling or as a public entrance(s) to a commercial. industrial, or public facility building are permitted in the required yard, so long as the elevation of the walkway or pathway is at or below the elevation of the driveway or parking area for the dwelling or building. If the walkway or pathway is elevated, it shall be the most direct route practicable. [Cross-Reference: See LOC 50.07.025 -Eaves and other decorative features projecting into setback in R-6 Zone.] (Ord. 2398,Amended, 12/06/2005; Ord. 2316,Added, 03/05/2002) Section 50.22.100- Exceptions to the Minimum Density Requirement for all zones. 1. The minimum density requirements are not applicable to sites identified on the City's Historic Landmark Designation list. 2. The minimum density requirements are not applicable to publicly owned open space lands. 3. The number of lots required by the minimum density provisions may be reduced as necessary in any of the following circumstances: a. Where the most appropriate design and location for a storm water detention or water quality facility is above ground and outside a required open space,or 411 b. Where in order to comply with the minimum density requirement it would be necessary to develop in a flood plain, or c. Where an RC tree grove is designated on the site and preservation of more than 50% minimum protection area required by LOC 50.16.055 would preclude development such that the minimum number of lots could not be developed, or d. Where topographic, natural resources and/or soil constraints exist on site, to the extent that an applicant can demonstrate that compliance with LOC Article 50.43,Hillside Protection Standard, LOC Article 50.16, Sensitive Lands Districts, or other soil constraints regulated by the City's Codes or the State of Oregon Uniform Building Code, would preclude development such that the minimum number of lots could not be developed. e. Where the total number of residential dwelling units resulting from the development will he at least 80% of the maximum number permitted in the zone. For the R-0, R-2 zones, the minimum lots per acre and methodology specified in LOC 50.06.025 shall be used for calculating minimum density. For the DD zone, the minimum lots per acre and methodology specified in LOC 50.09.022 shall be used for calculating minimum density. Where the location of an existing dwelling is such that the applicant can demonstrate that other requirements of this Community Development Code cannot be met if the minimum required number of lots is developed. (Ord. No. 2309A,Added, 03/05/2002) Section 50.22.105 Repealed by Ord. 2398, 12/06/2005. (Ord.2398, Repealed, 12/06/2005, Prior Text; Ord. 2333, Add, 07/15/2003) • Exhibit F-13 Exceptions, Planned Developments, and Variances 14 476 • • Article 50.68 -Variances. Section 50.68.005 -Purpose. The purpose of variances is to allow development not in conformance with the requirements of the Community Development Code relating to the property except as provided in LOC 50.68.017. (Editorial correction, Amended,02/20/2007, ref. to LOC 50.68.010 corrected to LOC 50.68.017, Prior Text; Ord. 2314,Added, 03/05/2002) Section 50.68.010 -Variance Standards. 1. The reviewing authority may grant a variance from the requirements of this Code, except as expressly prohibited, if it is established that: a. Class 1 (Minor) Variance Standards. i. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health or safety, or materially injurious to properties or improvements within 300 feet of the property. 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. b. Class 2 Variance. i 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. Exhibit F-13 Exceptions, Planned Developments,and Variances 15 477 (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 1(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. (Ord. 2398,Amended, 12/06/2005, Prior Text; Ord. 2314,Amended, 03/05/2002; Ord. 2316, Added, 03/05/2002) Section 50.68.015-Classification of Variances. A variance which would allow development not in conformance with the requirements of the development standards may be granted. 1. Class 1 (minor) variances are small changes from the Code requirements and which will have little or no effect on adjacent property or users. Class 1 (minor) 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 20%,or less. • b. Variance from yard setback requirements for a structure other than those described in subsection(1)(a)of this section of two feet or less in side or front yards or five feet or less in rear yards. c. Variances from minimum lot width or depth of 5 feet or less. d. Variances in lot coverage or floor area ratio (FAR)on lots which have the same boundaries as when platted and 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 15% of the maximum allowed lot coverage or FAR. e. Variations from maximum fence or retaining wall height restrictions,pursuant to LOC Article 45.15. f. Variation to the maximum grade of a private street or driveway. g. 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. h. Variances to distance of driveway from intersections (LOC 50.58.015). i. Variances to street frontage (LOC 50.57.015). j. Variances to driveway width for Flag Lots (LOC 50.20.020). k. Variances for elevated walkway or pathway within setback or yard. 2. Class 2 variances which are significant changes from the Code requirements and are likely to create impacts on adjacent property or users. Class 2 variances include: • Exhibit F-13 Exceptions, Planned Developments,and Variances 16 478 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 20%. 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 2 feet in side and front yards and more than 5 feet in rear yards. 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. f. Variance to fence,wall, and retaining wall requirements, other than height. g. Variances to any other requirement of this Code except as classified as a Class 1 (minor)variance above,and applicable to a development. 3. The City Manager shall decide the classification of any variance application. 4. For Class 1 (minor)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. (Ord. 2398, Amended, 12/06/2005, Prior Text; Ord. 2333, Amended, 07/15/2003,Prior Text; Ord. 2314, Amended,03/05/2002; Ord. 2316, Added, 03/05/2002) • Section 50.68.017- Variances Not Allowable. 1. No variance shall be granted that will permit a use not permitted in the applicable zoning district or that will increase the allowable residential density in any zone. 2. No variance to a zone requirement for which an exception was granted pursuant to LOC 50.17.015(2)shall be granted to a lot within a planned development where an exception to the zone requirement was granted from the underlying zone requirements by the planned development overlay approval. [Cross-References: Subsection (2): See LOC 50.17.010 (3) -Modification to Development Permit; LOC 50.86.025 for modification of a lot's lot area or setback requirements within planned development where any lot's dimension, lot area, or setback was modified from the underlying zone requirements.] (Ord. 2398, Amended, 12/06/2005, Prior Text; Ord. 2314, Added, 03/05/2002) Section 50.68.020 (Repealed). [Cross-Reference: See LOC 50.79.020-Minor Development Procedures.] (Ord. No. 2314, Repealed, 03/05/2002; Ord.No. 2316,Added, 03/05/2002) • Exhibit F-13 Exceptions, Planned Developments,and Variances 17 479 Article 50.79 Types of Development and Review Criteria for Each Type of Development. • Section 50.79.005- Exempt Development Classification. No development permit pursuant to this code is required for exempt development. Exempt Developments include: 1_ Landscaping or landscape alterations,unless such landscaping or alterations would modify or violate a condition of approval of a prior permit. In such instance,the permit shall be processed as a modification of the prior permit. 2. Normal or emergency repair or maintenance of public or private buildings, structures, landscaping or utilities. 3. Construction of a structure that does not require a building permit. fRo 4. Interior remodeling which does not change a structure's occupancy classification or change the structure to a use that does not qualify as a permitted use in the zone. 5. Exterior remodeling of a structure that does not require a building permit. 6. Street vacations. 7. Temporary structures and uses listed in LOC 50.14.010 or which are for relief of victims of 4111 disaster or in an emergency. [Cross Reference: Greenway Development District.] (Ord. No. 2316,Added, 03/05/2002; Ord.No. 2322,Amended, 12/30/1899) Section 50.79.010 - Ministerial Development Classification. 1. A ministerial development is a development which requires a permit from the City where the decision: a. Is made pursuant to land use standards which do not require interpretation or the exercise of policy or legal judgment; b. Approves or denies a building permit issued under clear and objective land use standards; or c. Determines final engineering design, construction,operation, maintenance, repair or preservation of a transportation facility which is otherwise authorized by and consistent with the comprehensive plan and land use regulations. 2. Ministerial developments include: • a. Exterior modification of single family detached dwellings, (including exterior modifications that reduce setbacks pursuant to LOC 50.09.025 (4),duplexes or zero lot line dwellings or modification of an accessory structure in the DD zone. b. Construction or exterior modification of a detached single family dwelling,duplex, zero lot line dwelling or a structure accessory to such structures which: • Exhibit F-13 Exceptions, Planned Developments,and Variances 18 480 • i. Is not processed through the Residential Infill Design Review process(LOC Article 50.72). ii. Is not located within a delineated RP resource or buffer area or RC protection area pursuant to LOC Article 50.16. iii. Does not impact an Historic Landmark designated pursuant to LOC Chapter 58. iv. Does not change the nature of the use or occupancy classification to a use that does not qualify as a permitted use in the zone or as an approved conditional use; or v. Does not require special design review by the zone, design district, prior development approval or Overall Development Plan and Schedule(ODPS) for the development in which the subject property is located. vi. Is not located on weak foundation soils as identified in LOC 50.42.030 (1). vii. Is not located in a "Known Potential Severe Landslide Area" as defined in LOC 50.43.010. viii. Is not located in the Greenway Management Overlay District, as identified in LOC Article 50.15. c. Exterior modification of a structure other than a detached single family dwelling, duplex, zero lot line dwelling or structure accessory to such structures which: i. Does not increase building footprint or height; or ii. Does not modify more than 25% of the facade or, if the property abuts property zoned for residential use, does not modify any portion of the facade visible from the residentially zoned property; and iii. Complies with LOC 50.79.010 (2)(b)(i)through (viii). d. Lot line adjustments which do not increase the allowable density on a site. • e. Resource enhancement projects in an RP or RC District. f. Passive use recreational facilities within an RC or RP District if such a facility would otherwise qualify as a ministerial development. g. Passive use recreational facilities that require a building permit such as pedestrian bridges,observation decks and handicapped facilities. h. Construction or alteration of public transportation or utility facilities consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and land use regulations and is not located in a delineated RP Resource or buffer or RC protection area pursuant to LOC Article 50.16. i. Building permits for structures approved pursuant to a prior approved major or minor development. j. Collocated Telecommunications Facilities. k. Delineation of a resource boundary pursuant to LOC 50.16.035 (5). 1. Fill in quantities of 10 cubic yards or less when located within the Flood Management Area and outside of the floodway boundary. m. When located within the floodplain of Oswego Lake, fill in quantities greater than 10 cubic yards, provided the fill is associated with development of a single family dwelling, duplex, zero lot line dwelling,water dependent use, or related accessory structure. 3. Ministerial decisions are made without notice or the opportunity for appeal. [Cross Reference: Greenway Development District.] • Exhibit F-13 Exceptions, Planned Developments, and Variances 19 481 (Ord. 2462, Amended, 12/19/2006, Prior Text; Ord. 2424, Amended, 06/06/2006, Prior Text; Ord. 2398, Amended, 12/06/2005, Prior Text; Ord. 2333, Amended,07/15/2003, Prior Text; Ord. 2346,Amended,06/10/2003,Prior Text; Ord. 2322, Amended, 02/04/2003; Ord. 2316, Added, 03/05/2002) Section 50.79.015- Review Criteria for Ministerial Developments. A ministerial development shall comply with the requirements of the zone in which the subject lot or parcel is located, and shall comply with the following sections of the Development Standards: 1. LOC 50.55.010 (1), and (2); 50.55.015; and 50.55.020. 2. LOC Article 50.40. 3. LOC 50.43.015 (3),(4),(5); 50.43.020; 50.43.030(5), (6), (7). 4. LOC 50.58.020. 5. If the ministerial development involves placement of a manufactured home, LOC Article 50.48. 6. If located in the Flood Management Area, LOC Article 50.44. [Cross-Reference: Greenway Management District. (Ord. 2398,Amended, 12/06/2005, Prior Text; Ord. 2322,Amended, 02/04/2003; Ord. 2316, Added, 03/05/2002) Section 50.79.020-Minor Development Classification. I. A Minor Development is a development which requires a permit from the City that requires a more discretionary level of review than a ministerial decision. "Minor Development" is intended to include decisions defined as "limited land use decisions" pursuant to ORS 197.015 (12). • 2. "Minor Development" includes: a. In the DD zone: i. Construction of new single family detached dwellings, duplexes,multi-family dwellings, zero lot line dwellings or exterior modification of a structure containing a non- conforming use that requires a building permit; ii. Expansion or reconstruction that result in a change of use (e.g. from single family to duplex) or in an expansion of floor area of an existing structure by more than 50%. iii. Any exterior modification of a single family detached dwelling that reduces setbacks pursuant to LOC 50.09.025 (5). • Exhibit F-13 Exceptions, Planned Developments, and Variances 20 482 b. Construction or exterior modification of a detached single family structure,duplex, zero lot line dwelling or a structure accessory to such structures which: i. Does not qualify as a ministerial decision pursuant to LOC 55.79.010 (2)(b)(i) through(viii); or ii. Requires one or more variances. c. Involves a determination by the City Manager that a use not expressly permitted in the zone may be allowed pursuant to the considerations contained in LOC 50.04.015. In such case, the required notice shall include a description of the proposed use and the reasons for the City Manager's determination. d. Involves an improvement to an existing school facility that will increase the capacity of the school facility, generate additional traffic, or generate significant additional noise or other negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. e. Secondary dwelling units. f. Construction of a structure other than a detached single family dwelling, duplex, zero lot line dwelling or accessory structure, or an exterior modification of such a structure which does not qualify as a ministerial development pursuant to LOC 50.79.010 (2)(c). g. Lot line adjustments which would increase allowable density on the site. h. Partitions. i. Subdivisions (with or without a Planned Development overlay). j. Review of development phases subject to an ODPS. k. A change of use from one permitted use to another that increases on-site parking or loading requirements or which changes access requirements pursuant to LOC Article 50.55 or • that will result in the construction of private streets, driveways. 1. Determining an RC District protection area pursuant to LOC 50.16.055. m. Construction of a structure described in LOC 50.60.005 (2). n. Fill in the floodway or fill in quantities greater than 10 cubic yards when located elsewhere in the Flood Management Area, excluding fill for single family detached dwellings, duplexes, zero lot line dwellings,water dependent uses, or related accessory structures when the fill is located within the floodplain of Oswego Lake. o. Outright permitted residential dwellings, other than in the DD zone,when processed through the Residential Inf ll Design Review process (LOC Article 50.72). p. Variances, Class 1 or Class 2. q. Construction of any public or private road, or major transportation or utility facility within a delineated RP District or buffer or RC protection area. r. Permitted uses in the PNA zone that are not listed as exempt in LOC 50.79.005 or classified as a ministerial use. 3. Minor developments are initially decided by the City Manager subject to notice,the opportunity to request a hearing,and appeal as provided by LOC Article 50.81. [Cross-Reference: Greenway Management District.] (Ord. 2462,Amended, 12/19/2006,Prior Text; Ord. 2424, Amended, 06/06/2006, Prior Text; Ord. 2398, Amended, 12/06/2005, Prior Text; Ord. 2333, Amended, 07/15/2003, Prior Text; Ord. 2346, Amended, 06/10/2003, Prior Text; Ord. 2322,Amended, 02/04/2003; Ord. 2309A, Amended, 03/05/2002; Ord. 2314, Amended, 03/05/2002; Ord. 2316,Added, 03/05/2002)' Exhibit F-13 Exceptions,Planned Developments,and Variances 21 483 Section 50.79.025 Review Criteria for Minor Developments. • 1. A minor development shall comply with: a. The requirements of the zone in which it is located; b. The Development Standards applicable to minor developments; c. Any additional statutory,regulatory or Lake Oswego Code provisions which may be applicable to the specific minor development application, such as the variance provisions,the Streets and Sidewalk Chapter(LOC Chapter 42),the Sign Code(LOC Chapter 47),the Tree Cutting Chapter(LOC Chapter 55),the Solar Access Chapter(LOC Chapter 57), and the Historic Preservation Chapter(LOC Chapter 58);and d. Any applicable condition of approval imposed pursuant to an approved ODPS or prior development permit affecting the subject property. e. The Building Design Standard(LOC Article 50.45) for developments in the DD Zone. 2. For the purpose of application of the Development Standards and pursuant to subsections (1)(b) and(1)(c) of this section,partitions involving the creation of a public or private street, construction or alteration of structures as described in LOC 50.79.020 (2)(f) and subdivisions shall be considered to be "major developments." [Cross Reference: If applicable, see LOC 50.15.050- Greenway Management Overlay; Partitions and Subdivisions: note subsection (2).] (Ord. 2398, Amended, 12/06/2005, Prior Text; Ord.2316,Added, 03/05/2002) Section 50.79.030-Major Development Classification. 1. A Major Development is a development which requires a permit from the City involving the greatest level of review. 2. "Major Development" includes: a. Conditional uses. b. Any development defined as major development pursuant to this section which is proposed to be phased pursuant to adoption of an Overall Development Plan and Schedule (ODPS). c. Any development which requires a Comprehensive Plan, Zoning map amendment, or Community Development Code text amendment. 3. A Major Development is subject to public notice, hearing and opportunity for appeal as described in Articles 50.82 and 50.83. [Cross-References: see LOC 50.79.030-Rezone of a parcel is not a"development"and hence is not a major development, but is to be processed as a major development; LOC Article 50.15 - Greenway Management Overlay District.] (Ord. 2398, Amended, 12/06/2005, Prior Text; Ord. 2309A, Amended, 03/05/2002; Ord. 2314, Amended, 03/05/2002; Ord. 2316,Added,03/05/2002) S Exhibit F-13 Exceptions, Planned Developments, and Variances 22 484 • Section 50.79.035 Review Criteria for Major Developments. A major development shall comply with: 1. Any applicable regulatory policies of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan; 2. The requirements of the zone in which it is located; 3. The Development Standards applicable to major developments; 4. Any additional statutory or Lake Oswego Code provisions which may be applicable to the specific Major development application, such as the variance provisions,the Streets and Sidewalks Ordinance(LOC Chapter 42),the Tree Cutting Ordinance (LOC Chapter 55), the Solar Access Ordinance(LOC Chapter 57), and the Historic Ordinance (LOC Chapter 58); and 5. Any conditions of approval imposed as part of an approved ODPS or prior development permit affecting the subject property. (Ord.No. 2316, Added, 03/05/2002) Section 50.79.040 - Conditions of Approval. • 1. The reviewing authority may impose conditions of approval on a major or minor development permit in one or more of the following circumstances: a. The condition is necessary to bring the application into compliance with applicable approval criteria. b. The condition is required as a condition of approval,construction or implementation by the development standards,the Lake Oswego Code or state statute. c. The condition is reasonably related to alleviation of a need for public services or facilities created or contributed to by the proposed development. As used in this section, "public services or facilities" includes sewer, water, surface water management,parks, open space, streets, sidewalks, and pathways. d. The condition is reasonably related to eliminating or mitigating a negative impact on natural features or processes or on the built environment of the neighborhood which is created or contributed to by the proposed development. As used in this section, "natural features or processes" includes Distinctive Natural Areas, stream corridors and natural drainage ways, significant tree or trees,wetlands, and other natural areas. 2. Conditions of approval contemplated by subsection (1)of this section include,but are not limited to: a. Imposition of a development schedule. b. Requiring reservation or protection of land for open space or to protect significant natural features. c. Requiring dedication of property, rights-of-way, easements or conservation easements for public facilities such as streets, utilities, pathways, sidewalks, surface water management and street trees, or for protection of Distinctive Natural Areas, wetlands, stream corridors or other • Exhibit F-13 Exceptions, Planned Developments, and Variances 23 485 natural features. Dedications of property or property rights pursuant to this subsection must be • based upon findings pursuant to subsections(1)(c) or(1)(d) of this section. d. Requiring on-site and off-site construction of or improvements to public facilities where necessary to ensure adequate capacity and where service demand will be created or increased by the proposed development. The costs of off-site improvements may be pro-rated between the applicant and the City in proportion to the increased service demand which will be created by the project when compared to the demand existing if the project were not constructed. e. Requiring construction and maintenance guarantees to ensure that required public facilities are constructed to and will comply with City standards, regulations or conditions. f. Requiring modifications in the design or intensity of a proposed development or to require or prohibit certain construction methods. g. Requiring approval, inspection, or evaluation by another agency,jurisdiction, public utility or consultant. h. Limiting the number, location or design of street accesses to a proposed development to maintain street capacity, improve safety, or otherwise comply with an approval criterion. i. Requiring covenants, conditions or restrictions to be recorded against the property. It shall be a violation of this code for a property owner or homeowner's association to amend or rescind or fail to comply with any covenant, condition or restriction required by the City pursuant to a development approval without approval of the City. (Ord. No. 2316, Added, 03/05/2002) Article 50.80 - Review of Ministerial Development Applications. Section 50.80.005 Review by City Manager, Ministerial Development applications shall be reviewed and approved by the City Manager pursuant to LOC 50.79.015. (Ord.No. 2316, Added, 03/05/2002) • Exhibit F-13 Exceptions, Planned Developments, and Variances 24 486 • EXHIBIT F-14 Nonconforming Structure August 24, 2009 Proposal (redlining shows changes from the Nov. 4, 2008 versions, reflecting PC workshop consensus) Because of the special involuntary reconstruction rights for single family, duplex, and historic landmark structures recommended by the Planning Commission as part of the Infill Amendments.a second subsection of LOC 50.70.020 must be created, retaining the current nonconforming requirements for"other structures." Thus, LOC 50.70.020 is proposed to be repealed in its entirety,but, subsection 2 is intended as a"placeholder"to continue current nonconforming structure rights for structures not listed in subsection 1,under the current 50%test. Section 50.70.020 Destruction, Movement and Replacement of Structures. 