Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2009-08-24.. i • • • I. City of Lake Oswego d Pl11nning Commission ~inutes ,of' August 24, 2009 ~p CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Philip Stewart called the Planning Commission meeting of August 24, 2009 to order at 6:30p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Ill. IV. Members present were Chair Philip Stewart and Commissioners Adrianne Brockman, Jon Gustafson, and Russell Jone.s. 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. CITIZEN COMMENT Barbara Zeller. Chair of the Lake Grove NeighborhoodAssociation, referenced a public hearing for a zone change amendment on Upper Dnve (LU OB-0059) that was scheduled for Monday, November 23rd. She asked the Commissioners to reschedule the public hearing because it was too close to the thanksgiving holiday. The Commissioners agreed that the item could be moved. Staff was to check with applicant. GENERAL ORGANIZATION/SCHEDULE REVIEW Rolling Agenda Commissioner Brockman suggested organizing the infill hearing by taking testimony by topic at each meeting. Instead of mailing another citywide, Measure 56 notice (which the staff advised would be very expensive) the Commissioners suggestea putting the notice in Hello LO! which was mailed to everyone in the City~ · The Commissioners agreed to reschedule their September 28th meeting (which was on Yom Kippur) to September 30th. Skylands'. request to be officially recognized as a neighborhood association was to be heard on September 30th. Chait Stewart thanked the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association for submitting copies of other jurisdictions' landscaping codes after they heard Commissioner Paretchan's concenn that the currently proposed landscape screening option might be too restrictive. Staff clarified the City Council had not yet scheduled a hearing to consider the Planning Commission recommendation regarding institutional uses. They planned to package the entire Planning Commission record with the findings for the Council to examine . • • • v . COUNCIL UPDATE The City Council had discussed the issue of Stafford area urban/rural reserves designation on August 18th. Mr, Egner reported they held to the position that the area should keep its rural character, but if any part of it were to be brought into the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) dev~lopment th~re should be planned around transit service, and the City of Lake Oswego should have a voice in how it was to be governed and planned. He said the Metro Council intended to make decisions about expanding the UGB and about urbcan/rural reserve designations in December and that they needeq the agreement of all three counties. The Clackamas County Planning Commission had recommended that the upper part of the basin remain undesignated and the Borland area (around Wanker's Corner) should be urban. Commissioner Brockman suggested this was an opportunity to plan communitie.s along an 1-205 light rail route between Oregon City and Wilsonville and that the Oity coylq be proactive and protect itself from what could be too much traffic on McVey and Stafford Road by identifying a transportation corridor to serve that area. Mayor Hoffman said he served on the Metro reserves steering committee. He said the steering committee provideq advice to the "Core Four" which was composed of a representative from each county anp a Metro Council representative. He confirmed that Metro was considering the concept Commissioner Brockman suggested. He said the City's position was that if the 6orland area were designated as urban reserves, it should be planned as a compact urban center served by a high-capacity transit route along 1- 205 -it should not be just anotner auto-dominated suburb. The City Cc:>uncil position · was to either maintain Stafford's current zoning or designate it rural reserves (remain agricultural for the next 50 years). He said the City had made it clear that if the southern part of the Stafford area (south of the Tualatin River) were developed it should not have . a negative impact on McVey or State. Street or the quality of life in Lake Oswego. The City wanted to pe at the table for discussions about who would govern that area and how it was planned. They Wanted to stay at the table as a partner to plan it even if it were governed by another jurisdiction. He anticipated that even·if it were designated as urban reserves, it was likely the UGB would not be expanded to include very much of Stafford for many years. He related that until recently Clackamas County assumed that Lake Oswego did not care about the Borland area. He had told them the City did care. Mr. ~gner reported that Metro had just adopted a high capacity transit plan that showed a line along 1-205 in the next 30 years. Another line would use the existing rail line through Lake Oswego to connect Clackamas Town Center with Washington Square. The next light rail route Metro planned to analyze was between downtown Portland and Tigard, and would eventually be extended to Sherwood. Commissioner Brockmcm a_nd Ms. Zeller reported that loud train whistles were disturbing resident's sleep. Mr. Egner said the consultants' doing the Boones Ferry Road Refinement Study had recently reported that they had tested the Lake Grove Village Center plan for a center median, u-tums and pedestrian crossings and found it could work through 2035. lhey needed to continue to examine how the Lanewood and 6ryant intersections would work, particularly the southbound left turn from Boqnes Ferry Road onto Bryant Road. It might be better to move the signal atthe Wizer Shopping Center down to Mad rona. Then they would fashion options for the City to consider. The Planning Commission was scheduled to receive an update on September 30th . City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of August 24, 2009 Page 2 of 8 •• • • VI. VII. MINUTES Commissioner Brockman moved to approve the Minutes of July· 27. 