Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2009-06-08• • • I. City of Lake Oswego . -d Planning com'!lission Minuteip.pfOf' June 8, 2009 I' CALL TO ORDERAND 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 R~nge Planning Manager; Denise Frisbee, Planning and Building Services Director; Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Evan Boone, Oeputy City Attorney anc:Jiris McCaleb, Administrative Support. Ill. CITIZEN COMMENT IV. None.• MINUTES Corn missioner Brockman moved to approve the . Minutes of ' Mav 11. 2009. Commissioner Gustafson seconded the niofion and it passe-d 4:0. · Commissioner Jones abstained. V. WORK SESSION Ordinance 2524, LU 08-0053 -Community Development Code -lnfill Amendments The public hearing had been continued to June 22, 2009 at the April13, 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 Residentiallnfill 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 lnfill task Force. The examination was to help the 9ommissioners gain a better understanding of the full package of infill amendments and help them be better prepared City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of June 8, -2009 Page 1 of 7 • • • 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; sustainabiHty; 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 lnfiW' (Exhibid=-1) which had been provided to the Planning Commission in September. The Commissioners then discussed the proposed ordinance. Cornmis.sioner Brockman wanted assurance that a neighbor could state their case during the R_ID 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 originallnfill Task Force had seen a need for a Residential h1fiH 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 lnfill Code standards. He noted that the second lnfill 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 Are~ Ratio (FAR) and lot coverage. Staff had put together a summary of RIO cases and decis.ions 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 t_he 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 hol!se 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" the entire, previously nonconforming house. She explained that a RID approval of a 20% exception to lot coverage might actually be legaiizing all the existing i"'oi"'confotrnities. 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 b~come a longer process, especially when RID advisors recommended modification of the design in an attempt to make it more compatible with a neighborhood. Commissioner Brockman was concerned about RID approval of a specific house on Lakeview where lot coverage had been allowed to expand to 31%. Ms. Andreades explained this house met the sideyard setbacks when many other houses along La_keview did not. The bulk of the house was distributed down the hill towards th~ lake, and was not as close to neighbors. It was close to the street but that was nQr"inal for houses on Lakeview. Commissioner Paretchan saw a need to explore that rationale 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. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of June 8, 2009 · Page 2 of 7 • • • Commissioner Gustafson t~lked 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 chiiracter 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 cQmpatible 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 sen_se 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 Paretchah 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 thiit 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. F'or this reason, an applicant was encouraged to talk to neighbors about the project at the outset of the process. Commissi.oner 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 t_he Commissioners wanted to limit it to single-family, detached, houses and duplexes (not townhouses or condos) they needed to specify that. Commissioner arockman said the proposed approval criteria was a vast improvement, especially because of provisions that called for consideration of the character of neighbors i!nd neighborhood. Mr. 6oone clarified that ste~ff would look at how the neighborhood plan described character, and he advised that a neighborhood plan overlay was zoning. 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 frorn impacts like noisy workshops t_hat encroi!Ched 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 hot have met the setbacks for such ii 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 RIO. Commissioner Paretchan noted th.at differentiation was a policy issue to discuss later. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of Jlme 8, 2009 Page 3 of7 • • • 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. fhe 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. ivlr. 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 acce~sory 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 re.convened the work session. Mr. Egner cautioned that limiting the ability to use RID to adjust PAR and lot coverage might discourage people from remodeling and result in more teardowns. Commissioner Brockman suggested also look_ing into w_hether 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 nonconforrriity, 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 con$truction 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 lnfill Task Force had not taken a position on whether to allow the garages there to be in the front yard setback. Ms. Andteades 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 . City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of June 8, 2009 Page 4 of7 • • • 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 associ~tion was notified qf the preappliccation 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 t.he applicant got RID advice, and the neighborhood was invited to that, but the second preapplication c6nference 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 $514. Commissioner Jones said that would discourage public comment or dissent. Mr. Boone sa.id it encouraged people to raise their issues right away and not Wait until a DRC hearing, however, if: someone paid the appeal fee, they did not have to explain why until the ORC hearing. · Chair Glisson said it would be best to get the notice out early and let the noticed neighbors and neighborhood association attend the preapplication conference. Commissioner Gustafson suggested inviting anyone who had submitted comments. Mr. Egner clarified the infill advisers were architects who were hired as design consultants and they were considered an extension of