1. Single-Family or Duplex Dwellings, Accessory Structures,and Historic Landmarks. a. Applicability. Excluding structures within the Flood Management Area (LOC Article 50.44),this subsection 1 is applicable to nonconforming: (1) Single-family (attached or detached)or duplex dwellings; (2) Historic landmarks designated or listed upon the Landmark Designation List, pursuant to LOC 58.02.025 or 58.02.080. (3).Non-conforming accessory structures to a single-family dwelling, duplex dwelling, or historic landmark. b. Ability to Construct or Reconstruct Nonconforming Structure. Subject to the one-year time limitation provided in subsection(1)(c) below, when an applicable structure,or any portion thereof, is damaged or destroyed_ (I), whether by y causes not under the control of the owner(including but not limited to fire, earthquake, flood, landslide,and wind or tree damage, but not including destruction due to lack of structural maintenance by the owners reconstruction, remodeling, or new construction, i the rebuilding or reconstruction of the nonconforming structure,or portion thereof, shall be exempt from the provisions of this Code to the extent that the structure failed to conform. (2) By causes under the control of the owner. e.g., lack of structural • maintenance by the owner,reconstruction, remodeling, or new construction,the portion 1 EXHIBIT F-14 LU 08-0053 487 of the nonconforming dwelling being rebuilt, reconstructed,or being newly constructed • shall conform fully to City Codes and Standards. The Infill Task Force had recommended that the right to reconstruct a nonconforming dwelling would exist regardless of the cause of the damage or destruction(voluntary or involuntary),and eliminating the current 50%rule. (Under the current 50%rule, if the cost of rebuilding is more than 50%of the value of the structure.then the rebuilding had to comply with current requirements; if less than 50%, then the rebuilding could continue the degree of nonconformity previously existing.) The Planning Commission limited the right to reconstruct and continue the degree of nonconformity to only involuntary damage or destruction, but does concur that the 50%test should be eliminated. Thus,if there is a voluntary damage or destruction (remodeling), the remodeling must fully comply with the code requirements. c. Time Limitation. In order to utilize the rights granted by subsection (l)(b)above, the building permit for the construction or reconstruction must be issued within one year from the date of damage or destruction. If the building permit is not issued within the one year period, or if issued,the building permit expires, the ability to construct or reconstruct an applicable nonconforming structure shall cease. d. Maintenance of Non-Conforming Structure. Maintenance of a non- • conforming structure that does not enlarge or expand the structure is permitted; maintenance that does enlarge or expand the structure is subject to subsection (1)(e) below. e. Expansion of Nonconforming Structure in Conforming Manner. Applicable non-conforming structures may also be enlarged or expanded in a manner which does not increase the degree of non-conformity. 2. Structures Other Than Single-Family or Duplex Dwellings,Accessory Structures, and Historic Landmarks. This subsection 2 is applicable to structures subject to subsection (2)(a) below. a. Applicability. This subsection 2 is applicable to all structures other than listed in subsection (1)(a)above. b. Ability to Construct or Reconstruct Nonconforming Structure. Subject to the one-year time limitation provided in subsection (2)(c) below, 1-4=if a non- conforming structure is damaged or destroyed by any means to the extent that the cost of rebuilding the damaged portions would exceed 50%of the then current replacement cost of the entire building, the rebuilding shall conform fully to City Codes and Standards. Determination of the rebuilding costs shall be made by the City Manager, who may utilize an appraisal or other suitable method to determine current replacement costs. If the damage is 50%or less of the current replacement costs, the rebuilding or reconstruction need not comply with the terms of this Code only to the extent that the destroyed portions of the structure failed to conform. • 2 EXHIBIT F-14 LU 08-0053 488 • [This subsection 2 is reserved for amendment recommendation by Planning Commission arising from CDC /Policy Sections review of LOC 50_70.005, .020, and .030.] c. Time Limitation. In order to utilize the rights granted by subsection (2)(b) above, the building permit for the construction or reconstruction must be issued within one year from the date of damage or destruction. If the building permit is not issued within the one year period, or if issued,the building permit expires, the ability to construct or reconstruct an applicable nonconforming structure shall cease. Issues for consideration in the CDC/Policy Review 1. Maintenance of Non-Conforming Structure. Do we have the same standard for certain residential structures I landmarks in subsection 1 or do we retain the current maintenance/repair standard (LOC 50.79.030),or something different? "On any non-conforming structure or portion of a structure containing a non- conforming use, normal repairs or replacement of non-bearing walls, fixtures, wiring, or plumbing may be performed in a manner not in conflict with the other provisions of the City Code. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to prevent the • strengthening or restoring to a safe condition of any building or part thereof declared to be unsafe by any official charged with protecting the public safety, upon order of such official." 2. Expansion of Nonconforming Structure in Conforming Manner. Applicable non-conforming structures may also be enlarged or expanded in a manner which does not increase the degree of non-conformity, subject to compliance with LOC 50.70.005(3). Should non-single family/duplex dwellings or non-residential structures be permitted to expand in a conforming manner? Presently, non-residential structures may not be expanded in a conforming manner. • 3 EXHIBIT F-14 LU 08-0053 489 • 0617 • • • • Infill - Planning Commission Recommendation Matrix For more information,see http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/plan/ Applicable Code Section(s) (Bold—Amendments proposed by the Planning Task/Issue _ Infill Task Force Proposal Planning Commission Proposal/Differences Commission or where testimony is sought) Supports implementation of neighborhood plans through overlay zoning. The Planning Commission is considering three options for Section 1-Comprehensive Plan design review: 1)No residential design review . Comprehensive Plan Goal 2(Land Use Planning) p Use overlay zones to protect neighborhoods and Amendments implement neighborhood plans; program other than the RID review process;2) Section 1,Policy 18 Administrative design review for all houses • General standards do not always fit • Design review for single family,duplex and • Comprehensive Plan Goal 2(Land Use that do not meet a set of clear and objective specific neighborhoods. attached dwellings. standards for size,height,and/or bulk;and 3) Planning)Section 2,Policy 6 Administrative design review for two story homes that have walls exceeding S0 feet in length. • Eliminates abrupt step in Lot Coverage and floor • 50.08.040-Lot Coverage-R-7.5,R-10,and R-15 a and Maximum area with new formulas and tables; Section 2-Lot Coverage • Garage area included in floor area calculation— 50.07.035 Lot Coverage•R 6 Floor Area 50.06.040-Lot Coverage-R-0,R-2,R-3,R-5, raises the floor area limitation to make up for g • Abrupt step changes in lot coverage and Simplifies lot coverage/height tables-slightly and WR including the garage; floor area based respectively on height reduces allowed lot coverage. Reduces and lot size. • Clarifies applicability of lot coverage and floor allowed floor area by approximately 5%. • 50.08.042—Floor Area-R-7.5,R-10,and R-15 • Inequities exist given that floor area area bonuses by defining"to the rear of the lot" • 50.07.037—Floor Area-R-6 limits are independent of garage size. as being 20 feet from front elevation; • 50.06.035—Floor Area-R-0,R-2,R-3,R-5,and • Eliminates lot coverage and floor area bonus for detached garages in FAN. WR The Planning Commission generally concurs Section 3-Structure Design and Setback • Apply front setbackplane to corner lots; with the Task Force recommendations. The g pp y Commission is proposing a change in the • 50.22.025-Special Yard Requirements Planes • Establish a side yard setback plane to push • 50.06.060-R-0,R-2,R-3,R-5,and WR Tall houses near property lines can be upperstandards for structures with long walls: For • p p ty story bulk to the center of the lot. walls that extend for more than 50 feet in • 50.07.040-R-6 incompatible; • Establish a menu of options to promote length,only 50 feet of the wall is permitted to • 50.07-G-Appendix • Wall plane standards need more neighbor-to-neighbor compatibility including meet the standard side yard setback. The flexibility. wall planes and landscaping. • 50.08.045-R-7.5,R-10 and R-15 remaining portion of the wall must be setback 20 feet for portions over 50 feet in length. Page 1 EXHIBIT F-15 Revised: 11/25/09 LU 08-0053 CD ca N Infill -Planning Commission Recommendation Matrix For more information,see http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/plan) Applicable Code Section(s) (Bold-Amendments proposed by the Planning Task/Issue Infill Task Force Proposal Planning Commission Proposal/Differences Commission or where testimony is sought) • In the R-7.5 zone provide a 15 foot setback for The Planning Commission generally concurs corner lots(change from 10 feet); with the Task Force recommendations. The • 50.08.030-R-7.5 Section 4-Yard Setbacks • In the R-6 zone(FAN),provide a minimum 7.5 Commission added the following: Structures • 50.08.025 R-6 • Corner lot houses are too close to the foot side setback(change from 5 feet on one shall be no closer than five feet to a property street in the R-7.5 zone. side and 10 feet on the other and 10 feet from line except when processed as a Class II • 50.14.005-Accessory Uses • Side yards in F.A.N.are too narrow the street right-of-way on corner lots). variance. This setback includes building • 50.22.045-General Exceptions for Building between homes and too wide on corners. • In the R-6 zone,increase the setback from the projections such as chimneys,canopies, Projections,Decks,and Walkways and alley to a garage to 15 feet(5 feet if less than or gutters,and eaves(currently such features can Pathway to Setbacks equal to 18 feet in height;10 feet if greater). project two feet into the setback). • Define steeply sloped lots as one with an average slope of 25 percent or more; • For lots w/sloping topography in the R6 zone, allow up to a four foot increase in height on the downslope portion; • Allow a height increase from 35 feet up to 45 feet provided that certain design standards are met on steeply sloped lots; • 50.02-Definitions Section 5-Sloped Lots • Measure the height of setback planes for The Planning Commission is seeking additional • 50.06.050-060-R-0,R-2,R-3,R-5,and WR • Greater flexibility is needed on steep slopes. downsloping lots from the centerline of the testimony on this topic. • 50.07.030-040-R-6 adjoining street; • 50.08.030-045-R-7.5,R-10 and R-15 • For upslope lots,the front setback plane follows a 6:12 ratio or the slope of the lot within the footprint,whichever is greater; • Support of structures cantilevering off hillsides are not required to be enclosed; • Allow 18 foot minimum front setback on steeply sloped lots. Page 2 Revised: 11/25/09 • • • Infill - Planning Commission Recommendation Matrix For more information,see http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/plan/ Applicable Code Section(s) (Bold—Amendments proposed by the Planning Task/Issue Infill Task Force Proposal Planning Commission Proposal/Differences Commission or where testimony is sought) Notice and process-same as a variance. RID applicability should be revised as follows:For new houses and remodels where less than 50%of the house remains: setback planes, • • Limit RID so that it cannot be used for adjusting garage(must meet front setback),Lake 50.81.010-Notice of Minor Development Section 6-Residential Infill Design(RID) Application lot coverage,floor area,and height; setback,and setbacks to permanent open. For Review • Provide notice to properties within 200 feet of remodels where 50%or more of the house • 50.72.020-Exceptions to Zone Requirements • RID process is too flexible and site; remains: Lot coverage(20%adjustment for Based on Residential Dwelling or Accessory inconsistent; • Provide for limited adjustments to floor areas anyheight),side yardand setbacks • Too few neighbors receive notice. given (fill- Structure Design through the variance process. in notches),setback plane,garage(must meet • 50.68.015 Classification of Variances front setback),Lake setback and setbacks to permanent open space,setbacks-front,side, and rear(20%adjustment). Appeal of a staff decision-reduce to S150. • Side setbacks can be reduced if lots are smaller Section 7-Planned Developments than minimum size for the zone; The Planning Commission generally agreed Setbacks in Planned Developments can • Setbacks can be reduced to preserve trees; with the Task Force recommendations but has • 50.17.015 Authorization • be too narrow. • Side setbacks can be less than 8 feet provided requested additional testimony on the topic. that exceptions are met. Section 8—Variances • Allows Class I variances for continuation of an The Planning Commission generally agreed • Some provisions make it difficult to existing non-conforming wall;to preserve trees; with the Task Force recommendations. The • 50.68.015 Classification of Variances remodel; minor survey errors; proposed change will allow development • Class I variances may encroach close to • Requires a Class II variance rather than Class I conditions to be added to approvals if a • 50.79.040-Conditions of Approval side yards. when reducing side setbacks to less than 5 feet. variance has been granted to preserve a tree. Page 3 Revised: 11/25/09 A Co W .p CD Infill- Planning Commission Recommendation Matrix For more information,see http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/plan/ Applicable Code Section(s) (Bold-Amendments proposed by the Planning Task/Issue Infill Task Force Proposal Planning Commission Proposal/Differences Commission or where testimony is sought) • Allows for the reconstruction of damaged or demolished non-conforming structures without a financial threshold to allow reconstruction; The Planning Commission generally agreed • Develops a ministerial review process for with the Task Force recommendations. The • 50.70.005-Nonconforming Structures approval of small adjustments to the proposed changes clarify and reorganize the • 50.70.020-Destruction,Movement,and Section 9 Miscellaneous Code Provisions dimensional standards; sections. The Commission has requested Replacement of Structures • Remodels require additional flexibility. • Allows adjustments of code standards by no additional testimony regarding the timelines • 50.79.010-Ministerial Development more than 6 inches; for reconstruction on nonconforming uses and Classification • Allows an increase in roof pitch for non- the proposed 2.5%adjustment to lot coverage conforming structures where height limit of zone standards. • 50.22.050 Exception for Survey/Construction is not exceeded and no additional living space is Errors,Tree Protection,and Alignment for added. Additions to Existing Structures • 50.06.065-R-0,R-2,R-3,R-5,and WR-Garage Section 10-Duplexes and Single Family Apply building design standards and add special The Planning Commission generally agreed Appearance Attached Dwellings provisions related to garage location standards to with the Task Force recommendations. Minor • 50.07.047-R-6-Garage Appearance • Current infill standards do not apply in all assure each duplex unit or attached unit may have a amendments are proposed to clarify wording. • 50.08.055-R-7.5,R-10 and R-15-Garage situations. garage. Appearance • Clarify that front yard is adjacent to the access drive; Section 11-Flag Lots/Serial Partitions • Require a 5-foot setback from the access drive to The Commission is generally agrees with the • Flexible flag lot standards designed to: the existing house on the parent lot; Task Force recommendations. The Create stronger neighborhoods and • Set the house back 10 feet minimum from an Commission is seeking additional public • 50.68.015-Classification of Variances character; access lane with a 20-foot minimum distance to comment on • 50.20.020-030-Flag Lot Standards • Connectivity;Protection of natural a parking area; • House Orientation; • 50.57,020-Standards for Construction resources; • Keep setbacks flexible to allow for site • Exception to Access Lane Standards;and • Infill; constraints; • 50.60.005-035-Street Connectivity • • Coordination of shared access; • Exclude access lanes from"Net Buildable Acre"; Connectivity Standards. Incremental development. • Create connecting access lane standards; • Apply Local Street Connectivity Standards to all land divisions. Page 4 Revised: 11/25/09 • • • • Lake Oswego Planning Commission Working Draft of Infill Amendments November 25, 2009 The following amendments are the Planning Commission's proposed changes to the Infill Task Force recommendations. The Infill Task Force recommendations are represented in the following three documents: • Ordinance 2523 (Comprehensive Plan policy amendments). • Ordinance 2524 — Attachment B (Development Code amendments) • Exhibit F-3 of Case File LU 08-0053 (The Infill Task Force's final amendments to Ordinance 2523 and Attachment B of Ordinance 2524) The Commission has specifically requested additional public testimony regarding the following key issues: • Design Review — The Commission is considering three options: o No new design review process o Design review in limited cases o City-wide design review • Maximum Floor Area — The Commission is considering reducing maximum floor area by approximately 5% from what is currently allowed. • Corner Lot Balconies — The Infill Task Force proposed that balconies be allowed to encroach four feet into the street side yard on corner lots. The projection is likely to conflict with the proposed street side setback plane. • Long Wall Planes — The Commission is proposing that new design standards apply to structures on narrow and deep lots. The standards would limit wall length to no more than 50 feet when walls are greater than 18 feet in height. • Sloped Lots — The proposal amendments would increase building height to 45 feet on steeply sloped lots. Amendments would provide a small height increase to moderately sloped lots in FAN. Other proposed amendments would change the way heights are measured for front setback planes. • Planned Development Setbacks — The Infill Task Force recommended that side setbacks in planned developments be no less than eight feet in width unless certain conditions are met. • Nonconforming Uses — The Planning Commission is seeking additional testimony on the length of time that should be allowed to rebuild before nonconforming use rights are lost. The draft proposes one year. • EXHIBIT F-16 LU 08-0053 Planning Commission—Working Draft 11/25/09 LU 08-0053 Page 1 495 • Adjustments — The Infill Task Force proposed a 2.5% adjustment for lot size, lot • coverage, and floor area. The Commission has proposed elimination of the adjustment for floor area and has agreed with the lot size adjustment. They are seeking additional testimony regarding the adjustment for lot coverage. • Flag Lots — Additional comments are sought on the following: o House orientation to access lanes. o Circumstances that would exempt development from providing access lanes. o Connectivity standards — Development size threshold that determine when streets need to be designed to connect to other streets. Options discussed include: 1.75 acres, 2 acres, and 5 acres. The Planning Commission's working draft of proposed changes to the Infill Task Force proposal is provided on the following pages. The changes outlined below have also been incorporated into revisions to Ordinance 2523 (Comprehensive Plan amendments) and a revised version of Exhibit B to Ordinance 2524 (Development Code amendments). • • Planning Commission—Working Draft 11/25/09 LU 08-0053 Page 2 496 • Section 1 - Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Neighborhood Planning/Design Review A. Neighborhood Planning Planning Commission members have indicated support for the following policy amendment recommended by the Infill Task Force: Comprehensive Plan Goal 2 (Land Use Planning) Section 9, Policy 18 18. Develop and adopt specific Neighborhood Plans and implementing measures consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as the means to enhance neighborhood livability and achieve desired neighborhood character. If appropriate, implementation may be accomplished through creation of a new zoning district or a new overlay zone. A Neighborhood Association may request the Planning Commission and City Council to initiate Neighborhood Plan Map and text amendments at any time, without fee, upon finding that the proposed changes are in the public's interest and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. B. Design Review The Planning Commission is seeking additional public testimony regarding the concept of a new discretionary design review process for residential development. The Commission is considering three very different options: 1. No new design review process — Continue to use the City's clear and objective development standards to manage compatibility. 2. Design review in very limited cases — Develop a streamlined, staff- administered design review program that would apply only to situations where there is a high probability for compatibility problems, e.g., two story homes on lots that are narrow and deep, where wall length along the side lot line exceeds 50 feet. 3. City-wide design review - Develop a streamlined, staff-administered design review program** that would apply in numerous situations, e.g., houses over a certain set height or size (maybe 80% to 90% of the maximum) or where lots are irregular in shape (depth over 2.5 times width at the street). The third option is similar to the Comprehensive Plan policy recommended by the Infill Task Force. The proposed policy is included below: **Note: The "streamlined, staff-administered design review process" suggested by the Planning Commission would be similar to the method of processing • current RID applications: staff review, with notice of intended decision to surrounding area. If no comment within 14 days, then intended decision is Planning Commission —Working Draft 11/25/09 LU 08-0053 Page 3 497 final. If comment by applicant or others, staff re-reviews with the additional . comments in mind, issues final decision; and any person who commented may appeal for an evidentiary hearing to the DRC. Comprehensive Plan Goal 2 (Land Use Planning) Section 2 Policy 6 (new) 6. Establish a_design review process for residential development to ensure that new and remodeled structures are compatible with the character and scale of development .resent or planned for the surroundin. ne •hborhood. Section 2 - Lot Coverage and Maximum Floor Area A. Lot Coverage Planning Commission members have proposed reducing allowed lot coverage slightly from what had been proposed by the infill Task Force. The reductions were in response to testimony that house size is too big. The adjustments affect three different code sections. Note that the Infill Task Force proposal along with Planning Commission changes generally expands lot coverage for houses over 22 feet in height. In the R-7.5, R-1 0, and R-15 zones current requirements limit lot coverage to 25% for any lot with a structure over 22 feet in height. To clarify application of these proposed standards, staff inserted the language to create height ranges; e.g., ">22 to' . 