2009. Commissioner Gustafson seconded the motion and it passed 4:0 .. WORK SESSION LU 08-0053, Ordinance 2523 -Comprehensive Plan -lnfill AmendmentS· LU 08•0053, Ordinance 2524 ..,. Community Development Code -lnfill Amendments The public he~ring had been continued to October 12, 2009 at the Jl,Jne 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 #1 0, dated August 13, 2009 and the draft code that reflected lnfill 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 siopes in Mountain Park the planners thought there could be reasonable exceptions to .the height sta_ndard. However, st~ff 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 ~cross 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 tel'llinded 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 lnfill Task Force had considered applying this concept in other neighborhoods with similar, consistent, lots, such as Ha.llinan, 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 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of August 24, 2009 Page 3 of 8 • • • 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 aUow so many height exceptions. Chair Stewart announced the Commi.ssioners would continue to consider sloped lots at their, next meeting. · o 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 ~hey made their original recommendation to enclose them. He said the lnfill Tas.k Force believed the structures should be airy and open ~nd buffered by landscaping. He adyised that the current code required an owner who wanted to take advantage of special height exceptions to make the setbacks larger. The Corljlmissioners planned to continue thi.s 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 nohconfoiming exterior walls to be extended to where they intersected to create enclosed space. Commissioner Brockman reasoned that if the Residential lnfill 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 waiL 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 h~ving 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 ~pplicant to show a hardship. Mr. Boone advised the Class 1 variance was not "automatic" and could not be granted if it resulted in i•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 • City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of August 24, 2009 Page 4 of 8 • • • Staff recalled the lnfill 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 sola.r 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 ha.d 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 peopl~ 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 ~pply 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. e 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 "significanr 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· lnfill Task Force recommendations and Code updates. ihe Commissioners agreed to postpone most of their discussion of yard exceptions so Commissioner Paretchan could participate, but City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of August 24, 2009 Page 5 of 8 • • • 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 te~ke up two feet of a five-foot setback did not leave enough setback room, but it might be acceptable if the setback were 1 0 feet deep. The Commissioners then asked staff to draft language t.hat 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 inche.s adjustment to dimensional standards. Staff said that we~s leeway to e~oddress 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. Mt. 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 to 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 -but 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 lnfill 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 . City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of August 24, 2009 Page 6 of 8 • • • VIII. Mr. Boone said it might not be very clear and there might not be much proof how the structure was destroyed. He advised thatto 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 lnfill Task Force draft version would allow a rebuilt foundation to extend to the outer ~dge 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 b~fore 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 voiLJntary. Commissioner Brockman said rebuilding that way should be limited to destruction by fire and natural disa$ter. 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 ail 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 cortununity 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. in~ended 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% 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 Commiss.ioners then tentatively ag'reed 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 existi,ng code required them to be rebuilt in a conforming manner, but there were· Community Development Code (CDC} updates to address them the Commissio_ners would consider later. OTHER BUSINESS-PLANNING COMMISSION Chair Stewart had been meeting with staff every other Tuesday to discuss t_he agenda and emailing agenda updates to the Commissioners. He had also been updating a matrix the Commissioners could refer to that tracked the preliminary decisions they had · made and would take to the public hearing. · IX. OTHER BUSINESS-COMMISSION FOR CITI.ZEN INVOLVMENT None . City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of August 24, 2009 Page 7 of 8 • • • X . ADJOURNMENt There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stewart adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m. City of Lake Oswego Planning commission Minutes ofAug·ust 24, 2009 Respectfully submitted, Iris McCaleb Admir)istrative Support Page 8 of 8