staff. He said they were not a hearing body. Staff said that passage of the lnfill ordinance in 2003 had created many nonconforming structures. Commissioner Paretchan observed the proposed criteria on page 8 of the lnfill Task Force recommendations were subjective, not objective, standards. She indicated she wanted a code that worked without the need to "RID" existing nonconformity. The Commi$sioners again discussed wheth.er to remove exceptions to side yard setbacks or even increase the minimum setback from 5 feet to 1.5 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 v~riance or RID process and owners could expand a nonconfottnilig 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 heave better-looking houses than those ttiat 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 a.dded that many people were using it to get approval for their additions and it assu~ed 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 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of June 8, 2009 Page 5 of? • • • 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 1 0 hew 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 wa.nted to make a distinction between new houses and a relief Valve for remodels arid make it easier to remodel and not teat down. Mr. 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. OiHER BUSINESS-PLANNING COMMISSION • Rolling Agenda The Commissioners discussed the upcoming agenda. Staff had provided the Summary of Proposed Community Development Code amendments for lnfill and wanted to know what additional material the Commissioners wanted. Chair Glisson observed the Commissioner~ wanted to iook at and understand the big picture before they started fashioning details. Until that evening she had not known the extent RID was being used for remodels. . Commissioner Gustafson agreed they should discuss general concepts such as Whether infill houses should be smaller. Chair Glisson and Commissioner Paretchan asked staff to explain in more detail how RID was used to address nonconformity. Commissioner Paretchan asked if staff could offer a better method of showing c,hanges so she would know what had been changed as they issued each new draft version of the Rolling Agenda. Ms. Frisbee said staff would find a way to highlight phanges, ' · The Planning Commission was scheduled to discuss the question of allowable lot coverage for institutional uses on July 131h, Ms. Frisbee confirmed that staff was in the process of identifying and listing all the related issues, Including some raised at a recent Lake Oswego Neighborhood Act.ion Coalition (L..ONAC) meeting. Mr. Boone explained that ·federal laws required the City to apply land use regulations the same way for religious and non-religious institutions, but the Code did not do that. He advised the Planning Commission 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 the City's position was if a religious institution applicant took the issue to court. Commissioner Gustafson suggested a "stop-gap" measure to simply lower allowable lot coverage for public schools in the Public Function Zone to 25% until the Planning Commission had more time to address the issue. Staff clarified that existing public schools used less than 25% lot coverage, but it was possible that two of them that City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of June 8, 2009 \ Page 6 of 7 • • • VII., ( were currently at about 24% lot coverage would be expanded. Commissioner Brockman then suggested the limit should be set at 35%. She advised that any decision to differentiate between the-two types of schools should be based on impacts, not ownership. Commissioner Jones saw a difference that a religious school was in business to make a ,profit, but the public scho91 was not. Mr. Boone advised federal law did not consider that. He said the code could not discriminate petween similar uses with similar purposes and similar impacts. That was what the Planning Commission shoUld consider. Ms. Frisbee suggested the Planning Commis.sion might have a better sense about how the City Council viewed the issue after the scheduled meeting between the Mayor, Councilor Bill lier'ney and Chair' Glisson the following Thursday. The Commissioners agreed to brainstorm the institutional use question at a work session in order to give the staff a sense· of direction and schedule a hearing on institutional use amendments for August 10th. . • Council Update Denise Frisbee, Building & Planning Services Director, reported the City Council had decided to wait for a financial analysis and other information before they decided. on the West End Building (WEB) strategy. They had been surprised by the number of comments they got from people who told them not to sell the building immediately. She said the Council had discussed the Sensitive Lands Ordinance at their June 23rd study session. They would take a second look at it and consider proposals for alternatives that had been submitted by Commissioner Brockman, Mike Buck and others. The City Cou.ncil planned to consider the Urban Forest Management Plan at thei_r June 23rd study session. On June 30th they were to study neighborhood planning and a report from the neighborhood planning work group. Staff was to advise them about what the cost and timing would be to provide an implementation plan along with a neighborhood plan . They would use the Palisades Neighborhood Association plan implementation as an example. She said significant budget cuts had been made to the Building Department. Staff had been cut and the counter would pe open mornings, but not afternoons, unt.il business picked up. That was being monitored. She said staff had attended a symposium to le~:~rn about community involvement techniques. There was no one perfect solution, and the key was to work very intentionally to get peopie involved.. She encouraged the Commissioners to put their names on the LoDown listserv and suggest and respond to survey questions. Mr. Egner planned to keep the Commissioners updated about periodic review and Phase 1 (the data collection phase) of the Boones Ferry Road ReqUfi$t for Proposal (RFP). · OTHER BUSINESS -COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVMENT None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no fyrther business before the Planning Commission, Chair Glisson adjourned the meeting at 10:05 p.m. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of June 8, 2009 Respectfully submitted, n -" ~.tll / ~Y/~ Iris McCaleb Administrative Support Page 7 of7