1. Section 50.08.040 — R-7.5, R-10, and R-15 Zones 111 Proposed replacement table: Table 50.08.040 Maximum Lot Coverage— R-7.5, R-10, and R-15 Height (ft.) Maximum Lot Coverage (%) of primary R-7.5 R-10 R-15 structure 22' or less 35% 35% 35% >22' to 23' 33% 34% 34% >23' to 24' % 32% 3324% >24' t225' 2 % 30-4% 3233% >25' to 26' 25 % 2830% 30 >26' tQ27' 2 % 27 % 2931% _ >27' to 28' 25% 25 8% 2831% >28' to 29' 25% 252 % 2730% >29' to 30' 25% 25% 25 % >30' to 31' 25% 25% 2528 >31' to 32' 25% 25% 25 % >32' to 33' 25% 25% 25 % >33' to 34� 25% 25% 2 % efe>34' 25% 25% I 25% • Planning Commission —Working Draft 11/25/09 LU 08-0053 Page 4 498 2. Section 50.07.035 - R-6 Zone Proposed replacement table: Table 50.07.035 Maximum Lot Coverage— R-6 Zone Lot Coverage in the R-6 Zone Lot size Base Height of Structure at Highest Grade in sq. ft. 20' or >20' to >21' to >22' to >23' to >24' to >25' to >26' to >27' less 21' 22' 23' 24' 25' 26' 27' ,&-or more 7,000 or 45% 43% 42% 40% 38% 36% 35% 35% 35% less >7,000 - 433i% 4236% 4036% 3336% 36% 36% 35% 34% 33% 8,500 >8,500— 4935% X)3_`% 483_5% 35% 34% 33% 32% 31% 30% 10,000 >10,000 - 3335% 3 35% 35% 33% 31% 30% 29% 28% 27% 11,500 >11,500 35% 34% 33% 30% 28% 27% 25% 25% 25% 3. Section 50.06.040 - R-5 Zone Replace and insert into Table 50.06.040: Table 50.06.040 Maximum Lot Coverage (Partial) Zone Dwelling Type Maximum Lot Coverage Height (ft.) Maximum Lot Coverage (%) Single Family _22 or less 45 % >22 to 25 4243% R-5 detached >25 to 28 843% >28 to 30 3538% >30 35% SF attached 50% Other Structures 50% Note: There was a typographical error on page 7 of the proposed Maximum Lot Coverage table (Table 50.06.040) in the original version of Attachment B of Ordinance 2524 (dated 08/04/08). No change is proposed for the lot coverage allowed for single family homes in the R-2 zone. The section should continue to allow 35% lot coverage. Planning Commission —Working Draft 11/25/09 LU 08-0053 Page 5 499 B. Floor Area • Based on earlier testimony that houses were too big, the Planning Commission has proposed reducing allowed floor area by approximately five percent from the current levels (the Infill Task Force recommended a change in how allowed maximum floor area is calculated but they did not propose reducing the allowed floor area). The Commission also discussed reducing floor area by ten percent but wanted to hear additional testimony prior to a final decision. 1. Section 50.08.042 - R-7.5, R-10, and R-15 Zones - Floor Area Proposed replacement formula: Table 50.08.042 Maximum Floor Area per Lot Bonus floor area Base floor area calculation (based on zone) (dependent on lot size) Additional floor Zone area allowance per residential unit providing a garage 3000 square feet + [(actual lot size - 600 sq. ft. R-7.5 • 50005800 feet) x a200. 191 + 750 sq. ft. R-10 850 sq. ft. R-15 2. Section 50.07.037 (2) - R-6 Zone - Floor Area Proposed replacement formula: Maximum Floor Area Per Lot = 29002750 square feet + [(actual lot size - 6000 square feet) x 0.20.19] + a 500-square foot floor area allowance per residential unit providing a garage. 3. Section 50.06.035 (1)(b)(ii) - R-5 Zone - Floor Area Proposed replacement formula: 1. Lots 5,000 sq. feet and above: Maximum Floor Area Per Lot = 49002850 square feet + [(actual lot size - 6000 square feet) x ( 0.28] + a 500-square foot floor area allowance per residential unit providing a garage. 2. Lots less than 5,000 sq. feet: Maximum Floor Area Per Lot = 30002850 square feet + [(actual lot size - 6000 square feet) x 00.48] + a 500-square foot floor area allowance per residential unit providing a garage. Planning Commission —Working Draft 11/25/09 LU 08-0053 Page 6 500 • Note: Prior to final adoption of code amendments, there are numerous places in the code that refer to FAR (floor area ratio) while new changes tend to use the term maximum floor area. Minor wording changes are needed to some of the references to FAR so that the code is internally consistent. Section 3 — Structure Design and Setback Planes A. Setback Planes - Section 50.22.025 Staff is recommending a minor wording change to clarify the proposed amendment to Section 50.22.025. The stricken language is the version included in Attachment B of proposed Ordinance 2524 (page 16). Section 50.22.025 Special Determination of Yards and Yard Requirements; Special Side Yard Setback Plane Requirement. 1. Corner Lots. In the case of corner lots with more than two street frontages, the City Manager shall determine the front yard requirements, subject to the following limitations: (1) At least one front yard shall be provided having the full depth required generally in the zone; (2) No other front yard on such lot shall have less than half the full depth required generally . and (3) For sites where street front setback planes are required, only one frontage shall be required to meet the front yard setback plane standards. The other f�ronta}ges shall comply with the setback plane requirements for side ards abutting a str^e�et. • St'tucture i ction ;2) shall only be r equired to meet the Side Yard Setback Plane as to those yards- ,. u B. Screening — Appendix 50.07-G Staff is recommending two changes to the appendix that illustrates and sets the standards for landscape screening (see page 21 of Exhibit B): ■ Add the word "minimum" before size in the heading in the second column. This clarifies that the sizes are the minimum sizes allowed not the only sizes allowed. The heading should read: Quantity, Minimum Size, and Type of Plants Required. ■ Add the following language to the box at the bottom of the appendix: Existing landscaping may be used to meet the screening requirement provided the landscaping meets the minimum size requirements set forth above, C. Corner Lots — Sections 50.08.045, 50.07.040, and 50.06.060 Exhibit F-3 includes the final set of recommended amendments from the Infill Task Force. The proposed alternative treatments for corner lots allows for a second floor balcony on the side street frontage. Exhibit F-3 proposes that the balcony be permitted to encroach up to four feet into the side yard setback. This projection is likely to conflict with the street side setback plane. The Commission should invite testimony regarding • this set of provisions. Planning Commission —Working Draft 11/25/09 LU 08-0053 Page 7 501 D. Wall Plane Length — Sections 50.08.045, 50.07.040, and 50.06.060 9 The Planning Commission expressed concern that the code standards proposed by the Infill Task Force did not go far enough to regulate structures with long, high walls. The Planning Commission is considering a design review process to address compatibility problems with long two-story houses (See Section 1 of this report). An alternative to the design review process is a set of clear and objective standards that affect the shape and scale of houses. The Planning Commission is considering the following standards as an alternative to the proposed standards in Attachment B of Ordinance 2524 (p. 23). Sections 50.08.045, 50.07.040, 50.06.060 - Structure Design Lona Wall Planes. To break up building mass and provide greater privacy on narrow lots, on a lot that has greater than 2.5:1 ratio of lot depth to the average of the lengths of the front and rear setback lines, no portion of a residential structure shall exceed 18' high fora cumulative length greater than 50' unless the excess portion of the residential structure more than 18'high beyond the 50' cumulative length is setback not less than 20' from the side lot line. Note: Not all lots are rectangular. Because depth measurements use the "mid- point"of the lot line, there can be oddities as to how it applies. Also, "lot width" is measured at the front building (setback) line, so a lot that had a less than 2.5:1 ratio at the front setback line could narrow behind the front setback line to greater than 2.5:1. To compensate for this, the proposed language uses the average of the length of the front setback line AND the rear setback line. Definitions (LOC 50.02.005) (current code language): Lot depth: The horizontal distance from the midpoint of the front lot line to the midpoint of the rear lot line, except for a flag lot, which shall be measured from the mid-point at the front lot line of the flag area. In the case of a triangular lot, the lot depth is the horizontal distance from the midpoint of the front lot line to the furthest most intersection of the side lot lines. In the case of a through lot, the lot depth is the horizontal distance from the midpoint of one front lot line to the other front lot line. (See Appendix 50.02— B). Lot width: The width of the lot as measured at the front setback line. • Planning Commission—Working Draft 11/25/09 LU 08-0053 Page 8 502 0 Long Wall Planes Low, long bldg: Long, two-story bldg: Long, two- standard 20'setback for any story bldg: setback portion over 50' in length 20 ft. I setback - T- Long, split level bldg: --- 1 standard 50 ft. setback for _ first 50'of - bldg. and low portion of bldg. Not applicable-less than 50 ft. in depth. Standard setbacks apply. • Section 4 — Yard Setbacks A. Yard Setbacks Planning Commission members generally supported the Infill Task Force recommendations for increasing side yard setbacks in the R-6 zone (FAN) and on corner lots in the R-7.5 zone. B. Yard Exceptions The Planning Commission is proposing that a minimum five foot setback be established for building projections and accessory uses. In preparing the suggested code language below, staff has assumed that the new five foot limitation would not apply for Class II variances and for the adjustment processes set out in the downtown redevelopment district and in the Lake Grove Village Center overlay district. Adjustments related to the planned development (PD) process are addressed in Section 7 of this report. 1. Section 50.14.005 Accessory Uses. 5. A side--or-rear yard setback may be reduced to three feet and a side yard may he III reduced to five feet for an accessory structure in a residential zone if the structure complies with the following four criteria: Planning Commission-Working Draft 11/25/09 LU 08-0053 Page 9 503 a. The accessory structure is erected more than 40 feet from any street. For the • purposes of this section, an alley shall not be considered a street. The side and rear setbacks for a detached garage obtaining access from an alley may be reduced to 3 feet or to the degree the garage maintains access that provides an outside front wheel turning radius of at least 25 feet, whichever is greater. b. The accessory structure is detached from other buildings by 5 feet or more. c. The accessory structure does not exceed a height of 10 feet nor an area of 600 hundred square feet. d. The parcel is zoned other than R-6. The setback exception authorized by this subsection does not apply to setbacks required by LOC 50.22.035 (Special Setbacks). The setback exception also does not apply to noise producing accessory structures such as heat pumps, swimming pool motors, etc., unless abutting property owners of the proposed site of the proposed noise producing accessory structure agree in writing that said accessory structure may be located within the accessory structure setback exception permitted under this subsection. Flap Lots. The setback exception authorized by this subsection does not apply to flag lots. However, a side or rear yard accessory structure setback may be reduced to 6 feet on a flag lot when the above criteria (a-d) are met. 2. Section 50.22.045 General Exceptions for Building Projections, Decks, and Walkways and Pathways to Setbacks. 1. Projections from Buildings. Cornices, eaves, canopies, sunshades, gutters, chimneys, flues, belt courses, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental features, and other similar architectural features may project not more than 2 feet into a required yard or into required open space as established by coverage standards=, but in no event may the projection be within five feet of a side lot line. 2. Patios and decks on or above grade, but no more than 30 inches above grade, may project into a required yard, but may not be closer than three feet to any property line. Patios and decks above 30"shall be subject to the zone setback. Such intrusion into the required yard are to be undertaken solely at the risk and expense of the owner. Any structure which is placed in a required yard, and is required to he moved for any reason, shall be moved without expense to the City and the person who bears such cost shall have no recourse against the City to recover such cost. 3. Access Walkways and Pathways. Walkways and pathways, regardless whether on grade or elevated, that provide principal access from the adjacent public right-of-way to a dwelling or as a public entrance(s) to a commercial. industrial, or public facility building are permitted in the required yard, so long as the elevation of the walkway or pathway is at or below the elevation of the driveway or parking area for the dwelling or building. If the walkway or pathway is elevated, it shall be the most direct route practicable. Note: A minimum 5' side yard setback is provided for in Class 1 variance limitations. • Planning Commission —Working Draft 11/25/09 LU 08-0053 Page 10 504 • Section 5 - Sloped Lots The Planning Commission is seeking additional public testimony on this topic. There are four components to the proposed sloped lot provisions and Commissioners have differing opinions on the various sections. 1. R-6 (FAN) Four Foot Height Adjustment — To compensate for the continuous downward slope in the First Addition Neighborhood, the Infill Task Force has proposed a height a adjustment in the R-6 zone that would allow buildings to have up to a four-foot increase in height in the down slope direction. The standard, 28-foot base height applies only at the highest elevation point of the building envelope. Some Commissioners have suggested that this concept should be more broadly applied in the City. 2. Height Measurements — The Infill Task Force has proposed that the height of setback planes (front and side) be measured from the centerline of the abutting street for down sloping lots. In the up slope direction, alternative standards are proposed for steeply sloped lots. 3. Setback Planes on Steeply Sloped Lots — The Infill Task Force has proposed modifying the requirements for Setback Planes when they apply to houses on steeply sloped lots. In the upslope direction, the change would generally allow taller homes but would ultimately result in less cutting into the slope. 4. Increased Height for Steeply Sloped Lots — This provision has had a mixed response and additional testimony is sought. It would increase the height limit to 45 feet for steeply sloped lots provided that certain conditions are met. Section 6 - RID Review Planning Commission members indicated general support for the concepts set forth by the Infill Task Force to tighten the RID Review section of the code. The Commission suggested proposed additional changes that limit the applicability of the RID process and require greater public notice and a more involved public process. In addition, the Planning Commission members are considering separately is recommending that the appeal fee for RID review be dropped to $150. (This is not a proposed revision to the Community Development Code and is not a subject for public comment to the Planning Commission. The City Council sets land use fees as part of their annual fee review in December.). Changes from what the InfilI Task Force proposed are highlighted below. • Planning Commission —Working Draft 11/25/09 LU 08-0053 Page 11 505 A. Notice To make the RID notice process the same as variances and other minor developments, the Planning Commission proposed deletion of the special RID notice provisions that are currently set forth Section 50.81 .010 (3). Without the subsection, RID review will follow the standard minor development process similar to variances, i.e. notice sent to owners within 300 feet and notice sent prior to the decision. Section 50.81.010 Notice of Minor Development Application. rio4,-the (fib)-absve- B. Applicability • The changes below illustrate the differences from the RID proposal in Section 6 of attachment B to Ordinance 2524. The RID proposal in Section 6 was intended to replace the current code language in its entirety. Section 50.72.020 Exceptions to Zone Requirements Based on Residential Dwelling or Accessory Structure Design. 1. _l=p eddasid gesr=a=h9y grafit=e� g-zoneT Provided the a•alicant demonstrates that the criteria listed in subsection (2) below are satisfied. the Cit Manaaer may or.nt the following exceptions fo •roposed residential dwellings or accessory structures: a. For new residential structures and remodeling projects where 50% or more of the floor area of the structure is removed or demolished. exceptions may be granted to setback planes (front and side yard), wall planes. garage appearance and location, and the following setbacks: i. Oswego Lake setback, • li. Setbacks abutting dedicated open space. Planning Commission—Working Draft 11/25/09 LU 08-0053 Page 12 506 • b. For remodeling projects where less than 50% of the structure is removed or demolished, exceptions may be granted to setback planes (front and side vard), wall planes, garage appearance and location, lot coverage (up to 20%), and the following setbacks: i. Oswego Lake setback. ii. Setbacks abutting dedicated open space, iii. Front and rear setbacks (may be adjusted by a total combined maximum amount of 20%; no partial yard adjustments). iv, Side yard setbacks (only where an existing, nonconforming wall is continued and extended into the side yard setback). 2. To approve an exception, the City Manager shall determine that the following criteria are met: a. The development is compatible with abutting property in terms of: i. Scale, massing, building form, and height; ii. Side and rear elevations, including window and deck placement; and iii. Neighbor privacy. b. The development is compatible with the character of the neighborhood and the street in terms of • i. Massing, proportion, height, and the rhythm of building forms along the abutting street; ii. Building elevations, window and doorway placement; iii. Building materials and detailing; and iv. Site planning and orientation of the building; 3. in determining whether the criteria are met, the City Manager shall consider the following, to the extent applicable to the site and the proposed development: a. Distance and visibility from street; b. Distance and visibility from adjoining properties c. Topography; d. Building number(more smaller versus one larger, for example); e. Building form(s), massing and orientation; f. Landscaping=, g. Prevailing patterns of building alignment and spacing (rhythm); h. Preservation of existing trees and other natural features of perceived value to the street, the adjoining neighbors, and neighborhood; i. Porch and/or entry location and treatment relative to the street; j. Garage distance and visibility from the street; • Planning Commission —Working Draft 11/25/09 LU 08-0053 Page 13 507 k. Perceived size and scale of garage doors from the street; • 1. Perceived area and scale of driveways and parking areas from the street; m. Fencing or screens. C. Compatibility Section 50.72.020 Exceptions to Zone Requirements Based on Residential Dwelling or Accessory Structure Design. Commission members proposed that 20 houses be used to determine compatibility — 10 on each side of the street, centered on the subject site. Staff modified the approach with the intent of gaining a similar set of structures for the compatibility comparison. a4. When determining whether the proposed development is compatible to the character of the neighborhood and the street, the City Manager shall consider the pattern and character of development in the vicinity of the subject site including, at a minimum. the 20 dwelling units* that are closest to the subject site when measured aLong the street or streets abutting the subject site.=ef-ll letc within 200 foot of tho asite. The City Manager shall also consider any neighborhood design objectives or guidelines for residential development that have been adopted by the City as part of a neighborhood plan. * Is this the right method of measurement? Should it be based on ''developed lots"? Should it be residential development only? Sites for RID Compatibility Comparison 20 closest dwelling units Subject Site measured along the streets • Planning Commission—Working Dra TT7Z=70 LU 08-0053 Page 14 508 • Section 7 — Planned Developments (Exhibit F-3) The code amendments recommended by the Infill Task Force were included in Exhibit F-3 for case file LU 08-0053. The amendments established an adjustment to allow a reduced setback provided that buildings were separated by at least 16 feet. The Commission is requesting additional public comment on this provision. Section 8 — Variances Planning Commission members indicated general agreement with the Infill Task Force recommendations for variances but they stated that if a variance was granted for tree protection, the City should be able to condition the approval to protect the tree. Staff has proposed the following amendment for this purpose. . Section 50.79.040 Conditions of Approval. 1. The reviewing authority may impose conditions of approval on a major or minor development permit in one or more of the following circumstances: a. The condition is necessary to bring the application into compliance with applicable approval criteria. b. The condition is required as a condition of approval, construction or implementation by the development standards, the Lake Oswego Code or state statute. c. The condition is reasonably related to alleviation of a need for public services or facilities created or contributed to by the proposed development. As used in this section, "public services or facilities"includes sewer, water, surface water management, parks, open space, streets, sidewalks, and pathways. d. The condition is reasonably related to eliminating or mitigating a negative impact on natural features or processes or on the built environment of the neighborhood which is created or contributed to by the proposed development. As used in this section, "natural features or processes"includes Distinctive Natural Areas, stream corridors and natural drainage ways, significant tree(s) or trees, #ram —wetlands, and other natural areas. e. The proposed or exception to a code requirement is based on the preservation of tree(s), and the condition of approval is reasonably related to preserving the tree(s) that is the basis for the variance or exception. 