HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2009-05-27•
•
•
•
I.
City of Lake Oswego ed
Planning commission Minutes pfO~
May 27, 2009 N
CALL. TO ORDER AND ROLL CAl-L
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 Phflip 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 And_reades,
Senior Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy. City Attorney and Iris McCaleb, Administrative
Support.
II. CITIZEN COMMENT
None.
Ill. MINUTES
Commissioner Brockman moved to approve _ the Minutes of _ April 27. 2009.
-Commissi_oner Jones seconded the motion and -It passed 5:0. Commissioner
. Paretchan was not present during the vote.
IV. WORK SESSION
Ordinance 2524, LU 08•0053 -Community Development Code -lnfill 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 I Floor Area (Section 2)
• Structure Design I setback Planes (Section 3)
• Yard Setbacks_ (Section 4)
Motion
Commissioner Brockman made the following motJon 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 lrifill Development (RID) provisions in the Code be:
a. Deleted from the Code as the provisions apply to new development.
p. 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.
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of May 27, 2009 Page 1 of 7
•
•
•
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The house sizes as proposed by the lnfill Committee be reduced 15% in the R-5,
R...,6, R-7.5 and R-10 zones. This means that all standards be reduc::ed 15%
except for building height.
A very .expeditecl design review proce$s be ~dopted and applied to the long,
narrow, houses that will look into th~ neighbors' front and rear yards. The lnfill
Committee did not aqqress 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.
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 lnfill Code language.
The PlannJng 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.
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 ex:ampl!9 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
poficy -not manipulating the numbers -so they could get their work done. They should
rely on the work the lnfill Task Force had already done. Vice Chair Stewart was willing to
support afl 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 shou.ld 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 getrid of RID. He indicated that the Planning Commission shoUld first
decide how strict the other standards should be. It was also mentioned that to redt'Jce
lnfill Task Force recommend.ations 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
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of May 27, 2009 Page 2 of 7
•
•
•
' (
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.
Commis$ioner Jones suggested recommending that the City Council place a moratorium
on the Rib 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 developmemt 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 rec.ommendation to the City Council as soon as
possible, Chair Glisson asked staff to chang~ the schedule to reflect that.
Commissioner Paretchan suggested the Commission direct staff to propose an
expedited process to ad,dress Whatever a long, narrow, house was to be defined ~s. 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 sm~ll accessory structure could be as close, as three feet from ttie 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 ta.lk 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 h~d reconsidered their work plan.
Lot CoverEJge, Floor Area, Setbacks and Setback Planes
The Commissioners examined the Maximum Lot Coverage -R-6 Zone table in
Supplemental Report #5, dated May 1 t, 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.
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of May 27, 2009 Page 3 of 7 r
•
•
•
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 t.he
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 unlforiilly 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% smal.ler than what the lnfill
Task Force recommended. Commissioner J.ones questioned whether 5% was enough to
keep houses from being too large.
Jim Bolland explained that many people had asked the lnfill Task Force to address the
issue of infill that was too big. He said the lnfill Task Force did not want to reduce the
sizes of houses and the Code formula was actually the same as the one the otiginallrifill
Task Force had come up with. Chair Glisson suggested not modifying the existing
formula until after the Planning Commission haq discussed broader policy issues and
unaetstC>od 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 lnfill Task Force members had assumed that all existing
houses were potential teardowns. She anticipated the current economic climate would
result in more remodeling.
_Mrl 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 appiied to them all. Commissioners Jones and
Brockman suggested some neighborhc;>ods might want to keep houses small enough to
leave yards big enough for kicjs 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 lnfill 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 reciuced. 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 al$0 be of offensive design. Mr. Egner recal.led the .lnfill 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 $Oiution might be to have staff ask each applicant to bring in
photographs of surrounding existing homes and use a design handbook to help them
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of May 27, 2009 Page 4 of 1
•
•
•
understand what would best fit those surroundings. The handoook could even show
what designs were appropriate for specific neighborhoods .
The Commissioners were not yet ready tq 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. E:gner 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 lnfill 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 t_he 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 }lard setbacks to be at
least 15 feet, but the lnfill 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 rec:luce 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 topog1raphy and .lot shape. Some were not
adjacent to a_ny 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 1 0 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. Bo.lland 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 lnfiU 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. 6olland 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% narrower so the owners
had an alternative to flag lots. He sa.id the lnfill 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 .
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of May 27, 2009 Page 5 of?
•
(
•
•
v.
fhe Commissioners then considered sideyard setback planes. Mr. Egner clarified the
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. Mt. Bolland 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 photqgraphs and Commissio'net Gustafson's
illustrations of side setba~k 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 bot.h street sid.es were subject to the front setback
plane many houses would end up with the same toot foi1il. He noted it might kick in due
to an upper floor addition. Commissioner ~ustafson and Mr. Egner planned to test the
standard on existing innll 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
· st.andards. Mr. 6oone advised that only the area of construction in the area of
nonconfoiinity had to comply. ·
Supplemental Report #3 described proposed alternatives to breaking up a side yard wall
plane on a comer lot. One option was landscaped screening using specified plant units.
The Commi~sioners observed the next owner might put in differenflandscaping.
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 passec:l.6:0.
VL OTHER BUSINESS-: PLANNING COMMISSION
R;olling Agenda
The Commissioners planned to discuss RID at their June 8th 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
City of lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of May 27,2009 Page 6 of?
•
•
•
recalled the Commissioners had asked staff to tty to achieve agreement between the
parties, and staff was asking them to at least try. He indicated that the City had hired the
mediator.
Commissioner Paretchan asked for consensus to take the matter off the June 221')d
agenda and the other Commissioners agreed to that.
Council Update
This discussion was postponed.
VII. OTHER BUSINESS-COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVMENT
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before ·· the Planning Commission, Chair Glisson
adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m.
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of May 27, 2009
Respectfully submitted,
Iris McCaleb
Administrative Support
Page 7 of1