2. Conditions of approval contemplated by subsection (1) of this section include, but are not limited to: • a. Imposition of a development schedule. Planning Commission —Working Draft 11/25/09 LU 08-0053 Page 15 509 b. Requiring reservation or protection of land for open space or to protect significant natural features. c. Requiring dedication of property, rights-of-way, easements or conservation easements for public facilities such as streets, utilities, pathways, sidewalks, surface water management and street trees, or for protection of Distinctive Natural Areas, wetlands, stream corridors or other natural features. Dedications of property or property rights pursuant to this subsection must be based upon findings pursuant to subsections (1)(c) or(1)(d) of this section. d. Requiring on-site and off-site construction of or improvements to public facilities where necessary to ensure adequate capacity and where service demand will be created or increased by the proposed development. The costs of off-site improvements may be pro-rated between the applicant and the City in proportion to the increased service demand which will be created by the project when compared to the demand existing if the project were not constructed. e. Requiring construction and maintenance guarantees to ensure that required public facilities are constructed to and will comply with City standards, regulations or conditions. f Requiring modifications in the design or intensity of a proposed development or to require or prohibit certain construction methods. g. Requiring approval, inspection. or evaluation by another agency, jurisdiction, • public utility or consultant. h. Limiting the number, location or design of street accesses to a proposed development to maintain street capacity, improve safety, or otherwise comply with an approval criterion. i. Requiring covenants, conditions or restrictions to be recorded against the property. It shall be a violation of this code for a property owner or homeowner's association to amend or rescind or fail to comply with any covenant, condition or restriction required by the City pursuant to a development approval without approval of the City. Section 9 — Miscellaneous Provisions A. Non-Conforming Uses Planning Commission indicated general agreement with the Infill Task Force recommendation to modify non-conforming use provisions to allow the rebuilding of non-conforming structures. Because of the special involuntary reconstruction rights for single family, duplex, and historic landmark structures recommended by the Planning Commission as part of the Infill Amendments, a second subsection of LOC 50.70.020 must be created, retaining the current nonconforming requirements for "other Planning Commission —Working Draft 11/25/09 LU 08-0053 Page 16 510 structures." Thus, LOC 50.70.020 is proposed to be repealed in its entirety, but, subsection 2 is intended as a "placeholder" to continue current nonconforming structure rights for structures not listed in subsection 1, under the current 50% test. The following wording changes have been proposed by staff to implement the Commission's direction. The Commission invites public testimony on whether reconstruction must be initiated within a one-year time period and whether extensions should be granted. Section 50.70.020 Destruction, Movement and Replacement of Structures. 1. Single-Family or Duplex Dwellings, Accessory Structures, and Historic Landmarks. a. Applicability. Excluding structures within the Flood Management Area (LOC Article 50.44), this subsection 1 is applicable to nonconforming: (1) Single-family (attached or detached) or duplex dwellings: (2) Historic landmarks designated or listed upon the Landmark Designation List, pursuant to LOC 58.02.025 or 58.02,080. (3). Non-conforming accessory structures to a single-family dwelling, duplex dwelling, or historic landmark. b. Ability to Construct or Reconstruct Nonconforming Structure. -- ------ ------- ---Subject to the one-year time limitation provided in subsection (1)(c) below, when an applicable structure, or any portion thereof, is damaged or destroyed: • (1) By causes not under the control of the owner(including but not limited to fire, earthquake, flood, landslide, and wind or tree damage, but not including destruction due to lack of structural maintenance by the owner, reconstruction, remodeling, or new construction), the rebuilding or reconstruction of the nonconforming structure, or portion thereof, shall be exempt from the provisions of this Code to the extent that the structure failed to conform. (2) By causes under the control of the owner, e.g., lack of structural maintenance by the owner. reconstruction, remodeling, or new construction. the portion of the nonconforming dwelling being rebuilt, reconstructed, or being newly constructed shall conform fully to City Codes and Standards. c. Time Limitation. In order to utilize the rights granted by subsection (1)(b) above, the building permit for the construction or reconstruction must be issued within one year from the date of damage or destruction, If the building permit is not issued within the one year period, or if issued, the building permit expires, the ability to construct or reconstruct an applicable nonconforming structure shall cease. Note: The Planning Commission is requesting public testimony on the one-year time limitation proposed above. d. Maintenance of Non-Conforming Structure. Maintenance of a non- conforming structure that does not enlarge or expand the structure is permitted; maintenance that does enlarge or expand the structure is subject to subsection (1)(e) below. • Planning Commission —Working Draft 11/25/09 LU 08-0053 Page 17 511 e. Ex•ansion of Nonconforming Structure in Conforming Manner. • Applicable non-conforming structures ma also be enlarged or expanded in a manner which does not increase the degree of non-conformity. 2. Structures Other Than Single-Famil or Duplex Dwellings, Accesso Structures. and Historic Landmarks This subsection 2 is aplicable to structures subject to subsection (2)(a) below, a. Applicability This subsection 2 is applicable to all structures other than listed in subsection (1)(a) above. b. Ability to Construct or R -construct Nonconforming Structure. Subject to the one-year time limitation provided in-subsection (21(c) below if a non- conforming structure is damaged or destroyed b�any means to the extent that the cost of rebuilding the damaged portions would exceed 50% of the then current replacement cost of the entire building, the rebuilding shall conform full to City Codes and Standards Determination of the rebuilding costs shall be made by the City Manager who may utilize an appraisal or other suitable method to determine current replacement osts. If the damage is 50% or l_ss of the current repla ment costs the rebuildtina or reconstruction need not comply with the terms of this Code only to the extent that the destroyed portions of the structure failed to conform c. Time Limitation In ord r to utilize the rights granted by sub ction (2)(b) above, the building permit for the construction or reconstruction must be issued within one ear from the date of dama•e or destruction. If the buildin. permit is not issued in the one year period or if i rt the buil ina permit x ires th ability to construct or reconstruct an applicable nonconforming structure shall cease. • B. Exceptions Planning Commission members indicated general agreement with the infill Task Force recommendations regarding administrative exceptions but recommended deletion of the proposed 2.5% administrative exception for lot area, maximum floor area, and lot coverage. The following change is proposed: Section 50. 22.840--050 Exception for urvey/Construction Errors_ Tree Protection anal d lignment for ddition Existing Structures . as-follow 1 � The following exceptions to underlying zoning standards are permitted provided the criteria listed in subsection 042 below are satisfied: --a.. UP to 2.5% atiliurytmeotexceotion to lot area . - - - - . - standards or Rb. Up to six inches to dimensional standards. Note: The minutes were unclear as to whether the Commission wanted the proposed 2.5% exception to lot coverage deleted. Staff notes from the meeting had it deleted but the minutes did not mention it. Planning Commission -Working Draft 11/25/09 LU 08-0053 Page 18 512 ii2. Criteria: 04a. The ed0€44446 exception is for an alteration or addition to an existing structure (conforming or non-conforming); and (2).b At least one of the following.circumstances applies: Ai. The exceptions is necessary to address survey or construction errors: �ii. The exce tion� will result in grater tree protection, including root protection; or Gill. The exceptionadjur4ffleftt for the alteration or addition will allow the alteration or addition to align with the existing portion of the structure. Section 10 - Duplex and Attached Single Family Provisions Planning Commission members indicated general support for the Infill Task Force recommendation for duplex and attached single family provisions. Section 11 - Flag Lots / Serial Partitions The Planning Commission is seeking additional public testimony regarding proposed flag lot and street connectivity provisions. Specifically, Planning Commission members 11111 would like testimony to address the following: 1. House Orientation — The Infill Task Force recommendation would require new homes on flag lot access lanes to be oriented to the lane, 2. Access Lanes and Exceptions — Some Commission members are concerned that the code does not clearly state the circumstances that are necessary for an exception to the access lane standards. In addition, some Commissioners stated that access lanes should not be required for the creation of one flag lot. 3. Connectivity Standards —The Infill Standards include a provision that street connectivity be required for any development of a parcel that is 1 .75 acres or larger. According to the minutes of the Infill Task Force meetings, the Task Force recommended that the size threshold be 2.0 acres. Staff believes that the 1.75 acre threshold was inserted to match the size limitation placed on Planned Developments (i.e. the Planned Development process cannot be used on parcels less than 1.75 acres unless the property includes sensitive lands). Planning Commission —Working Draft 11/25/09 LU 08-0053 Page 19 513 514 `,qy Ort LAKE osk,FCO '• , r <Nt Planning and Building riopi Services Department ---�--- Memorandum OREGON TO: Mayor Jack Hoffman and the City Council FROM: Planning Commission DATE: January 11, 2010 SUBJECT: Design Handbook for Infill De ® a' t On December 14, the Planning Com ion reopened th': e,,blic hearing regarding infill development. At the he '.� g g p , citiz---�s provid='g4��-,stimony regarding the continued need or the crea �. • '= infill desig dbook for residential development in Li Ap, we go. The infill design handbook is en .:'on- • 6. •e a gm;t,ebook that outlines the • best ways to desig evelop horn:. .- a m er that is respectful of neighboring hom ; ri •properties v :he "' bo wo Id include a series of photographs an ' stratio ' ;That de ir'iipxample of the types of homes that would fit well in LaOswegoq It is an' '"sated that the handbook would include d� type d s ,stions for different neigh ex e, a ' th ay fit well in a 1970s Palisades neighbor ood wou t n sadly fi well in the First Addition neighbtr od. The h =`_boo :could help explain how size, scale, design, and priva re importa mak g a home fit in. The Planning C : missio ees the development of the design handbook as an important step in d sing community concerns about compatibility. The handbook wou " proactive tool, encouraging good design early in the development process. In addition, the handbook would bring into clear focus the widely ranging design issues of our neighborhoods and provide guidance in their planning efforts. The handbook is a concept that was originally suggested during the 2001- 2003 infill code project and based on testimony to the Planning Commission, seven years later, the community is still interested in seeing this handbook developed. The 2009-10 infill code amendments will be coming forward soon to Council for adoption, and so the time is right to initiate and complete this project. Therefore, the Planning Commission is requesting that the City • Council make the preparation of an infill handbook a City priority for 2010. Thank you for your consideration of our request. EXHIBIT F-17 LU 08-0053 515 616 Exhibit G Letters • • • k?#(1-11, (3z•3)6 7- 370> RECEIVED ti/2- L—C. 6 Sc-J <ii U Infill Issues City of Lake Oswego Community Development Dept. I. Protect surrounding properties. Construction vibrations can damage foundations and other parts of older homes. Tree removal can damage trees on surrounding properties and cause erosion and landslides that may affect surrounding properties more than the property being developed. Once a permeable surface is replaced by an impermeable one the water has to go somewhere. Consultants can slant their opinions to reflect what the developers that hire them want to say. Views can be blocked. 2. The size of the house should be proportionate to the property it is on. Limit the square footage of homes. There are a lot of environmental issues that would have positive outcomes if this was the case. Smaller homes use less energy and require less material*to maintain. Having more yard allows for trees and plants that create habitat for wildlife and absorb heat and storm water. Permeable surfaces are also less reflective of noise which would make for quieter neighborhoods. 3. The plans presented at Development Review are conceptual in nature and don't always accurately reflect what is going to be built. Renderings usually don't show the proposed development in relation to the surrounding properties. I believe these things should happen before Development Review signs off on the Ask project. 4. Envii nmental. While ri'ers and lakes are desirable places to live I think development near them should be less dense. They tend to be where there is more wildlife and waterways need to be protected from the pollution associated with development. 5. Psychological effects. At some point the no vacancy sign needs to be put out. Dense development causes stress. Some people can handle it better than others. Change is occurring rapidly and continuously. The noise of construction is unending. There is development going on across the street from me as I write. It takes away peoples ability to enjoy their homes. When you start cramming too many people in it causes conflict. I think we are programmed for survival and at a certain level of density people either become aggressive or stressed. I know there are people in my neighborhood that are afraid of what would happen if there was a disaster and they had to evacuate quickly. EXHIBIT G-1 • LV -- Do 517 518 • Patricia B. Elkins Woolsey 26649 Snell Lane Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Phone/Fax(650)941-5236 January I6, 2009 Members of the Planning Commission City of Lake Oswego P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Dear Sirs, As a one-third beneficial owner of the Lake Oswego house at 951 West Point Road,I am writing to object to the proposed Community Development Code Amendments for the"residential infill design process." In the past,the lot at 951 West Point Road has been called the"Park Place"or "Boardwalk"of Lake Oswego since it is on the tip of the West Point peninsula with a view down the entire lake and the last rays of sunshine on summer evening. However with the proposed amendments,this property would become a white elephant because it would not be possible to build a house on this lot even equivalent to the other homes on West Point Road. This house was occupied by my parents Mr.and Mrs.William C. Elkins since the 1960's until their recent deaths • (both in their 90's). As you would expect,elderly people do not update their homes, so at this point the house is still a low ranch style 1960's house that looks"squatty"compared to the neighbors' homes with their high pointed roofs and one additional story. One should be able to at least have a house at 951 West Point Road similar to the house next door at 941 West Point Road which has a smaller lot. The attached FastWeb reports graphically illustrate the problem the proposed Code Amendments would create. The lot at 941 West Point Road is 6,534 sq. ft.and the house floor area is 5,549 sq. ft;the house has two stories as viewed from the street,and three stories from the lake. The ratio 5,549/6,534 equals 85%(which does not include the HUGE elevated patio which the owners built in order to enjoy the view which my parents had). On the other hand our 951 West Point Road lot is 11761.2 sq. ft.and the current house is 4,144 sq. ft.That is a ratio of only 35%. If we could build to 85% that would be.85 x 11,761.2 or 9,997 sq.ft.of house, which would be a very large house--three stories of 3,332 sq. ft. per story. More realistic might be a 6,000 sq. ft house, which would still be just 51% (6,000/11,761.2). Given that the 941 West Point Road floor area is 85%of their lot size,we should be able to build more than 35% or 40%at 951 West Point Road (35% or 40%would dreadfully diminish the value of the lot!!!!),but probably less than 85% which many would consider excessive. Fifty to sixty percent might be a good compromise,in order to allow a house similar to the others on the street, and one with two stories as seen from the street and three from the lake. It is exceedingly important for the esthetics of a community that a newly-constructed home blend in with others on the street. Many who might purchase the lot and home at 951 West Point Road would desire to tear down the existing ranch style house and put up a house with three stories (two plus something like a basement at lake level, but more exposed to the lake than a true • basement would be)and steep roofs LIKE ALL OF THE NEIGHBORS. Such a house would blend in with the neighborhood much more than the existing ranch house. EXHIBIT G-2 (LU 08-0053) Page 1 of 4 519 The current development code allows exceptions to the maximum floor area ratio for homes to be consistent with others in the neighborhood. It is very important that this provision be maintained, because there are definite aesthetic advantages for having new houses fit into the neighborhood and be consistent with other houses in the neighborhood,and in particular so a house could be built at 951 West Point Road that is similar to other houses on the street, It is very unfair to property owners to substantially change development ground rules after some homes in a neighborhood have been developed but before others have been developed. Specifically, it is unfair to a new owner to have much larger houses next door and down the street than the new owner would be allowed to build just because the new house is built under more restrictive regulations than the neighboring houses were built under. It is unfair to homeowners to change the development rules after a lot has been purchased and decisions made. In the case of 951 West Point Road,the lot was originally almost twice as large and included 941 West Point Road, but was divided into the two parcels. Our family would have been better off not dividing the lot if the proposed regulations go into effect,because the premier lot on the lake should be allowed to have a large house on it,and with the proposed regulations that would require a larger lot. Finally, the planning commission should consider the fact that overly restrictive land use requirements serve to diminish property values,not just for the affected lots,but for all lots in the community since everyone will be restricted should they desire to build a new home. The proposed Code Amendments will surely have a negative effect on property values throughout Lake Oswego. Yours very truly, 4110 ¢, r$ a/ Patricia B.E. Woolsey • EXHIBIT G-2 (LU 08-0053) Page 2 of 4 520 FASTWeb Page 1 of 1 • ilFASTWeb 951 Westpoint Rd Lake Oswego OR 97034 Property Profile Property Information Owner(s) Harr Diane M E Parcel# 00259623 Property 951 Westpoint Rd Map Coord 656-E6:2S-1E-10-NW-SE Lake Oswego,OR 97034 Census Tract 0202.00 Mailing Addr 4127 NE 131st PI County Clackamas Portland,OR 97230 Owner Phone Legal 508 LAKEWOOD NO 2 PT LTS 268&269&PT SEC ALSO 1/2 VAC ALLEY. Lot Number 268 Tract Number Block Subdivision Lakewood 02 Characteristics Use Sfr Year Built 1960 Sq.Feet 4144 Zoning Lot Size .27/11761.2 #of units Bedrooms 6 Bathrooms 4 Fireplace #Rooms Quality Average Heating Fcrce_i A r Pool/Spa N Air N Style Stories 1 Improvements Parking Flood C Attributes Wood Shake;Concrete Other Property Sale Information • Sale Date 10/00 1992 $Sq.Ft. 2nd Mtg. Sale Price 1st Loan Prior Sale Amt. Doc No. 77548 Loan Type Prior Sale Dt. Doc Type Bargain&Sale Deed Xler Date Prior Doc No. Seller Lender Prior Doc Type Tax Information Imp Value $419,810.00 Exemption Land Value $1,751,273.00 Tax Year/Area 2008/007002 Total Value $2,171,083.00 Tax Value $2,171,083.00 Tax Amount $20,056.20 Improved 19% Information compiled from various sources and is deemed reliable but not guaranteed. • EXHIBIT G-2 (LU 08-0053) Page 3 of 4 521 https://fwprodweb 1.firstam.com/FastWeb/FASTOrder/PropertyLookUp.asp?Ill=0&UID=... 1/15/2009 FASTWeb Page 1 of 1 • ASTWeb 941 Westpoint Rd Lake Oswego OR 97034 Property Profile Property Information Owner(s) Hageman Michael S Parcel# 00259614 Property 941 Westpoint Rd Map Coord 656-E6;2S-1 E-10-NW-SE Lake Oswego,OR 97034 Census Tract 0202.00 Mailing Addr 941 Westpoint Rd County Clackamas Lake Oswego,OR 97034 Owner Phone Legal SECTION 10 TOWNSHIP 2S RANGE 1 E QUARTER BD TAX LOT 02200. Lot Number 2200 Tract Number Block Subdivision Lakewood 02 Characteristics Use Sir Year Built 1994 Sq.Feet 5549 Zoning Lot Size .15/6534 #of units Bedrooms 3 Bathrooms 4 Fireplace #Rooms Quality Good Heating Heat Pump Pool/Spa N Air N Style Stories 2 Improvements Parking Garage Flood C Attributes Wood Shake ;Concrete Other Property Sale Information Sale Date 12,0011993 $rSq. Ft. 2nd Mtg. Sale Price 1st Loan Prior Sale Amt. $650.000.00 • Doc No. 1516 Loan Type Prior Sale Dt. Doc Type Warranty Deed Xfer Date Prior Doc No. 50856 Seller Lender Prior Doc Type Warranty Deed Tax Information Imp Value $1,046,440.00 Exemption Land Value $1,579,926.00 Tax YearrArea 20081007002 Total Value $2,626,366.00 Tax Value $2.626,366.00 Tax Amount $23,320.55 Improved 40% Information compiled from various sources and is deemed reliable but not guaranteed. 410 EXHIBIT G-2 (LU 08-0053) Page 4 of 4 522 https://fwprodweb1.firstam.com/FastWeb/FASTOrder/PropertyLookUp.asp?1D=0&UID=... 1/15/2009 1 • CHRISTOPHER K. ROBINSON, P.C. A Professional Law Corporation October 27, 2008 Julia Glisson, Chair Lake Oswego Planning Commission City Hail Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Re: October 27,2008 Planning Commission Hearing Ordinance 2523,LU 08-0053-Comprehensive Plan-New Info Policies Ordinance 2524, LU 08-0053-Community Development Code-infill Amendments Dear Chairperson Glisson; I am the chair of the Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association(FHNA)and have just concluded a phone conversation with Danny Agner regarding tonight's public hearings. • As you know from my prior comments and testimony before the Commission,the.FHNA is very focused on appropriate development that is consistent with the existing and desired neighborhood character. it is my understanding based upon my conversation with Danny that while the Commission will invite public testimony this evening, the more appropriate time to give testimony would be at the meeting to be held tentatively in January 2009. Between now and then it is my further understanding that there would be some work group study sessions with the infill Task Force to further refine the concepts discussed in these proposed amendments. Therefore,I may not attend tonight's meeting,although I am very interested in what is being discussed and proposed and the implications for Forest Highlands. Thank you for your consideration in these matters. Very truly (yours, dAltiS Chris Robinson ' Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association CKR:sm EXHIBIT G-3 • 1 Mt.Jefferson Terrace, Suite 101 • Lake Oswego,OR 97035 Tel 503.635.9330 - Fax 503.635.9010 - chris@ekrlaw-proptax.com 523 1 • • • 524 From: Lisa T. Hunt[mailto:lisat.hunt@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 3:33 PM To: Egner, Dennis Subject: Proposed Architectural Review Committee in Lake Oswego Dear Mr. Egner: I am writing to you as a concerned resident and homeowner in Lake Oswego. I understand that, this evening, a proposed Architectural Review Committee will be discussed and/or fleshed out for the city. I write to urge you not to turn my city into a giant planned community with more layers of bureaucracy, particularly with respect to aesthetics. Please understand that I speak, not only as a homeowner, but one who is a lawyer at a law firm that does a thriving business with respect to planned communities and homeowners associations. It is from that exposure,that most of the lawyers at my firm have firmly concluded that living under the regime of homeowners associations is only frought with problems. Where the city of Lake Oswego could easily achieve its building goals or restrictions through zoning ordinances and codes, the introduction of an Architectural Review Committee only complicates issues and introduces such inevitable human foibles such as abuses of discretion,arbitrariness, and capriciousness in decision-making. I guarantee you, lawsuits will be on the rise. Even if the Committee could remain perfectly clear-headed and even-handed,that will not prevent homeowners from failing to perceive as much with regard to themselves or their 110 neighbors. Home turf is a vulnerable possession that can bring out the worst in people. At least that is what I conclude about my firm's booming litigation practice. Lawsuits are abundant where a Committee approves one structure and then not the other, even if the Committee intends to apply rules clearly and consistently. Homeowners' disputes often take on the flavor of sibling rivalry, and, ultimately,the Committee will be blamed for inconsistent determinations,favoring one part of town over another, not applying the rules correctly, making a determination that harms a neighboring homeowner,etc. Ultimately, I don't care to live in a giant subdivision even if it is my charming Lake Oswego. Please include this viewpoint in your considerations tonight. On the other hand, if this Architectural Review Committee goes through, let me know to whom I should distribute a box of my business cards. Sincerely, Lisa T. Hunt EXHIBIT G-4 LU 08-0053 S 525 9 0 526 Svc RECEIVED i Stet(r-i0vhFAtJ :'AN 2 6 2009 LV t%- City of Lake Oswego A �TrUlirtfriZlopment Dept. GOodbye to those • u houses? • Portland Plan I More information RandyLeonard muses To learn more about the Portland Plan and how you can get involv- about'"minimum" •ed,go to design standardsandonfinesom/ By.JAMES MAYER • • THE oxEcorn. ' houses?" Leonard asked Plan- Portland City,Commissioner ring Director Gil Kelley. Randy,, Leonard..wondered Kelley said that an "urban aloud•Tuesday,what it would. " take tti require`design 'stan form report will be part of the. dards for new homes here. plan, which will establish a Leonard brought up the idea framework for new develop- as the council held a work ses- sion ron the Portland Plan, a designs such as the city now uses for"skinny"houses might • three-year effort f ust under be a"fruitful area to explore." way to guide the ph3�sical,'eco- nornic,social;cultural and en- He said the city was plan- vironrriental development of ning to ask the 2009 Legislature • 'Portland over the next 30 years. to expand Portland's design re- It will invoke a-rewrite of the view authority to include city's .basic planning docu- "mixed-use" projects—devel- • tnents. • opments with commercial and A major goal of.the plait is to residential aspects—and said • cope with an additional million he would explore the idea of residents in the Portland metro expanding the request to in- region by2030. • dude single-family develop- Leonard Cut-through the bu- .meat. reaucratic haze to -spotlight "Homebuilder anxiety goes one of the thorniest political is- up„Kelley warned sues lurking-in the plan:higher • Mayo elect Sam Adams densities tocope with all those commented that Leonard.,had new People. "raised a great issue"but noted l He'said•density and plan that a legislative change Wing get a bad name when going to be hazel" Portlanders connect the urban growth boundary with the ugly Adams suggested that the infill house next door. It'isn't Planning Bureau devise a pilot the fact o gher,densi y that project. "I think we could do bothers people so imucli as the something about that," Kelley way many of the new houses said. look. r • "What would it take to es- James Mayer.503.294.5988;• tablish minimum standards for Jim mayer@news.oregoniart.com • • EXHIBIT G-5 527 • • • 528 w Lake Oswego Planning Commission January 26, 2009 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Infill Comprehensive Plan amendments and code amendments. FAN^Forest Hills supports the recommended Comp Plan amendments to allow the use of overlay zoning initiated by Neighborhood Associations and the establishment of a Design Review process. We would further advocate for the creation of a Design Review Commission. We support the recommended code amendments that are specific to the R-6 zone, including minimum side yard setbacks of 7 %feet and the height adjustments of up to four feet for new homes built on slightly sloped lots.. We also support the minor lot width adjustment option(20%)proposed for land divisions. With twenty-nine Forest Hills lots potentially subdividable we believe that fewer flag lots will result. FAN^Forest Hills also supports code amendments requiring side yard setback planes for corner lots; limiting the application of the RID (Residential Infill Design)process to exclude adjustments for lot coverage,FAR and height;applying infill standards to duplexes and attached single family homes; and eliminating the"50%rule" for remodels, which is resulting in more teardowns. • There are several recommendations that we feel need more work or that could go further. We recommend that all garage square footage he included in the FAR. We are concerned that the proposals to provide architectural articulation to break up larger side planes do not adequately address the problem. We are also concerned that the recommendations for steeply sloped lots do not address the house to house relationships(side to side, back to front,etc.)or consider mapped slide zone safety issues. FANAForest Hills believes that there are too many exceptions allowed by the Community Development Code. Exceptions are confusing and result in inconsistent interpretation by staff and the Development Review Commission. We believe that the number of code exceptions should be significantly reduced and the code itself written with more clarity. We also feel that no exceptions or adjustments should be permitted for side yard setbacks. There are two major issues that were not addressed by the Infill Task Force that we respectfully request that the Planning Commission take up. First, we feel that zero lot lines (currently permitted in all zones) are not appropriate in single family zones (R-6 and above) and should be eliminated. Finally, we are concerned that there is nothing in the infill recommendations that reduces the overall size/square footage of new homes. While we recognize that larger size homes on larger lots with adequate setbacks are appropriate, we believe that the large homes being built on smaller lots in the R-6 and R-7.5 zones are not, If this trend continues, we feel that housing diversity in Lake Oswego will be • negatively impacted. We understand that the Infill Task Force decided not to address Exhibit G-6(LU 08-0053) EXHIBIT G•6 Page 1 of 2 529 issues, but we ask that the PlanningCommission do so before movingthe • these recommendations forward to the City Council. Thank you for your consideration of FAN^Forest Hills comments and suggestions. A.(744:00 • q<ape4/..--. ,isa Shaw Ryan Chair, FAN^Forest Hills • • Exhibit G-6 (LU 08-0053) Page 2 of 2 530 RECEIVED FEB 0 9 2009 • City of Lake Oswego Community Development Dept. Neil February 9, 2009 Design/Build Remodeling Ms. Julia Glisson, Chair City of Lake Oswego, Planning Commission Handyman Ifonle P.O. Box 369 Repair Tealni Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Custom Ifomcs Dear Chair Glisson, I am following up a letter forwarded to you by the Portland Homebuilders Association. I just want to echo the concern 1I0 ���,r rlrl sltret 11111 expressed by that organization and second their request that I' t�l,,,,,l,ure°tnn+,!al' implementation of design review only be implemented if the Faxfilf3-Zritl-7404 additional guidelines don't resolve the stated concerns over the 1,i>~ir►utnirr�jne;ucelly.rnrt next few years, wcsi shit•SIti 'nrunr Ir1573.s llntrs RIVV.l tin11e 100 Sincerely, l.nkt•il,sLrun,€Ltttt 970:1.1 Milli Mlle.'rl)3•288\ 1'i l Y.11I3.+t:i I:u.n•ru•ti6tnvtutnt Torn Kelly zxt t►ttt Suvvd Neil Kelly Company I't' "tr'`ril�l7''"'' Teirl$gtttr.34t•i 113htllta TINA Show room 1tH1\,�•:,I v n Sc l tend,Olt 1 771iI '1'et litotatr I4t-:i1,L-;atilt Kix.i•11-:fft2•:197it EXHIBIT G-7 • Solent Wt.:MI-ta(Nl 4'titnwtnttr: 1.06.22114 • http:f llnvw.ntdticell?•.com Exhibit G-7 (LU 08-0053) nttcrn+milks Page 1 of 1 ltrn L&Iu WHAM IW?O 531 • • 532 IMP" RECEIVED • HBA FEB 9 2009 Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland City of Lake Oswego - ♦ - Community Development Dept. February 9, 2009 Ms. Julia Glisson,Chair Commissioners Stewart, Brockman, Siegel and Webster City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission RE: Ordinance 2523, LU 08-0053 Comprehensive Plan-New Infill Policies Ordinance 2524, LU 08-0053 Comprehensive Development Code-Infill Amendments Dear Chair Glisson and Commissioners: On behalf of the 1200+members of the Home Builders Assn. or Metro Portland, we wish to weigh in with several ideas and a suggestion or two with regard to the two proposed ordinances associated with infill development. • I think we can all agree that there are issues associated with the construction of new homes, as well as the remodel of existing homes, in the established neighborhoods of the city. And we can also probably agree that there has not as yet been a proposed solution that has gained consensus;not even by the infill task force in their 3 years of work on this issue. On its face, the concept of a design review panel has some favor. However, in reality, all that is accomplished is the value judgments of a few individuals are substituted for that of the property owner and/or applicant. The entire process becomes very subjective, subject to the whims of those individuals on the design panel. Taking a queue from several of the people who testified at the January 26 hearing before the commission, as well as comments made by a commissioner or two,I would like to suggest the commission go forward as follows: Ord. 2523. Go forward with the portion that would implement neighborhood plans, but delete in its entirety the design review portion. (More on this later) Ord. 2524. General acceptance of the concept involved. There may be specifics of the design features embodied that can be better stated in order to assure clarity, but overall this body of work could well serve as what was referred to in the previous hearing as"the design guidelines". However, the package should be referred back to the infill task force w for a polishing up of the requirements, and then brought back to the commission for • hearings and adoption. G-8 (4 8 5 5 SW Bangy Road ♦ Suite 301 ♦ Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 Exhibith of 2 684.1880 ♦ Fax: 503.684.0588 ♦ www.homebuildersportiand.org Pa ♦ Striving forAffordablllty,Balance and Choice 533 • With the implementation of ord. 2523 (neighborhood plan provision only) and ord. 2524 (design guidelines), let the two amendments to the code operate-for a couple of years and then re-assess the situation. I am thinking there may well be recognition that there is no need to go any further with a structured design review panel or process. And then, if there are specific and unique concerns in a particular neighborhood, let them propose enhancement of the design guidelines via the neighborhood plan provisions of ord. 2523. Thank you for the opportunity to comment, and we remain willing to work with the city in search of a resolution to the infill issues. Sincerely, • Etie Platt 4/e Director of Local Government Affairs • S Exhibit G-8 (LU 08-0053) • Page 2 of 2 534 RECEIVED • INFILL II — SOLUTIONS SUMMARY FEB 2 3 ZOQy General Information: City of Lake Oswego Community Development Dept. From the sign-in sheets there were 98 people present at Infi111I, January 23, 2006. To simplify statistics I have assumed 100 people to have been present. Of those present 29 left written responses, or approximately 30%. More people spoke who did not leave written comments and some left written comments that were inadvertently lost while chairs and tables were reassembled for the church's morning meeting. My apologies. Participation was exceptionable. The Mayor, Councilors, City Planner and City Manager were exceptional. People attended from all over the city and broadly represented the population of Lake Oswego and opinions. At this writing I do not have a transcription of the tape we made nor the written commentary taken that evening. When that becomes available I will be happy to send them to any interested person. We received many very practical solutions to a broad variety of neighborhood problems. I attempted to categorize solutions by topic. I made these topics broad in order to encompass the variety of solutions offered. Where an individual wrote several solutions, I divided them into the relevant category. • My hat is off to the folks who are handwriting experts. Glasses, a magnifying glass and repeated readings, wow, I think I finally was able to understand what was written. In some cases you will see my initials (BZ) where I had to assume what word was missing, or my best interpretation of what was meant. Categories: My categories are as follows: Quality of Life, General Comments, Density, Code Issues, Traffic Control, Road Issues, Set Backs, House Size, Pedestrian Issues, Information or Education Services, Tree Issues, Neighborhood Character, and Lot Issues. Responses by category: Quality of Life= 10 comments; General Comments= 13 comments; Density= 3 comments; Code Issues = 5 comments; Traffic Control =4 comments; Road Issues = 5 comments; Set Backs = 3 comments; House Size and Height Limits= 14 comments; Pedestrian Issues=4 comments; Information or Education Services= 6 comments; Tree Issues=22 comments; and Lot Issues=2. By category Quality of Life, House Size,and Trees are the most important areas of concern. 0 Within the Quality of Life category many people equate it with our natural areas, open spaces, and our own back yards. In the House Size category most respondents want to limit the size of new homes, stress the lack of compatibility and tie house size to quality of life and loss of trees, 411 In private one person suggested all of Lake Oswego had been a significant fir grove and a main draw to the area and if houses continue at the current size and rate of construction we will have EAhibit G-9 (LU 08-0053) Barbara Zeller, LGNA Page 1 of 13 535 `shot the goose that laid_the golden egg'. In the Tree Issue category responses were 4 general statements, 12 urging preservation, 2 felt that cutting trees was part of the bargain to live here. • There were several comments that suggested that development should not outpace construction of infrastructure. On balance, good common-sense. General summary: There seem to be 3 distinctive groups that are emerging: those who derive purely economic value from our community; those who value this community as home; and finally a hybrid of those two who value the `good(prestigious) address', who see the house as a temporary home and as a portfolio asset and aren't very invested in the community. By in large most of the people who wrote responses and/or phoned afterward were of the second group—this community is home. After listening to them, and trying to summarize their ideas, feelings, I get the impression that Infill represents the loss of place and the loss of privacy. Both are very important ingredients in our lives. Of these, a loss of place is the hardest to explain. `Place' is that region in memory that attaches the sense of home to the present. It is all those physical features that anchor your memories of home. Hackneyed though it may be, home is where the heart is. For people who call Lake • Oswego home and have for many years the loss of the landscape, neighbors, sounds, wildlife, safe streets, and quiet rural atmosphere are very threatening. We have all experienced the loss of P place when we have revisited a place dear to us and held in memory as it once was only to discover that our favorite tree is gone, the screen door squeak isn't there,the neighbor's house is gone, we hear street noise instead of the birds. We feel a sense of sadness. That's loss of place. Loss of privacy is easier to explain although mainly it has been looked at from 500 feet above ground. We tend to discuss it in abstract and anapestic terms. Privacy to me is that which I do that I wouldn't do on a street corner. None of us wants to be observed doing things that are not generally socially acceptable. We don't want our friends or neighbors to see us behaving in a manner that is unflattering. As homes become increasingly closer together we all begin to know things about our neighbors that falls into to the category of too much information. We don't need to know that our neighbor has difficulty digesting chili. We all fart from time to time,but listing to my neighbor—too much information. We all argue with spouses, kids—too much information. I don't think you want folks to be aware of your finances—too much information. We should not be required to live with our windows and doors securely closed to preserve privacy. Summer with windows open and families enjoying yards --how do you propose to keep your private life private? If you are now living with houses in very close proximity and think you haven't been observed or overheard in less than flattering behaviors think again. As infill progresses, guess what—more of our lives will fall into the realm of`too much information'. People need personal privacy. Neighbors need protection from 'too much information'. We all want a safe place, a haven • where we can go and just be. As development encroaches on us and gets too close we lose this. E2hibit G-9 (LU 08-0053) Barbara Zeller, LGNA Page 2 of 13 536 January 23, 2005 Community Meeting Solutions to Infill Problems Lake Grove Neighborhood Association Quality of Life Issues Deal with the Reduced Quality of Life inherent with Infill by allowing the Village Center Plan to create a central meeting place for the health of our social community. Don Conklin, 4575 SW Upper Dr. Purchase of the SAFECO property for conversion to a Library& Community Center will improve the quality of life in this area of the city. Don Conklin,4574 SW Upper Dr. Be careful not to make development/improvements so difficult that you discourage vitality in the community. Lauren Hughes, hughesLO@comcast.net Mature neighborhoods must have updated adequate infrastructure to accommodate Infill. Infill must be treated as planned development with upgraded sanitary sewers, storm drains, and pedestrian safety addressed. Bob Brown, 17917 Kelok Rd. SW sanitary sewer, open space, and livability are all interrelated. Anonymous • Provide disincentives for impervious surfaces and combine driveways where feasible. Anonymous Natural Areas. City projects such as natural areas or streambed restoration will have a required 3- year maintenance budget as part of the defined project. In lieu of a 3 year budgeted maintenance requirement, the maintenance of such a project may be entrusted to an established neighborhood organization. The organization will have a contractual agreement with the city and for 3 years maintain the project. The organization would be paid "in kind" by the city. Such"in kind" payment might be free printing, postage, debris pick up, port-a-pot service, tools, equipment, or other agree to payment. Barbara Zeller, 3335 Sabina Ct. Continue the acquisition and restoration of green spaces. You are to be applauded for your foresight in seeing the future value of the city's remaining green spaces. We need to continue restoration of streams, wetlands, and natural areas. Since mature trees on private land are disappearing at an alarming rate, plant more(native?)trees and plants on public lands as one way to begin replacing the tree canopy we are losing. (Perhaps some could come from mitigation planting of(from BZ) new development?) Joy Prideaux, 15500 Twin Fir Rd. Include a percent of the city budget for maintenance of natural areas. An army of volunteers all over LO work hard to remove ivy and plant trees, but they cannot do all that is needed. For example there are areas that cannot be reached easily by volunteers. Many new plants die for lack of a portable watering system in the first year of planting. It is more cost effective to get a handle on areas now, than to pay to restore them after they are out of control. Since mature trees on private land are disappearing at an alarming rate, plant more(native?)trees and plants on public lands as • one way to begin replacing the tree canopy we are losing. (Perhaps some could come from mitigation planting of(from BZ) new development?) Joy Prideaux, 15500 Twin Fir Rd. 1 of 11 January 23, 2006 Barbara Zeller, LGNA Exhibit G-9 (LU 08-0053) Page 3 of 13 537 1 Ouality of Life continued: • Councilor McPeak framed the issue best when she was talking about fences and growing up in southern California. She said that fences were important because "our yards were an extension of the rooms of the house." Our yards are personal outdoor space while the rooms in our homes are personal indoor space. Privacy in each space is equally as important. This is the reason for the backlash to development. The council has the tools to serve both the neighborhoods and developers equally as well through the adoption of ordinances which protect our privacy and trees. Adrianne Brockman General Comments It is my belief that infill is not a problem. Infill is a market driven issue that fills the need for additional new housing in Lake Oswego. Infill housing codes were revised a few years back and they are satisfactory and comprehensive as they are. I am opposed to the idea that a small group of activists should influence or dictate the limits of private property rights. Any changes to codes relating to infill should be put to a vote of the citizens of Lake Oswego as the draconian changes being advocated will have negative, unintended consequences for many of Lake Oswego's citizens, that they will not know about until they want to do something with their property only to find out that new, unknown codes limit what they can do. Neighborhood groups should not be allowed to impose their idea of what constitutes good design when it comes to restricting the size and design of someone else's home. Zoning codes and the current infill/set back ordinances already address this issue. What people seem to forget is that the homes that they are living in were the results of market driven forces at the time they were built. The size and styles of older homes were not dictated by a neighborhood group, they were the result of a builder building homes that matched the needs of the market at that time. Craig Potts, Prudential Northwest Properties We should follow the codes as they have been developed in recent years. Lake Grove remains special and unique and is considered to be a very desirable area in this present time. The growth is being monitored fairly well. Bettirae Willis, 3550 Upper Dr. Stop viewing Infill as evil. Lauren Hughes, hughesL0@comcast.net I believe that the citizens need to 100% understand the building process. I agree with Chad and Malcolm Eslinger that if the citizens understood the care that was taken a lot of these questions or problems would not be an issue. Susan Bryant, 4145 Chad Dr. Infill must be treated as planned development. Without addressing soils, storm drains, sanitary sewers, traffic and pedestrian safety, Infill becomes Overfill. Bob Brown 17917 Kelok Rd. We want better government, not more government. Policy and codes [need to be? BZ] more"user friendly". Anonymous Create incentives to exist affordable housing. Rather than build new multi-dwelling housing (and possible subsidizing it with taxpayers money?), find creative solutions to keep or improve existing smaller homes so people already living in LO don't have to leave—such as police, firemen, teachers, young families with children, singles and elderly. Joy Prideaux, 15500 Twin Fir Rd. • 2 of l 1 January 23, 2006 Barbara Zeller, LGNA Exhibit G-9 (LU 08-0053) Page 4 of 13 538 • General Comments continued: At Pre-Application meetings a copy of the applicable Neighborhood Plan must be provided to the builder/developer and become part of the Planners check off list. If a Neighborhood representative is present they may reference sections of the Plan that pertain to, or are impacted by the construction project. Barbara Zeller, 3335 Sabina Ct. I think the infill has been very positive in our neighborhood. Many, many people from the community I know are constantly telling me how improved our neighborhood has become. Ed Buchman, 3151 Upper Dr. Move the school district bus barn out of Waluga Neighborhood Association to another site. Since the city and school district have joint agreements on fields, parks etc. let the school district use city property if they don't have actual land to house the school busses. Cindy Maddox, 4735 Heritage Ln. Infill good for our community to reduce sprawl. Mick Buchman, 4950 SW Upper Less bureaucracy. Mike Buchman, 4950 SW Upper The Council should adopt a moratorium on destruction of residences until it can focus on and solve the problems of the loss of affordable housing. Sherry Finnigan, 128 Condolea Dr. • Density Maximum zoning density should be allowed only if the site conditions are optimal. Limit the density of a subdivision if it is on a flag lot. Karen Ingles, 12831 SW Alto Park Rd. Do away with 20% open space requirement for subdivisions. This will allow for larger lots and more privacy. Malcolm Eslinger, malcolm@eslingerbuilders.com eslingerbuilders.com Have citizens rally against metro and change growth boundary so they will not be so impacted in their neighborhoods. Chad Eslinger, 4145 Chad Dr. Code Issues Be sue Infill regulations don't cause issues for remodelers, Lauren Hughes, hughesLO@comcast.net As regards Cedar Ridge Townhouses please note: the new Cedar Ridge Townhomes on Boones Ferry Road have a longstanding violation. The out-door lighting poles are way above the 12' requirement. Karen Ingles, 12831 SW Alto Rd As we are looking at developing new regulations on Infill—create for each neighborhood a board where developers, homeowners can present their unique building plans for appeal and approval. • Dienne Irwin, 4343 Sunset Dr. 3 of 11 January 23, 2006 Barbara Zeller, LGNA Exhibit G-9 (LU 08-0053) Page 5 of 13 539 Code Issues continued: Have existing homes comply with new standards to create an equal environment, Chad Eslinger 4145 Chad Drive Planning Codes need to be enforced. The public should not act as community code compliance monitors. We need to have at least 2 assigned ON SITE CODE COMPLIANCE planners. It will be their responsibility to inspect all approved building or development sites for compliance to planning code requirements, such as: site preparation, tree protection fencing, structure positioning on the site, height, setbacks, landscaping and any other applicable planning codes that are part of this application. Infractions will have penalties. These penalties will be will be stringent and will be based on three strikes and your out. They range from: fines, extra code training while construction is halted, and finally license suspension. If the same code violations follow an individual from project to project the penalties will be increased to maximums. Barbara Zeller, 3335 Sabina Ct. Traffic Control Lake Oswego High School needs a left turn lane on Boones Ferry Rd. It can be quite dangerous!! (This is the back side entrance, north of Country Club Rd.)Karen IngIes, 12831 SW Alto Park Rd. As Infill continues in our neighborhoods especially with the trend to increase housing in medium and high-density zoned parcels, the increased traffic volume and speed is in direct proportion to • these developments. Though this will not solve all of the problems that Infill has caused, I would like council to reverse the policy that now exists that neighborhood associations match the cost match the costs of installing speed bumps and cushions for traffic calming. Cheryl Uchida, 15190 Quarry Rd. Traffic problems on Boones Ferry&Bryant Rd. Cars coming down Boones Ferry wishing to turn left on Bryant enter the left turn lane and wait for the signal light to turn green, the capacity of the left turn lane is limited and during commute hours in particular it fills up so cars stick out into the through lanes. At present Bryant has an alley which comes in from the left as well as Sunset which comes in from the left and when cars on Bryant wish to turn left on either the alley or Sunset traffic must stop. Solution: put a second lane on Bryant from Boones Ferry to Sunset so cars can"stack" on Bryant which may help relieve cars turning left off Boones Ferry Rd, Page Douglas, 4572 Upper Dr. Lighten up on speed bumps. Mike Buchman, 4950 SW Upper Dr. Road issues As construction occurs, for example when the street is cut for any reason, there is a requirement that the asphalt in the cut be inspected in a specific amount of time to determine if it needs to be refilled. Who would oversee this process? R.F. Vic Keeler, 15880 SW Boones Ferry Rd. Pot holes: solution, create a simple fill-in form to report potholes on the city website. Dienne Irwin, • 4343 Sunset Dr. 4 of 11 January 23, 2006 Barbara Zeller, LGNA Exhibit G-9 (LU 08-0053) Page 6 of 13 540 • Set Backs Increase side-yard set backs by 50%. Street front set backs should match existing setbacks. Karen Ingles, 12831 SW Alto Rd. New home construction setbacks, side, front and rear limits. R.F. Vick Keeler, 15880 SW Boones Ferry Rd. Problem—huge new homes changing the character of the neighborhood. Solution, (2)No exceptions to setbacks. (3) On extensive remodels, do not allow old setback rules as exceptions(5) Revise setbacks to make them more for large homes. Dan Baer, 3240 Upper Dr. House Size and Height Limits continued: New home construction square footage limits. R.F. Vick Keeler, 15880 SW Boones Ferry Rd. Please limit the size of all new home in the current Lake Oswego city limits to a maximum of 3800 square feet. This size limit needs to include the driveway of each home. Larger homes including driveways may be built on lots of one acre and larger. Problem— huge new homes changing the character of the neighborhood. Solution, (1) Design standards to maintain the character of homes in the neighborhoods. Dan Baer, 3240 Upper Dr. 1111 Problem—huge new homes changing the character of the neighborhood. Solution, (4)Restrictions on tear-downs. Dan Baer, 3240 Upper Dr. rye In 2000, the first rebuild on Douglas Circle was 3500 square feet. The second was 4000 square feet with a 36-foot height. The homes on either side were single story, 1500 square feet. It was welcome news to hear that an Infill Task Force was convened. With the Infill Ordinance of August 2003, we breathed a sigh of relief The first rebuild after the ordinance was 6000 square feet. There needs to be protection from this over-size construction. The thrust into a higher economic class has an enormous impact on the neighborhood. Older homes are immediately valueless. The only value is the land. I propose a 3000 square foot limit for my neighborhood and that any building over that size require a Design Review with the focus on lessening the negative impact on long-time homeowners. Sara Perry, 3110 Douglas Circle Limit the size of new homes. If only one thing could be done, in one fell swoop this could solve many of our current development dilemmas. It would eliminate problems with: providing affordable housing, preserving trees, protecting privacy, keeping side yards and maintaining neighborhood character. It would still allow for new construction and infill because building larger houses does not increase density or help meet Metro boundary requirements. We tend to tip toe around this topic, thinking we can't do something that drastic, government can't be that restrictive or people would get very upset. Some members of the Infill Task Force(the majority of whom work in the development industry) have said only a few people in LO are not happy with how development is happening. Actually, we can limit new house size and I believe it is being done in • other parts of the country. Many existing property owners in LO may not actually object to houses built next to them being of less than McMansion proportion. The people most opposed could be 5 of 11 January 23, 2006 Barbara Zeller, LGNA Exhibit G-9 (LU 08-0053) Page 7 of 13 541 41 House Size and Height Limits 'hit and run' developers who want the biggest possible houses to squeeze out the highest profit without regard to adverse effects on the city. Limiting size might attract developers who put more focus on quality than quantity. It might attract buyers who move here because of the character of the neighborhoods and the city rather than the size of the house. (There is some speculation that such newcomers tend to stay longer and take more interest and participation in their city.) We who live here and care about our city, and you, our elected policy makers and city planners need to have the courage to say what's really important here. Is quality of life for people who live in this town more important than a bigger profit made by a few developers who want to build here? We need to be on the leading edge, not cave in to pressure for short-term profits (and greed)but stand up for quality of life and create a better city and future for generations to come. Joy Prideaux, 15500 Twin Fir Rd. Increase the fee for tear-down permits. In Chicago it costs $50,000 for permission to tear down a building. In Lake Oswego it costs $81. The fee should be increased to something like$10,000 to reflect the true cost to the city of losing affordable and sometimes historic housing, trees and other features that generally are lost as well. The fee income for tear-downs should be used to pay people (city staff or others)to examine tear-down requests on site before permits are given, to determine if the buildings are still viable or might be better candidates for remodeling. Establish a fund for the remaining money to be used for creative incentives for people to remodel existing homes. Joy Prideaux, 15500 Twin Fir Rd. Design standards should be applied where an overlay zone is not appropriate and where the homes abutting the lot on which an infill home is proposed are a story or a story and one half. The design standards should place the height of the infill house in the center of the lot. Where the infill houses abuts the adjoining lots,the building height should be limited to 1 or 1 1/2 stories. Where a • developer owns an adjoining lot or lots,the should be allowed to file an overall development plan and have greater flexibility where the infill houses abut each other. Adrianne Brockman Please limit height on new homes on flag lots. Karen Ingles, 12831 SW Alto Rd. The building height (on flag lots BZ) should be limited to one and half stories. Adrianne Brockman The intrusion of large homes into established neighborhoods of small to moderately sized homes is causing the loss of privacy, changing neighborhood character, and causing the lose of our irreplaceable tree resources. Infill homes should be allowed to increase in size in a gradual and incremental fashion. These homes may increase in size according to the following formula: Infill homes may be 10% larger than the average size of homes that are 10 or more years old that are abutting the property to be developed or in the immediate vicinity or within 300, as per 50.77.025. Barbara Zeller, 3335 Sabina Percent Additional Year Size increase Square Footage Total Size 1 1600 0.1 160 1760 2 1760 176 1936 3 1936 194 2130 4 2130 213 2343 111 6 of 11 January 23, 2006 Barbara Zeller, LGNA Exhibit G-9 (LU 08-0053) Page 8 of 13 542 111 5 2343 234 2577 6 2577 258 2834 7 2834 283 3118 8 3118 312 3430 9 3430 343 3773 10 3773 377 4150 11 4150 415 4565 12 4565 456 5021 13 5021 502 5524 14 5524 552 6076 15 6076 608 6684 The council should discuss and adopt a residential design review process for larger houses(3000 sq. ft. and above)that includes stringent standards of compatibility, landscaping, tree-cutting and privacy protection requirements. Sherry Finnigan, 128 Condolea Dr. Pedestrian Issues Safety on Boones Ferry Rd.: Build a pedestrian walkway bridge over Boones Ferry for the children to use to walk to school and people top cross Boones Ferry without stopping traffic. Dienne Irwin, 4343 Sunset Dr. • (This is very difficult handwriting, not everything may be correct. BZ) On Twin Fir Rd. directly off of Boones Ferry cars come directly off of Boones Ferry and come????? (perhaps speeding) down. Twin Fir Road. On Fir Ridge Rd. off of Twin Fir there are numerous homes with small grade school children. This is a danger to them. My solution is to put speed bumps along Twin Fir Rd. You only need them up to Wembley Park Rd. and from the bottom of the hill near Hope Community Church. Emory Dunn, 14865 Twin Fir Ct. Pathway down Lake Grove Avenue and safety light for pedestrians at Lanewood St. for kids to go to school. Ed Buchman, 3151 Upper Dr. Problem pedestrian [and] bike access to Boones Ferry expand bike trail with annexation. Mike Buchman, 4950 SW Upper Information or Education Services Create a Booklet and workshops summarizing various code procedures. Keep it basic and make it user friendly. Malcolm Eslinger, malcolm@eslingerbuilders.com Make a city PR piece to explain to citizens how the entire process (development, BZ?)works. Chad Eslinger, 4145 Chad Dr. • Have a report written that details how increased code(s) effect affordable living in Lake Oswego. Chad Eslinger, 4145 Chad Dr. 7 of 11 January 23, 2006 Barbara Zeller, LGNA Exhibit G-9(LU 08-0053) Page 9 of 13 543 Information or Education Services continued: • I think there should be more advertisement for all citizens of meetings, and code changes in a language that they can understand. Education is the answer. Susan Bryant, 4145 Chad Dr. Promote 'Good Neighbor" guidelines as part of the Single Family Review process. Develop visual handbook which addresses guidelines such as: basic site planning; neighborhood compatibility for height, mass and scale; resolution of architectural form, massing and roof lines; and, provides examples of designs meeting and not meeting these guidelines. Erin O'Rourke-Meadors, g.meadors@version.net Encourage and feature contractors, developers, architects and others who demonstrate successful ways to build sustainable homes with natural settings. Be on the cutting edge of development which is done in a responsible, sustainable manner, giving as much emphasis to the people who will live in the houses as to the builders of them. Utilize education and positive examples of development from other places. Suggestions might include a pamphlet of examples given to builders applying for permits at the city planning department recommended by the Infill Task Force and sponsoring free workshops on different building types. Joy Prideaux, 15500 Twin Fir Rd. Tree Issues Have citizens attempt to take a tree down on their property to see how the process works. Chad Eslinger, 4145 Chad Dr. • Recognize the impact of removing trees and increasing impervious surfaces(in the form of increased lot coverage as well as other factors)on water quantity and quality and the responsibility to provide infrastructure to mitigate it. Not maximum extent practicable, but what will maintain quality of life. Sewage in the streets in unacceptable, paying DEQ fees are unacceptable. Carolyn Krebs, 16925 Denny Court. Rewrite the current tree code so that it is species specific, and that it focuses protection on trees with eight inch and larger diameters as well as particular species, both the rare and the older. John Clark, 16121 Nola Ct. Be fair to the private property owner, that is, the current code gives much greater cutting privilege to the developer than to the private landowner. John Clark, 16121 Nola Ct. Impact on existing tree groves must also be considered to ensure minimal neighborhood impact. Bob Brown. 17917 Kelok Rd. Develop urban forestry program—a tree removal permit process is not an Urban Forestry Program. Anonymous Raise tree cutting permits substantially to a point that forces better planning/design of home to fit with existing trees and native shrubs. Ann Janzen, 3090 Edgemont Rd. 8 of 11 January 23, 2006 Barbara Zeller, LGNA Exhibit G-9 (LU 08-0053) Page 10 of 13 544 • Tree Issues continued: Need a current LOPRI listing before we destroy(via Infill)the last remnants of or"Grove". Existing pieces of groves need to be identified and preserved. Ann Janzen, 3090 Edgemont Rd. Due to Infill we are losing our[tree BZ] canopy at an alarming rate. Mitigation trees do not replace mature maple, Douglas Fir, Red Cedars. I would like for the indigenous trees in Lake Grove to be inventoried and given a monetary value for their contribution to our quality of life. This type of study was done in the South Park Blocks in Portland using a nationally recognized formula. It was published in March 2005. I think an appraised value of our trees would have a greater effect on their preservation. They are irreplaceable. They are food for our souls. Study details may be found at www.oregoncommunitytrees.org or a summary brochure may be obtained through the Portland Parks Bureau Urban Forestry Division at 503-823-4489. Sara Perry 3110 Douglas Circle Issue: Loss of historical area and loss of community's wooded characteristics. The fact is that there is a history of tree loss. In the last three years 6,101 trees have been removed in Lake Oswego. Solution: Amend the"Sensitive Lands Overlay District" document and map to indicate the many tree groves that exist in Lake Oswego that are not identified. Identifying these groves will have them fall under more stringent Sensitive Lands restrictions and make them more difficult to remove. Under Resource Conservation Districts, include applications for partitioning along with applicants for major or minor developments(see 50.16.05501). There are findings for these solutions in: State of Oregon's Land Use Goal 5;Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, 1994;Lake Oswego Community Survey, 2005; Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan, 1998; and Lake Grove Neighborhood Survey for the • plan— 1994. Matt Finnigan, 128 Condoles Dr. Consider appropriateness under certain development circumstances of allowing a single family homeowner deviations from setback or other development standards if necessary to protect/preserve a tree(s). Erin O'Rourke-Meadors,g.meadors@version.net Consider review/refinement of our current tree code. Such a review could include: Neighborhood Characteristics and Values; Simplification of code to protect specific species of trees, heritage trees, street and plan designated trees, and increased protection for such specified trees. Erin O'Rourke- Meadors, g,meadors@version.net Since mature trees on private land are disappearing at an alarming rate, plant more(native?) trees and plants on public lands as one way to begin replacing the tree canopy we are losing. (Perhaps some could come from mitigation planting of(from BZ) new development?) Joy Prideaux, 15500 Twin Fir Rd. Equalize requirements and penalties for tree permits so they are not more restrictive for individual property owners than they are for developers. It raises the ire of homeowners to have strict rules for removing trees when developers have a different set of looser rules and do far more damage. Joy -Prideaux, 15500 Twin Fir Rd. • 9 of 11 .. January 23, 2006 Barbara Zeller, LGNA . Exhibit G-9 (LU 08-0053) Page 11 of 13 545 Tree Issues continued: • Improve the system for monitoring [tree code BZ]violations. "Accidental" tree deaths are on the rise from surreptitious root damage, poisoning, etc. and can't be prevented once the trees are dead. Make penalties for abuses meaningful. While fines for developers may not prove an effective deterrent given their large profits, penalties such as revoking a license to build in the area might have an impact. Take note of repeated offenders. Joy Prideaux, 15500 Twin Fir Rd. The trees make LO unique, enhance it as a place to live, and perform important environmental functions. Denuding property of trees is unacceptable. There must be a limit set as to the number of trees that can be cut to allow development. In addition, there must be better policing of tree permits. Staff should photograph each lot before the tree permit is issued. Adrianne Brockman To save trees height restrictions for flag lots should be the same as surrounding (houses?BZ). Mike Buchman, 4950 SW Upper Tree code specific to desirable native species: Oregon oak, pacific madrone and dogwood, native chestnut. Mike Buchman, 4950 SW upper Dr. Also, homeowners who decry the cutting of trees have to realize and admit to themselves that where their homes stand now, once stood the same trees that they do not want the builders of new homes to cut down. Craig Potts, Prudential Northwest Properties Revisit the Tree Code Ordinance to make it more user friendly--permit non-native trees to be taken 1111 down easier and larger native species more difficult as the task force recommended. Mike Buck, 3155 Edgemont. Give the Lake Grove Board a clear, definitive answer regarding the Heritage Tree Proposal for the grove at the Lake Grove Firestation. Mike Buck, 3155 Edgemont. -------------------------- Tree mitigation should be directed toward the sensitive lands corridor of Springbrook Creek that parallels Boones Ferry Road--helping to restore that corridor to a native landscape. Mike Buck, 3155 Edgemont. --------------------------------- Neigh borhood Character/Overlays Remember one size does not fit all, each neighborhood, lot and home is unique and that's one of the great things about Lake Oswego. hughesLO@comcast.net Continue opportunity for Overlay Districts: Recognize applicability to Neighborhoods in general or to Districts within Neighborhoods specifically. Erin O'Rourke-Meadors, g.tneadors@verison.net Adopt standards for single family design review which take into consideration `neighborhood context' specifically the proposed project in it's setting among adjacent properties. Erin O'Rourke- Meadors, g.meadors@verison.net • 10 of 11 January 23, 2006 Barbara Zeller, LGNA Exhibit G-9 (LU 08-0053) Page 12 of 13 546 Neighborhood Character/Overlays continued: Encourage and endorse Neighborhood Plans with overlays to zoning codes. Though more complicated for planners and builders, this will go a long way to helping maintain unique characteristics of neighborhoods throughout LO. Joy Prideaux, 15500 Twin Fir Rd. An excellent tool of implementation is an overlay zone that is written to protect the character of a neighborhood or a portion of a neighborhood. The Council has had the foresight to do this in the Evergreen Neighborhood. Adrianne Brockman Lot issues The soil stability of uphill development must be guaranteed to downhill residents. Bob Brown, 17917 Kelok Rd. • Flag lots should be required to be at least 50%larger than that required by the underlying zone. This means that in an R 7.5 zone, a flag lot would have to be 11,000 square feet. The access should not be counted in the calculation. The required set backs (for a flag lot BZ) should be increased by 50%. This is intended to avoid crowing houses on lots which leads to all sorts of problems and additional city operational costs in policing parking and noise. Guest parking can become a problem with flag lots. The building height should be limited to one and half stories. Adrianne Brockman 11111 I 1 of 11 January 23, 2006 Barbara Zeller, LGNA Exhibit G-9 (LU 08-0053) Page 13 of 13 547 • • • 548 RECEIVED FEB 2 .3 2009 • October 9, 2005 City of Lake Oswego Hello All: Community Development Dept. Attached is the Infill Questionnaire we provided at the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association general meeting of September 26, 2005, All Comments and statements have been included in the tabulation of results. I had some difficulty interpreting handwriting and you may find(?)which means I guessed at the word. Given the context in which words were found I think I got fairly close to the actual meaning. One respondent felt that LGNA Board should not express personal opinions, especially by applauding. I recall only one(however there may have been more)comment that received applause and, as I looked at the audience, applause was general not relegated to Board members. Our Board is a diverse group of individuals and at Iiberty to represent their personal opinions and thoughts, as are all our neighbors. As you can see by the statistics 93% of the audience lives in Lake Grove and moved to the area because of the trees(81%),the general character of the neighborhood (76%), convenience of location(69%), schools(48%), and who find our homes a financially positive purchase (31%). When asked how Infill construction had impacted their lives, of the 54 respondents 31 or 57% felt it had a negative impact, 8 or I5%were neutral, and 15 people or 28%felt it had a positive impact. In addition,there were numerous comments. Question I of the section for the `Infill Representative' finds that most people wanted to restrict: the size of new homes and height of new homes. Further they wanted to increase: the minimum distance between homes, tree code restriction, and the restrictions on teardowns. We had scheduled a slideshow that unfortunately that was not shown. So, the second question of this section which asked people to judge the compatibility of new"Infill Homes"*wasn't answerable as asked. However, 24 people found a way to re-write the question and answer it. Of those creative people 19 or 79% felt that the new homes were not compatible with the neighborhood, 2 for 8% said they did feel the home were compatible and 2 for 8%were neutral. If you have any questions or comments please send them to: Lake Grove Neighborhood Assn., P. O. Box 1996, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, or bazeller@gcsn.com, or j.d.clark@comcast.net. Thank you, Barbara Zeller *The homes photographed were selected from"Residential Infill Under Current Standards" which is a list of homes the City of Lake Oswego chose as representative of"selected Infill sites". During the summer residents, City officials, Planning department staff and others were bussed around the selected sites on an Infill Tour" where this document was used. 410 EXHIBIT G-10 Exhibit G-10 (LU 08-0053) Page 1 of 8 549 LAKE GROVE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION INFILL QUESTIONNAIRE • 56 people signed in and 54 people responded to the questionnaire 9/26/05 1 . I live in the...54 responded (The 1°t no. = the total of respondents,the 2id the percent) ❑ Lake Grove area 50 93% ❑ Lake Oswego area, but outside of Lake Grove 4 7% ❑ Outside of the Lake Oswego area 0 0% 2. What attracted you to the Lake Grove area? (Please check all that apply) 54 people ifiesp tided trees, green environment, country-like living 44 81% qualify of the local schools 215 48a/0 ❑ convenient location 37 69% El financially advantageous purchase 17 31% Li character of neighborhood 41 76% ❑ other see list bellow 9 17% Other: A seemingly diverse neighborhood. Large lots, lots of housing diversity. Walking distance to banks, grocery stores, post office & other services. I could walk to many businesses and the school. "Waikabilityr to parks, shops, post office, etc. Grandchildren. I was raised in the area. Large trees in the immediate area (many now gone). Employment proximity. Luck. I 1 of 7 Exhibit G-10 (LU 08-0053) Page 2 of 8 550 • Page 2 3. How has the recent increase in home building in the Lake Grove area affected you? 54 people responded. (Please circle most appropriate number on scale) -2 -1 0 1 2 Very Somewhat Not Somewhat Very negatively negatively At all positively positively -2 17 31% -1.5 1 2% -1 13 24% 0 8 15%0 +1 11 20% • +2 4 7% Comments: Encourage concept of small dwelling units allowed on larger lots say over 10,000 S.F. for one-two persons, often called "Granny Flats' or month-in-law units. Especially good for senior citizens of limited means. One aspect of 4affordable housing". I don't particularly like the new `style' of home regardless of house to lot percentage. The houses are too big. i feel that the diversity that brought me here is all but disappearing. I believe that the neighborhood has never looked better. The new homes are a positive influence on all. They encourage others to also maintain their homes nicely and they all blend in. The homes that have been torn down were all very unkempt and dangerous. They generally were not maintained (broken cars, trailers and such throughout the landscape). We are fortunate to have quality local Lake Oswego builders building these new homes ----have been an overall improvement to our wonderful neighborhood which we all deeply care about. I really believe we can work the new and old and hopefully all get along. I think Infill regulators should try and keep the lots over 10,000 feet, better yet get rid of "flag lots". 7.5 should be gotten rid of in Lake Grove. Somewhat negatively response but infill will change this significantly!!!! • I feel that developers building "trophy homes" on spec. have totally ignored the character of our neighborhood and are trying to turn it into a Street of Dreams. If I had wanted to live in 2 of 7 Exhibit G-10 (LU 08-0053) Page 3 of 8 551 that kind of neighborhood then I wouldn't have chosen Lake Grove. I'm not anti-development or againstnew budding but so far it has been done with no regard or respect long-time the loEng lime residents, Negative— noise, more crowded, less privacy. Positive—nice new neighbors, it's driving the price of my home up. The trucks and equipment used in building the attached houses on Boones Way go past my house all day. Traffic is terrible, we have trouble getting out of our street by car. But the worst fact was all the trees came down in the number of 148. Quality, well designed, reasonably sited housing is a plus to the neighborhood— in my view. However, overly profit driven, insufficiently integrated and inconsistent design serves to fracture and undercut the strength of our neighborhood. Soon we will have to rename ourselves Lake Groveless. It has not directly affected me yet BUT the scale of the allowed development could affect anyone of us tomorrow. It has affected my neighborhood by the removal of trees, out of scale house, and robbing them of their privacy. Increased traffic and speeding. Houses being build corner to corm'. The very character of the neighborhood is changed. Affordable housing is being torn down and replaced by that afforded only by the wealthy. Originality and cozy is shifting to stuffy • and standoffish. Lack of traffic lights, pedestrian crossing lights limits safe crossing of Boones Ferry. Increased traffic density and speed. No affect —till/if we sell: but keeps us optimistic about our purchase. Financially positive but I'm concerned about livability and compatibility with the existing neighborhood. Too many huge, inappropriate houses are being built in our peaceful neighborhood. With increase of vehicular traffic which tends to take alternate routes through the neighborhoods. obeying speed limits is a huge problem. Plus Increase traffic volume has made some cut through routes a speedway. This negatively impacts neighborhood livability and quality of life. I live on Douglas Circle. I have been there for 13 years, and I feel that the large homes that have been built, and are being built, have improved the street immensely. Marked change in the character of the neighborhood. Loss of trees. The infill increase in home building demands street improvement and better lighting, sidewalks. In other words, infill safety! Nicer quality homes being built which increases the quality of the housing market in the area. 3 of 7 Exhibit G-10 (LU 08-0053) Page 4 of 8 552 Question 3 continued: • Loss of privacy: three 2-story homes on 3 sides of my property. My home is 1-story and smelf. Home building has both positive and negative elements: it has replaced "dated" houses but also some"attractive" smaller homes that don not fit into contemporary economics. t think we should be about how we can channel the change rather than stop it all together. Development of the neighborhood not the house. Really beautiful homes coming in are a great addition. Helps everyone with real estate appreciation. I believe an infill program only benefits builders and the city tax rolls. This neighborhood doesn't need either FOR YOUR 1NFILL REPRESENTATIVE I. If the Lake Oswego Infill Task Force revises the current code, do you want...? 54 People responded. oatNo. = respondents, tad = percent) Yes No Not Sure Increased restriction on the size of new 36/67°/° 6/11% 6/11% homes 42R$% 6/11% 2/4% Increased restriction on height of new homes To increase the minimum distance between 37/69% 4/7% 8/15% existing homes and new homes, as well as between adjacent new homes 36/67°k 7/13% 7/13% Increased restriction on removal of mature trees and shrubs Increased restriction on teardowns, in order 28/52% 12/22% 11/20% to encourage the remodeling of existing homes 2. From the slides you've seen, are the Will homes under current standards compatible with the existing neighboring homes? No slides were shown, Some people did make comments from personal observation of the • neighborhood. If they just checked the yes or no box I said: `no, not compatible' or yes, compatible". Any other comment was quoted. Twenty-four people responded to the Exhibit G-10 (LU 08-0053) 4 of 7 Page 5 of 8 553 question. Of those 19 said no, 2 said yes and 2 were basically neutral. No 79% and yes/neutral 8%. • Infill Task Force Question #2 continued. No slide show, but observation indicates each case is different and should be determined on its' own merits. No, not compatible. Yes are compatible. No, aren't compatible. From houses seen, no they're not compatible. No, not compatible. Not compatible, Not compatible. No, not compatible. No, not compatible. Absolutely NO! No, not compatible. No, not compatible. Yes and no_ Yes, compatible No, not compatible. No, not compatible. No, not compatible. No, not compatible. No, look at Douglas Circle. No, not compatible. No, not compatible. No, not compatible. No not compatible. Additional comments for the Lake Oswego Infill Task Force: From restriction on tree removal one respondent thinks the area is too overgrown and wants no increased restrictions. Further the respondent stated, Ease up on restrictions on tree cutting. Requiring firs to remain within 10 Ft. of a new or existing house is very risky. They blow over. Concentrate on saving specimen trees or groves. Trees with questionable health should be allowed to be cut without hiring an arborist." I feel that you should be able to do what you would like to your property, but to property for the sake of altering an established neighborhood for the purposes of speculation and profit has a damaging long-term effect within the community. What is bringing Californians here is that it does not look or feel like developments do in L.A. area, yet....There is plenty of time to do infili. The lots being divided now are original lots from the 1920's of 7 Exhibit G-10 (LU 08-0053) Page 6 of 8 554 I like to see lots remain large. Change zoning to higher levels (thus 40,000 sq. ft, lot only be • divided into larger lots, not cramming them in. We live in a small cottage and would like to continue living there, but are concerned we won't be able to afford to remodel. There is an aesthetic that goes beyond a developers profit. Get the Council's attention. They think what is happening is wonderful. The Council needs to express a vision for the neighborhoods. Planning in Lake Oswego is inadequate —we need several neighborhood planners. High cost permits to tear down livable/affordable units. Laws to ban teardowns of livable units. Huge (?) high permit costs to remove trees. Hire city employees to monitor all inspections. This is a community concern and I think that we need direction from the City as to their overall plan for this area. While this effort appears to be undergoing analysis somewhat late, I feel that higher quality smaller quantity would be or favored direction —the smaller unit with higher quality would still support the tax base. This respondent is adding a comment to Infill Representative question #1 regarding • increased restriction on teardowns, "I don't mind the infill, I just wish it was more in keeping with the neighborhood". Would like to explore Greg's (Greg Mitchell, LRS, Architects Inc., panelist) comment on Infill being approved on a merit approval. Appreciated Stephan's comment on getting Lake Grove Plan approved (codified) by just narrowing down specifics to 8 or 10. Agreed with Sherry, Sherry Finnigan, panelist, on changes should be made with the Plan. Homes in the backyard of other homes seems a little strange, given the backyard size and house size. Perhaps the addition of a real estate broker and a planner (not a city planner) representing a large company to this evenings panel would've been more complete —although I realize you had a time limit: perhaps in Infill Forum II could include these additional panel members. I believe that bldgs (buildings) which can be used as disaster centers should be identified and streets improved for access. Not exactly "in-fill" but surely important to neighborhood, community. We need to accommodate to changing times and pressures on (as) density increases. We need to determine how and when density detracts from livability without personal and communal adjustments. We should not delve into fruitless comparisons of 'now' and 'then', but try to reach common values and quantifiable criteria. • The reality is people are going to be moving in — you need new families to keep the schools vital and the communities relevant. New families don't want to remodel run down shabby Exhibit G-10 (LU 08-0053) 6 of 7 Page 7 of 8 555 chic. The old paint, old wiring, crummy driveways leave a lot to be desired. Infill keeps our wetlands and natural areas outside of the city intact. Disappointing that 'me developers are • in our driveway' but isn't left behind. No one is forced to sell. Would have been more relevant to have `current" resident to speak. Its not appropriate for Board Members, officers to take sides with clapping etc. at a forum like this. They are supposed to be here as mediators — neutral. How do you expect attendees, neighbors to ask questions or make comments if faced with such an opinionated Board. Seems more like a vehicle for your own agendas. It does not create an atmosphere conducive to discussion. Jay Clark, Lake Grove Neighborhood Association Infill representative, can be reached at: j.d.clark©comcast.net 411 r of 7 Exhibit G-10 (LU 08-0053) Page 8 of 8 556 RECEIVED BY CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 12/14/09 II/ Patricia B. Elkins Woolsey 26649 Snell Lane Los Altos Hills,CA 94022 Phone/Fax(650)941-5236 December 14, 2009 Members of the Planning Commission Planning Division 380 A Avenue,Third Floor PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Dear Members of the Planning Commission, As a one-third beneficial owner of the Lake Oswego house at 951 West Point Road, I am writing to object to the proposed Community Development Code amendments to the "residential infill design process" currently being considered by the Planning Commission. In the past, the lot at 951 West Point Road has been called the"Park Place"or"Boardwalk"of Lake Oswego since it is on the tip of the West Point peninsula with a view down the entire lake and the last rays of sunshine on summer evening. However with the proposed amendments,this 4110 property would become a white elephant because it would not be possible to build a house on this lot even equivalent to the other homes on the very desirable West Point Road. The flexibility to exceed the maximum floor area requirements so the house would be similar to other ones on the street would be taken away. It may be that in the past,design restrictions were too lax, resulting in some overly large homes, such as the huge house near the intersection of Northshore Rd.and Berwick Rd. which dwarfs the house next to it. But in reaction to lax regulations,it appears that the pendulum is swinging too far in the other direction,towards overly restrictive design regulations. While it makes no sense for someone to build another such huge house just because that one already exists,rather a proper balance should be found that allows reasonable-sized homes to be built which are consistent with those in the immediate neighborhood. Most of the houses on West Point Road are two-story(as viewed from West Point Road, three- story as viewed from the lake)homes with steep roofs,which blend together to make an attractive street. On the other hand,the house at 951 West Point Road,occupied by my parents Mr.and Mrs.William C. Elkins since the 1960's until their recent deaths(both in their 90's), is still a low ranch style 1960's house that looks"squatty"compared to the neighbors' homes with their high pointed roofs and one additional story. One should be able to at least have a house at 951 West Point Road similar to the house next door at 941 West Point Road which has a smaller lot,and similar to the other houses on the street. That is possible under the current RID process, which allows some flexibility in approving homes with larger floor area than the current allowances,if that would blend in with other homes in the immediate neighborhood. But it would not be possible under the proposed amendments,which would remove this flexibility and would apply rigid floor area requirements that would result in a house much smaller than the adjacent houses, and one that would look ridiculous on West Point Road. It is very important that the design Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT G-11 LU 08-0053 557 RECEIVED BY CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 12/14/09 •process allow the flexibility to build larger homes that blend in with their neighbors than allowed by the maximum floor area regulations,as does the current RID process. The lot at 941 West Point Road is 6,534 sq. ft. and the house floor area is 5,549 sq. ft; the house has two stories as viewed from the street, and three stories from the lake. The ratio 5,549/6,534 equals 85%. On the other hand our 951 West Point Road lot is 11761.2 sq. ft. and the current house is 4,144 sq. ft. which is a ratio of only 35%. If we were to build to 85%, that would be.85 x 11,761.2 or 9,997 sq. ft.of house,which would be a very large house-- three stories of 3,332 sq. ft.per story. More realistic might be a 6,000 sq. ft house,which would still be just 51% (6,000/11,761.2). Given that the 941 West Point Road floor area is 85% of their lot size, we should be able to build more than 35% or 40% at 951 West Point Road,but probably less than 85%,which many would consider excessive. Fifty to sixty percent might be a good compromise, in order to allow a house similar to the others on the street,and one with two stories as seen from the street and three from the lake. It is very unfair to property owners to substantially change development ground rules after some homes in a neighborhood have been developed but before others have been developed. Specifically,it is unfair to a new owner to have much larger houses next door and down the street than the new owner would be allowed to build just because the new house is built under more restrictive regulations than the neighboring houses were built under. The planning commission should consider the fact that overly restrictive land use requirements serve to diminish property values,not just for the affected lots,but for all lots in the community since everyone will be restricted should they desire to build a new home or even remodel their existing home. The proposed Code Amendments will surely have a negative effect on property • values throughout Lake Oswego. Yours very truly, Patricia B.E. Woolsey Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT G-11 LU 08-0053 558 McCaleb, Iris IIIFrom: Janine Dunphy [janine_dunphy@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 10:39 AM To: McCaleb, Iris Subject: Planning Commission Public Hearing Dear Planning Commission: Comments for the Planning Commission Public Hearing being held on December 14. 2009. The 50+Advisory Board supports efforts to remove obstacles to remodel homes in Lake Oswego. The impact on Seniors could be significant. If they are forced by current codes and regulations to tear down an existing home, they may not be able to afford a rebuild, where they could have afforded a remodel. Removal of these obstacles would enable those wishing to downsize or accommodate for life style changes to stay in the community. Additionally it is our understanding that regulations and constraints as they currently stand are adding significant costs to building a home. If the City has an interest in providing attainable housing in Lake Oswego, are these constraints hindering that from happening? Thank you for your time and the opportunity to provide this input. 50+Advisory Board Prepared by Janine Dunphy, Chair 15450 Boones Ferry Road -#9-450 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 503-387-3321 janine dunphv(a�comcast.net 4111 411, EXHIBIT G-12 1 LU 08-0053 559 560 /y jyJ� �/"� /y�}� (/�'f/1� Lx R{FEC`D BY CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 12/14/09 t '�-j �. '_` hv, Ott C ._ _1 I. , //:t . ._ � -f- fi • 1 L: c� A _ �- ' I 1 J-- f f. I-- .. , -:- -i- - ,--- r -_--- -- -t ez { 1 T 1 1- f � i1f .2:eye. ', . , ..0.ili : , I 1--- 1 1 , , i , : : , Ii4mR -- - :-111-'- .71 _ ' i 7 ,- 111 -1-3-11-±17' -- -1--- 1): ifli•• i. ti(------ t.1. ' 'L°,.. '-- ..._ ,__J..__..___.____,_...._.1-.i........_1._..... -17; - °-1- ____ _..,_.._.-._,..._. I._.�_ _.__. _ . .a-. --. L I--, - ;.--....- : i 1 1_ ._. .t_ I__ , ; , 7..t:ii:I_ _ .11._1,: i__i . ...?„. .4- ir,. .; x4i/. ,. FT: r.:_14..._!` r_:,..,_.,1._,.,...;. ._,.i. ._., .. ..___.. is t 1 1-? ! 1 l t 4 i1 LT i .l /for_ JAB�/� • _ ,..,. . , --05, r t 7 1113 _.#. i , 1 _'t - -1_h '.... i , ' .. ' 1" /�_.,_,_ � (,l1. IT , s � !, f • 1 1 I i ! 1 I 'i �. rlr , i f { .-l 'rm.- r -.1'/A4r . fileNT ' /' ' iel 7..,'_. ii,5!. _ Zt_'; nv,iVz-l-S Mit F •-1-1-1 J L. , , li . i 1 i . i. „ i 181,6-, , / . :: 14r ,(*e:e•/iy ; r iT I 11121, Otifiltic( __fWV.1, . .. , 1 I ' _I i I I .. .... ezieli....,-_,.Air ...- -;_ _ ' : ,.1 _ ' ...1_ - irRei-"Artini.--Tr"-(- ' pi, ; Er- triV41°,---7-- + r --1. 1 _ ._ 1 1 1 , 1_..... ....._1_ _;. ._..,._._ ._ _. � - _._ _.. H_.{. ._..i-- ... �___--_-._.. 0 NMI. E ' L • l ' if , .-i- — I. 91 I r {... fcr I r .-1 - ---i- 1--i 7 JP', ' -4,-- „ ,- ,-,. - 1, ' v- 7._. ---1--- . --rnitfriV_ir. i ,-±4',/, 7 _PKI: -it' f— , - ii --J.-Aii.i.. _ __. , -4.-,. 'r . /.. ' ___-_4_i / , oil i _i t-- 1 44. , _ •t la, figev i /DD. /l(J/6/L4 Job No. Date /.. ji e9 By fi i/bA,4 /17 !?19i 17 TAHRAN ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING LLC Page 1 of 7 13741 KNAUS ROAD LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97034EXHIBIT G-13' Phone: 503-539-8802 Fax: 503-697-1958 ralphtahran@corncast.netLU 08-0053561 REC'D BY CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 12/14/09 • I t1 , c4 / rezee,€) 0` it '�; • � I mil { ,� : 0 11/Ott I---4.-4-1-t---T--- ; rit_ _Toco . I- I ! t--I i 1 1-4 . •• ' .0). 1 : 4.2,) RA- ' • 0.:j)...' m1 a/4 . j'07n -4,1 ji/e,e okfirvi)iils. i/ ! . 0 : ' ..i.4T:TCVg.601- . Af.4 - 1 11 . 1 3741 / h1.1.,OPOITa °1",. Z;(Mj r 1: I MI „„. .. Ve • {- , r ' 0�.1_,. t _ _..; ..1� _ G' i / G { i A;;. �-aoN 1r� 0 i_ . /� • ..._.. ..... ' d _ . i , , _ I. _.L..4....G.._.. . ..�_ !__...t_- - 1 I i.-../hri*Ti ifIrerr4! 1 f r ,yam 1 ! ... ji •... ' C ' .._i _ P .t....-;...i-;-�--�---_�o�?'l/Yl J"_r�__ �T.� •. {_ '__ �. �.. 1. __ _ - _ i _ Wit•._ i - 1 : 1 ' i , 1 :11-!- r,,- ,..,'. !•4!'7.. 'f if? ! (7. -riAl-ril::-.7- .• 1,-.. - ; cf"' ' r-': %/' 4-41 Pt -:m-sor' r-'--- _--_ :cr • -'i_ :e-�- I. .nr j1-1 'sI. ._/ "" J f _ �T, , •' / ' /_ .� Ji _ILL -17-1- hi-i---- 1 ,.. ..„._ . .. ._, iii. t. , , , ,..... ...,......„... _,..1.._i__ 7_, : t + IIffrnir t t -I----f,"+-{-•-"1'-•i,"4041' 'Z '• . 0 '-l'Idy-1-Ad 'Li Alidil 1 d gfroff---i-i : . trecrttM, - . - - -41% ,..._, A •i . A_ 4 p I 1 � -I-f- — . T � II , 'rojectn ppe �6 /A/,t/lG 1 @?pr Job No. Date /2/ 0 7 By% ,,k 0 TAHRAN ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING LLC Page 2 of 7 13741 KNAUS ROAD LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97034EXHIBIT G-131 562 Phone: 503-539-8802 Fax: 503-697-1958 ralphtahran@comcastrnetLU 08-0053 REC'D BY CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 12/14/09 , F t--I 1-1 . I , I , t ' '-,f Ili .—t=1.__1 1 1...i_ii...j.... ..... _, .1....1.,4 ..,.i ...j..1 fri/6.0.0 JPI- I . 1 _i sec . � � , . SC � ' 09 r � !.1 '. o c'o , 5"„.-.. QUO - Y - . L� ' _ d - i� . • 4gte/a - 4wd/ a M - T -:. _ i h 1 T. a _1"—1-'" 1 i'"' l' IT 1- '. I—LH— ±-i, f-- H A---1 I ii 7 t - - i , _J_ — H_.1.It _.4 ___L.....4_._•4_. ......;________Hd 1 —±-1-1-4.-1- ,.___,_ -1._ ! 1ILI • , } . 1 1 I :-_tIf -„ti.-,s-1 4t.-,---11i,L•; fit_. _rt- - -.__ _aa._,.[m......i.n,.i ' , _ �_ ,- 1 ... _.I i I : 1T► ^`_"'1-- ,'-� - ---- - -t t 1 1_{.__!_L.,_i__, 4-j i ,. .f,77._ ..,. , -; G ' 4 . i - 1 Iii LI: ,} 1::_- I t _ t I w i ilie; '1; ' 1--' ,4;ctitrigf." ' 1 /��;y� i i-i i_ i . r , /-�CPA1-.-d L ti—�t te t . Z4 : -..ri.`" illiFfA . '. R' i"./iii? ' -: -T. irlante.4"61 i-i- - • --i - ' :---1 , 1-1-1-t-i-H-i-i- • 0 1�' f 9" /44* 1 L6`VEL' _ -tom'ldi i I + _ _. i - ' • S:S .1..101* :_ * , . 1--4-$---1---1-4-1-, -t ' ,0000offi A r ,_ J-, „__,.,.1_, _ 4.1._ _: it.e.: 1 i4-; ;" i C---: :I -....: .1:: ._ 17 r-12:Ai -1 I I --til-4:', ., _i_i .40, r,r ilitif, II ;c ...,... ,-.13, i, i ii fhp... 1-1 i ; 1 1_ 1". 1 ' . ' is- 4 re,;„,,„ J,,,,i,_ op Ct, . -_, ... 1 IS.41-, •l t M � 1 . . � � �( - t in, OEM ( {�ifi '--� j ' j f it { i t ��-� 1++-T i- 1 1 . .- !!J(/c0 r . : ' q ►•t,3S'� tuc , -- { :rIr • j1 - _i�__ _ 3/5 sf G� l _ `ls` : zc _ 2Sox,35 . P I tit.. I -- .df. ' 1'=60' d',sTdPrl J7 t x. 1_4 7 CU 2 �YL, I -' S 5 60' dux ,B�cr tW/ 2 1-a i f6'Gvm(eiv:8v Mix,vaw, . -0 x 6'I.3 aro wvuco 12, .4744 I.mrW tt� • = 22.4or, Job No. UuteB},L /2,! 7 I AIWI TAARAN ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING LLC Page 3 of 7 13741 KNAUS ROAD LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97034 EXHIBIT G-13 Phone: 503-539-8802 Fax: 503-697-1958 ralphtahran@comcast.net LU 08-0053563 • — REC'D BY CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 12/14/09 I/ , : 00 , , i , � ' 7_r- ---1:1.1.-7::__.-r-Ll_i___Li_L; it % r - x �r1 1- 1,_t_, �, ► i , . �. : -4 . mi , 1_ +h __ Yft'P 2 0 . - EFftH - _f !' __ill., t� r I: 411- ,_i i . 1 _1_,.H._ ___i__,_trt_, . 1-14 ....___t-____ 1-----LL----,--- ---- . ,...4_, i ; , --1- LI , ! ; v 1-,-t i . ,---1 .j. _IT_ __,_ __FA 1 ..0 ,.1 . . —, 1---.4-1.--i--L-41.-,-i--4 •7 • -4 ,-t 1] , . f f . .- 4--' , : ---1--1- ilk_ �1 . . ; , , I ...'' • 4 flii. , 11 i i . i , . . , .1 __i_i z , ; 11 Lill 1 1, I T. 1- i , i.l �.1_ _a , _ I. ...-- -7 -- t _ _�_ a ►T � t�-r�• t r �; •� _ _ .�-- -- ---'----•-- _ --tom---:------ - -�----- f- 1 1 I------r i--{- - ± •1- '- .---I- - - {- I — .�- - }- l t__ -�-i. ---7« 1--1 -1 i -•" -1-1-1'' 71 1 •—+—'� .— 4,— — _—r—_{—{ --,,—i_T--1--�- _ , ' — _L' u. _1— .-r—! _ �=-' � :_ f'1 .- ig S G r/2' I.t- _ tt+- -• .-"4_, =T :-1_--, _ I t l I __ iiiil 4"41- r -11-i ' . • : .,4 ! ... , , , , :____-11, 1 ! , .,.i ., , r'- .. r -- , - „. •1----... • 1, fTtfi-l_l_t__, _14;H: ; ;. 11---t-T -'-...4.44, :.+.-7 .---Hji-.1-._-_:_LITt__ .L....__:_:Ii_ :.. ,. , - 1. . . l , _.. .p.,_ h,Lbo j- 1 �-1--__i— -1 I-,- -;- --- , -- '4N 4_{..._ _a ._f--,-- --r - -®-T- -- . �-L.. 1 _ I t' Y` ;T' p A-iNe /A/•Mo ' 1 • G S.6'S.1 1._ 1$ - r i t 1r11i11l11111ul1 iiiialil . -7r I *fir : T sx1. rsnvver ^ + .=i-..• 1I1=I! iV4t 41III 11--:: - t _11 I MINI • !III , ,..- _.. -1--i II [-, /4 . 'I . ' Rlil16 Project /0L)/VeG ir. Job No. 4.. Date / . • 1/.1 By G __?j:L_4DLd it? C., iaa - ,; TAHRAN ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING LLC Page 4 of 7 13741 KNAUS ROAD LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97034 EXHIBIT G-13 Phone: 503-539-8802 Fax: 503-697-1958 ralphtahran®comcast.net LU 08-0053 564 1 . REC'D BY CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 12/14/09 . 4010j. 01I. G47" ;L- , ice O7�; tjNO. ,_ 4._. . '0* _ _ , e .No7 , - ,. /s �G. Gu/I T' -. ,_/i . 4.- , �+..._;.... '. ;-.7 -�_ iY r. -- --- •. - . ' `i .- -P 1 S`'r'ct'/d7V_ /Y6- (24-i l ' D '4j = + :4 -1- � _ - 1.:::ti:::..- ., 4.441-, i .-1,-fri7-.0,_ . , 1 g 4 1--- * 4-4- , / 7 gfigi_o_ ....v,_,_44,___i II .L. _. - _ ,..1._.��'_1�; II C/~. �!/._ . . _ !.... ..-- - r._ _ _I_ r / r /I J .. e'_ '.._ _i ,-,r./_ _ t_-__17. 7_ , . ,_ i _j_-_ 07-67 X::tfltiV i ' It- . -- 1 -- - -005- - - •111 - --i--- --1,---1-- -1-4 i --_ /1 .' elJa-_AV . r � :•11-"q',., i 1A F-..`At. t. sI- -,i-i 1 ' T -- ._ . / ,- � } - j i J i- 1 - _ :1_ -..-:1- .+- -...1. -.. - P- _ , - . w z 1;4 5.r 'i 17 ' •,,. r . i....-A- ' ... z: 1-.),430-0 ---- - : - -._ 1U _7,/ _ - - I-- , - __ f A '1 :; '1. .'!1F 1 i r ` . 4_--.. 1".14.!,2,4_ _4. . , , .., _i. , , 1-, 1 [ ! i 40/2, f t r _ , ! . i__ ; if , .1___!__ i_l__ ) _ 1 ' :__,__ 1'- ._.L_._ c GGWr/ill i: . .4�.: cr05 °� r , s crq - r _/n., t; , Br .,A.,r, 4 ",!' :jiff 'Ili r 0_ __T L/11 . or;0 *1_4 : • 1 i di �•• ■ i MIMII �■ . -1__. --i - -f- _1--.1--jr.- --- !Iw:� j: pir - _I-- l- _j C/ew ,i '/X-� 4 . ■II ■ 1-� 4- , I ii- , iiiil -1 -_1 _... _i_tiar . iiiif.dt 7_ 4,ie -T/A1 klifisgmaz iii aw A', /' 1- _' .er i. :...,.__ _}- ' _' '('.• ._�_.. lr t __ '-/ 'JP."' �h�',_ F ' ' a �/ 'I I _ ', - __ ''/ t�• ! •�- -J _.! , ,'_. ✓l.Iz, 1--_? Cet�i.efIS_ I�( , :_ 9 i /.• ,7. j .. _ - - .z. ;- - - 1-- 1"t?J'I6M/ - •l' __ , - _12`, J 4' �.. : I i�:.- .-4' ' j;r - I _ __ j. _ ..,gnu 0 lap" I 1//�"R/i411_I lO 1 /11 � : ',` " t'' sr /�/f il ,; ,`, 17 I.► 1'- .rr -r . ✓- ---- -_-_i '/°Aelpecrf-z2; mef,--wy ,*, . _qp___,_ -7210 -- •lit'' -f-Air-4/N i TA(',4V6:4X.Th_ 47_ _+- G/L11if'TI_/G/I" -- W -,-/ _ - e_l2/_ , '° . J'7`, - :' 1 - • ,8/v--,. xr 'd i . Az'! 4r I .,T r s/T/�j _ t i ?- f O/' ' rovA/ L/A-ii /I'- i i , + ..-i- .- -F .ft4 •ct /v,/LG/YYn ,I. ,e 04 Job No. Date /2 // Qg By i' , Page 5 of 7 TAHRAN ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING LLCEXHIBIT G-13 13741 KNAUS ROAD LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97034LU 08-0053 Phone: 503-539-8802 Fax: 503-697-1958 ralphtahran@comcast.net 565 REC'D BY CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 12/14/09 - -ht- 0441 fffiwr ' 4n /1/W . Oita =�_- 4*4. lPo�'s 7 ,,�J ' I ,lc_ . - 1 •• /�> ei?9A 011_N, GURU gSr<- :-F ' A !-_?' d!: �' •f .-4.-.. r , --- i ' ,-I- eii 1 = --• -- __.... � -- It; . .�- _ _ t c,__ .11, 4_1 -,c r"/off/ cJ'g-VV1v /°/ I -; v�2oP + '+ -i-- �- .1. .i. .,_/......1 _i__.__ ilt_ ..._ ...___• i ,_.._i_ i i / // Ji i 1-1- -{ I tl— to_ i_/6->>v s& - J /,.a Z'.r 1d _1_ ;t�,.if ,4, --1-1-- - -e. if 1 r , ...-- , ! , , mit 1 1 ..., onsumminusa II i 1 41 1 I. II1_ - 19._iiiimo_b_ ik-H- a -a- - .- _j-� 4 ■ lomi . 111:r .. 1 , _ ___,_ , . , . . -- ---- nommuss mu II 4JUcT/o1\J ,- ' �_-- - ,, : , .- i • --, • , i i•-•-:_ so A)/'/ t / :lir ■n a■ - .H� NNE ' U/. _ 7i ' -i ii111-fl-11111111=11101111111: ,-i s..1 �M Lu. _ aV .c %, pill!■ _ ILInillrlij- .-a/Li- / -i t412 '/ v I `'•- l j21"_ ! : ii /I ' I � a NE Conk' LNG _ . '1 1 ' -- ...� ,r`Alva" 1.- - rd>r_a Ol-, 14,-�JI A� _. .I _Tie. A 4'� -.Ai"--. i .a ' -- . •te_ _i _ f�" - - -7- � r/c - - ''- .•_ / - j/ç .- , _ J-.. ,3 t 1L. . a : /_ ;�/� �J/ . .. W�/?/S__.--- ,1 s L. Ali /fir' illI 1iiilE 1 ,�(.,�L i I p , , .._ . i . , Cr. ._ _ "1' .., elt.L-1iIL'g 4'/' 13 -- 1iiiiAIii •-1� —'� r-I -_,. • ■� ■ • _-1-~ -_ i,), 4- 1_ _____iir.:_,e_ . . t - 131,, ,,..„,.. 1, p_. . ........ir / n .; °- 13717- ' ' -1,;41./ S ,.,,.,..44, _5'_-r.. -,--. _. , .. �~_.■1.. .■ , I � ! ■ T 0-rs: lb eciA7Ati_W____ , if. i4ti_7112=', _ _t:'_t__._ akigiNZIEd 1 roject/ A/c/n6 0/4-Fr f//4t R4/4- PG //RG Job No. Date/ZM•47 By/ O' ' • TAHRAN ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING LLC Page 6 of 7 13741 KNAUS ROAD LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97034EXHIBIT G-13 566 Phone: 503-539-8802 Fax: 503-697-1958 ralphtahran@comcast.netLU 08-0053 REC'D BY CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 12/14/09 • ! r I 1 1- ' 1 ! r r � r i i ` rI i - 4 r -T-"-1-'1 : , SECT/ Pl -H AGE . 7TAF 1 /'/Ilri. - _]. - - , - . ;41 . f j -, _ 4, i , ,..L.. 11 1 -1-t-FT— ' i ". "1-1- ' or-if ivo oiv9ft_-,._;/4.4.,./ hie."Ntternr .7' '1 ind' ,. i r- ,...._._ .._4.T.�_.� ..�-1- i... . ..- I. !- Y,, - i i-- / 'i.1 {.-4......1 _ ;. ! .,...... _ _.._._._...._-1 . L • i tif -Y/ f1. lXY i ' ? � . , • I I- i jl i i , r_ 3 _i •_ Ilifgetlee2 Jp/ 1 /14 (� � . �9p�j /+�/ - ._ • 1. 11 Il { 1 : i � i I ! j i j t . 1 , _._ ..I ' I l - i _ 1 +. 1 :.. - _- , _4_.1- - ---I i-r 4� -- 111 +. L{ It'll' _ J_ i 1 t -._4-...j., ._ ---f j- ' --1 1�« _.1_.I_..f•y._..t _ 1. -.,+. -i.....�-_.._._.___--1--4--�.�� _ _1--^-i- ---i _-`--r -t-�'_ 1 1 _i _L _ I 11 i I F r f;-__! 4._-i _..........L......_+_......i____,÷_i..+__....._..t..1_____,_i .t.. i ! . _,__I___I ' ..._.1. 1 _. 1 ' { . 1 I L. i_.1 I, i-.:-..- i 1 • f.-.. I - ,_ 1 I l.._ _. 1 } -T _�__.�_� ___ .I._ __ _-..a_.�_ _... { 1 i _ _. - __. 1 _7__i L.. ._ j._ .... - T- ,__ Li hi,...... -- .1_ r_i___. ,_ r I I , ii_w , ' 2097 //2G 6$/#1i7 Oct Job No. Date .l , , q By Page 7 of 7 TAHRAN ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING LLCEXHIBIT G-13 13741 KNAUS ROAD LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97034 Phone: 503-539-8802 Fax: 503-697-1958 ralphtahran@comcast.neti"U 08-005 567 568 RECEIVED DEC 1 4 2009 • December 14, 2009 City of Lake Oswego Community Development Dept. My name is Sherry Finnigan and I live at 128 Condolea Drive. I was on both Infill I and Infill II task forces. It has been just over a year since I testified before the Planning Commission. Since there has been a major change in commissioners since then, I am taking the liberty of once again bringing before you my support for a Residential Design Review Board. The decision to include a Design Review Board proposal was a close vote during Infill II three and a half years ago. Unfortunately staff has declined to put any concrete ideas before you, waiting, apparently, until you, the commission showed some sign of support. We on the task force that supported a RDRB shared documents and clippings with you a year ago. These include the Napa CA Residential Design Review program and stories from the Oregonian that indicated Portland was interested in some sort of program. We gave you a lot of material that was RDRB friendly. Staff hopefully has included in your packet a three page matrix of cities in California that have some sort of Design Review process. Also in your packet should be two proposals from a work group of the task force that recommended triggers for placing a residence into the Design Review process and described a purpose for design review that 11110 follows: "The purpose of residential design review (Board} is to assure that any new or remodeled single family home or duplex fits well within the neighborhood in which it is located. Design review is intended to assure that development is appropriate in terms of size and scale, the relationship to neighbors , and the relationship to the street." Basically, building has slowed in this area. The unhappiness that Infill II heard from citizens about too big houses, non-compatibility and poorly designed mega-mansions has apparently slowed also, probably because • citizens are not seeing new construction in the neighborhoods. However, the RID process continues to function in the city and, as quiet as this year has been, at least six RID applications were received, two of them today. I have these pre-aps in front of me but am missing the summer applications as I was not here. In each case, the application for RID is somehow related to building a bigger house. You probably have heard this before, but during Infill II, the short-range planning director told the task force that RID was being used to build bigger houses than allowed in the zone. This quiet period we are experiencing surely will not last. But it does give the • city a breathing space to consider the concept of a RDRB, a proposal that Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT G-14 LU 08-0053 569 • would remove the RID process from the city. It is my hope that the proposal would culminate in a Residential Design Review Commission, similar to the current DRC. I recommend that you reject the three options presented in the staff report and commend to you the idea of a non-staff administered design review process and hope that you will discuss the options, ask for and get more material from the staff and then recommend a RDRB to the city council. • Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT G-14 LU 08-0053 570 RECEIVED • DEC 1 4 2009 Lake Oswego Planning Commission December 14,2009 City of Lake Oswego Community Development Dept. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Infill Comprehensive Plan amendments and code amendments. FAN^Forest Hills supports the recommended Comp Plan amendments to allow the use of overlay zoning initiated by Neighborhood Associations and the establishment of a Design Review process. We would further advocate for the creation of a Design Review Commission. We support limiting the application of the RID (Residential Infill Design)process to exclude adjustments for lot coverage, FAR, and height. We feel strongly that the RID process as currently designed has been quite unsuccessful and is being utilized to permit larger houses than are appropriate. We are opposed to the Planning Commission recommendations allowing a 20% reduction to side yard setbacks via RID. We support the recommended code amendments that are specific to the R-6 zone, including minimum side yard setbacks of 7 %z feet and the height adjustments of up to four feet for new homes built on slightly sloped lots. We also support the minor lot width adjustment option of 20%proposed for land divisions. FAN^Forest Hills supports the Planning Commission recommendation for a reduction of 5% overall for Floor Area Ratio (FAR)and encourages you to reconsider and adopt the 10% reduction to FAR as initially discussed by the Planning Commission. We believe the greater FAR reduction would strengthen housing diversity in Lake Oswego and have a very positive effect on sustainable building and affordable housing in our community. We support code amendments requiring side yard setback planes for corner lots, applying infll standards to duplexes and attached single family homes, and eliminating the"50%rule"for remodels, which is resulting in more teardowns. We also feel that no exceptions or adjustments should be permitted for side yard setbacks. There are several recommendations that we feel need more work or that could go further. We recommend that all garage square footage be included in the FAR. We are concerned that the proposals to provide architectural articulation to break up larger side planes do not adequately address the problem. We are also very concerned that the recommendations for steeply sloped lots do not address the house to house relationships (side to side,back to front, etc.)or consider mapped slide zone safety issues. Furthermore, we question the wisdom of allowing an increase in height from 35 feet to 45 feet on steeply sloped lots. We feel that the recommendations for steeply sloped lots have not been fully examined and tested by either the Will Task Force or the Planning Commission, We are aware that the Planning Commission sitting approximately ten years ago did considerable analysis on steeply sloped lots and ask for that work to be reviewed by the current Planning Commission. • EXHIB IT e 1 of 2 E IT G-15 LU 08-0053 571 FAN^Forest Hills also believes that there are too many exceptions allowed by the Community • Development Code. Exceptions are confusing and result in inconsistent interpretation by staff and the Development Review Commission. We believe that the number of code exceptions should be significantly reduced and the code itself written with more clarity. We hope to see that , - happen with the coming Code Audit and look to the Planning Commission to follow that Audit with a discerning eye. There is one major issue that was not addressed by the Infill Task Force that we respectfully request that the Planning Commission take up. We feel that zero lot lines (currently permitted in all zones) are not appropriate in any single family residential zones; they belong in higher density residential neighborhoods. Thank you for your consideration of FAN^Forest Hills comments and suggestions. Maria Mene in Chair, FAN^Forest Hills Neighborhood Association S 11111 Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT G-15 LU 08-0053 572 • Patricia B. Elkins Woolsey 26649 Snell Lane Los Altos Hills,CA 94022 Phone/Fax(650)941-5236 April 20,2010 Robyn Christie,City Recorder Third Floor,City Hall 380 A Avenue P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego,OR 97034 Dear Ms. Christie: This letter provides written comments for the public hearing tonight before the City Council regarding the comprehensive plan change and code changes for residential infill development. Please be sure that these comments are copied to members of the City Council. As a one-third beneficial owner of the Lake Oswego house at 951 West Point Road,I am writing to express great concern that the proposed residential infill development changes will prevent me from building a house on the property which is similar in style and size to the other homes on • West Point Road. The current RID process should be preserved for situations such as mine, rather than having to use a variance process. In the past,the lot at 951 West Point Road has been called the"Park Place"or"Boardwalk"of Lake Oswego,since it is on the tip of the West Point peninsula with a view down the entire lake and the last rays of sunshine on summer evening. However with the proposed amendments,this property would become a white elephant because it would not be possible to build a house on this lot even equivalent to the other homes on the very desirable West Point Road. The flexibility to exceed the maximum floor area requirements so the house would be similar to other ones on the street apparently would be taken away. It may be that in the past,design restrictions were too lax,resulting in some overly large homes, such as the huge house near the intersection of Northshore Rd.and Berwick Rd.that dwarfs the house next to it. But in reaction to lax regulations,it appears that the pendulum is swinging too far in the other direction,towards overly restrictive design regulations. While it makes no sense for someone to build another such huge house just because that one already exists,rather a proper balance should be found that allows reasonable-sized homes to be built which are consistent with those in the immediate neighborhood. Most of the houses on West Point Road are two-story(as viewed from West Point Road,three- story as viewed from the lake)homes with steep roofs,which blend together to make an attractive street. On the other hand,the house at 951 West Point Road,occupied by my parents Mr.and Mrs. William C.Elkins since the 1960's until their recent deaths(both in their 90's), is still a low ranch style 1960's house that looks"squatty"compared to the neighbors' homes with their high pointed roofs and one additional story. One should be able to at least have a house at 951 West Point Road similar to the house next door at 941 West Point Road which has a smaller lot,and • similar to the other houses on the street. That is possible under the current RID process,which L • allows some flexibility in approving homes with larger floor area than the current allowances, if that would blend in with other homes in the immediate neighborhood. But it apparently would not be possible under the proposed amendments, which would remove this flexibility and would apply rigid floor area requirements that would result in a house much smaller than the adjacent houses,and one that would look ridiculous on West Point Road. It is very important that the design process allow the flexibility to build larger homes that blend in with their neighbors than allowed by the maximum floor area regulations,as does the current RID process. The lot at 941 West Point Road is 6,534 sq.ft. and the house floor area is 5,549 sq. ft;the house has two stories as viewed from the street,and three stories from the lake. The ratio 5,54916,534 equals 85%. On the other hand our 951 West Point Road lot is 11761.2 sq. ft. and the current house is 4,144 sq.ft. which is a ratio of only 35%. If we were to build to 85%,that would be .85 x 11,761.2 or 9,997 sq. ft.of house,which would be a very large house—three stories of 3,332 sq. ft. per story. More realistic might be a 6,000 sq. ft house,which would still be just 51% (6,000/11,761.2). Given that the 941 West Point Road floor area is 85%of their lot size, we should be able to build more than 35'% or 40'%at 951 West Point Road,but probably less than 85%, which many would consider excessive. Fifty to sixty percent might be a good compromise, in order to allow a house similar to the others on the street,and one with two stories as seen from the street and three from the lake. It is very unfair to property owners to substantially change development ground rules after some homes in a neighborhood have been developed but before others have been developed. Specifically,it is unfair to a new owner to have much larger houses next door and down the street than the new owner would be allowed to build,just because the new house is built under more • restrictive regulations than those under which the neighboring houses were built. The City Council should consider the fact that overly restrictive land use requirements serve to diminish property values,not just for the affected lots,but for all lots in the community since everyone will be restricted should they desire to build a new home or even remodel their existing home. The proposed Code Amendments will surely have a negative effect on property values throughout Lake Oswego. Yours very truly, Patricia B.E.Woolsey Christie, Robyn From: Egner, Dennis Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 5:28 PM To: Christie, Robyn Subject: FW: Council Letter Attachments: image001.jpg From: Hoffman, Jack Sent:Tuesday, April 20, 2010 4:50 PM To: Egner, Dennis Subject: FW: Council Letter From: Steve Dodds [sdodds@nbsrealtors.com] Sent:Tuesday, April 20, 2010 4:33 PM To: Hoffman, Jack; Hennagin, Roger; Johnson, Kristin; Jordan, Donna; Moncrieff, Sally; Tierney, William Subject: FW: Council Letter Dear Council Members: The purpose of this letter is to express my concern regarding the proposed code changes for residential infill,which you are currently considering. My thoughts are as follows: 1. Why? The City of Lake Oswego is not known for an incomplete building code. Any contractor/owner/developer working in Lake Oswego must proceed through a myriad of layers to successfully complete a project. In these economic times,increased difficulty working through bureaucracy is not in the interests of Lake Oswego citizens. My advice would be to streamline the process,not lessening the impact of the code, but rather making more defined "goal lines" so business people/home owners can understand the code,and their prospects for a successful project. 2. Lot coverage is a goal, promoted by Metro. The code changes seem to be driven by constituency that has the time and inclination to oppose this regional goal. As we have seen many times in Lake Oswego, small groups have an inordinate amount of impact based on their will. Their goal is not to fine-tune the existing code, but rather to make it very difficult for the expansion of existing homes through a spiderweb of regulation. Please do not underestimate the impact of this effort and "the law of unintended consequences." 3. The impact of these code changes will be to neuter the existing RID (Residential Infill Design process). My impression is this process has worked well. Of the 45 properties which have applied through the RID procedure, 35 have been on the Lake. The lake owners are their own social-economic group with their own set of issues. Their impact on the City, economic, social and political should not be unappreciated. Despite some citizens'agitation,it seems the RID process has worked well. 4. Most importantly, the new code changes will make over 50% of the homes in Lake Oswego non- conforming relative to lot line set-backs, roof overhang, etc. The impacts of this are direct,and significant. Any time a citizen of Lake Oswego wants to add a room, modify a deck, move a wall, etc., they will be required to go through the "Non-Confonnutg Use" abyss. Anyone who has gone through this process knows it is not only expensive, but extremely time intensive. The result will be citizens either ignoring the 1 it non-conforming use process, or being angry at the bureaucracy. This is not in the interest of either the citizens or the city government. I appreciate the time and effort that the Council invests in these types of situations. Personally, it gives me a headache. To conclude, the City does not need more complicated codes created by a small constituency for their own esoteric considerations. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Steve Dodds This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the email to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender. smtppdxhtml 2 L��j 700 McVey Avenue ake P.O. Box 203 7Oswego Lake Oswego,Oregon 97034 (503)636-1422 CORPORATION (503)636-3226 Fax April 20. 2010 Mayor and City Council City of Lake Oswego PO Box 369 Lake Oswego OR 97034 Dear Mayor and City Council Members: The Lake Oswego Corporation opposes the proposed zoning changes as they affect lake front properties. From very small lots on Lakeview Blvd to the Cabana lots in Lakewood Bay, there are many unique challenges when building on the lake that make our current zoning code very restrictive. The new code proposed by the Planning Commission puts an additional layer of restrictions in place that would make rebuilding or remodeling on these lots extremely difficult as well as very expensive. We have worked with the city in the past on creating a separate lake front zoning overlay. We are very interested in continuing that work with a lake front task force which will include lake front owners. Our recommendation until that time is that the council delay implementing any new code changes to lake front properties until a lake front zoning overlay is written. Best regards, 1&,41c W/� Todd Van Rysselberghe LOC Board President