Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2009-09-14• • • I. City of Lake Oswego -d Planning Commission Minutes ro"' September 14, 2009 _,, CALL TO ORDER Chair Philip Stewart called the Planning Commission meeting of September 14, 2009 to order at 6:30p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Ill. Members present were Chair Stewart, Vice Chair Julia Glisson and Commissioners Adrianne Brockman, Jon Gustafson, Jim Johnson, Russell Jones and Lynne Paretcha.n. Staff present were Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Support. CliiZ~N COMMENT Bob Barman. 1445 Oak Terrace, asked the Commissioners to approve the Community Development Code (CDC) iihousekeeping" amendments that would allow low features, such as barbeqyes and pools, to span the 2S..:foot Oswego Lake setbacks that existed between Lake Oswego Corporation property that constitute Oswego Lake and lakefront lots (typically backyards). He said it was a non-controversial matter and the change should be made soon so lakefront residents could install features while the lake was drawn down in September 2010. The Commissioners advised they would likely not get to the. CDC updates until early 2010, but Mr. Barman should ask staff to plan to introduce this amendment whenever they had a window of time in which to consi.der it. Barbara Zeller. 3335 Sabena Court. Lake Grove Neighborhood Association, invited the Commissioner-S to ttlE;j-annual neighborhood meeting on September 281h. there was to be a presentation on radon. She stated that tests showed that many hoyseholds were experiencing high radon exposure. IV. COUNCIL UPDATE Chair Stewart announced the City Council was to hold a public forum on Sensitive Lands the following Monday. Commissioner Gustafson planned to find out if the notice had been distributed citywide, or jUst to affected property owners. V. GENERAL ORGANIZATION AND SCHEDUL~ REVIEW ' Rolling Agenda The Commissioners agreed the Planning Commission was more productive when all the Commissioners 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 • • • VI. ~ednesd~y, September 30th. They also aireed_ to extend the entire innll schedule to g1ve staff t1me to prepare for the October 12 heanng . MINUTES Commissioner Brockman moved to approve the Minutes of August tO. 2009. Commissioner Jones seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. Vice Chair Glisson and Commissioner Johnson abstained. VII. WORK SESSION LU 08-0053, Ordinance 2523-Comprehensive Plan -lnfill Amendments LU 08-0053, Ordinance 2524 -Comnu.lnity Development Code -h1fill Amendments The public hearing had been continued to October 12, 2009. The purpose of the work session was to diSC!JSS certain items in depth. Yard Exceptions (Section 3 and Exhibit F .. 3) ' Chair Stew(!rt rec(!lled theit Commissioner Paretchan heid 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 wante~ 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 setbaGks 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 Cit 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 basketbCill 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 setbeick 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 Page 2 of 11 • • • Brockman advised that projecting eaves kept a house cooler in the summer. Chair Stewart suggested setting a minimum five-foot $etback across the board so the standards were easier to enforce. commissioner Gustafson agreed ana observed that even in the R-6 ~pne the five-foot l.imit would not have much affect on new structures in First Addition Neighbors/Forest Hills Neight?Orhood Association (FAN) because the R-6 zone's minimum side yard was to become 7.5 fe~t Commissioner Paretchan and Commissioner Brockman agreed.~ Chair Stewart observed there was consensus. Variances (Secti~n 8) Several Commissioners did not think the new 50.79.040(d) language suggested in Supplemental Report #11 r~flected their in~ent that if a variance were granted for the purpose of preserving a tree, the owner should not be al.lowed to remove it later. They asked staff to revise the draft language. Miscellaneous Provisions (Section 9) The current code allowed recon$truction of a nonconforming structure if it were damaged or destroyed by any means as long as the c()st of reb~Jildjng the damaged portion.did not exceed 50% ofthe replacement cost of the entire bUilding. rhe lnfill Task Force thought that was too limit_ing and recommended that a nonconforming structure should be allowed to be reconstructed if it occupied the same, pre-destruction, biJilding envelope, regardless of the replacement cost. Chair Stewart observed a consensus to support that. Mr. Boone advised this change woul&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 destructic;m 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 waiL The drafted l~nguage considered it "voJuntary destrucHon" when lack of structural maintenance resulted in a VI/all that was entirely rotten ~nd 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 l.ess li_kely to let an entire wall fall down and more likely to replace some rotten beams and a dty rotted area. She observed an Owner might take in9ividual 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 fhey still had a frame left. Commissioner Paretchan recalled a house on l-akeview Boulevard was being almost · entirely replaced in stages over time. Commissioner Brockman recalled seeing it too and that the part pver 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 h~d been approved via Residential lnfill Design (RID). · Mr. Boone recalled the Commissioners had been inclined to allow owners to continue nonconformity when they repaired their structure.s. 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 w~lls 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 wha.t had been there before and what the neighbors were used to. Chair Stewart agreed as lOng as the rebuilt house d_id not increase nonconformity. He said rebu_ilding 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 Commission Minutes of September 14, 2009 Page 3 of11 • • • owner should be allowed to fix it. The Commissioners confirmed for Mr. Boone that they 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_ ~ots_ (Section 5) 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 afl zones, not just the R-6 zone. Chair Stewart observed the original lnfill Task Force proposal applied it to R-5 and R-7.5 lots as well, but the Tc:~sk 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 l:>e even taller and pigger 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. Commi~sioner Gustafson said it was easy to apply the change and solve the problem in FAN because th~ir lots were consistently smaller and tighter; the slope was consistent across many lots; and the slope chc:~nge 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 Page 4 of 11 • • • a problem to be solved in the R-6 zone. Commissioner Johnson suggested the Planning Commission defer to the lnfill 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 rec~lled 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 ~ate in the process to change the proposal and Commissioner Paretchan eonceded, but commented that she felt there had been~ l.ot of effort Pllt in~o special rule~ for FAN and that was wrong. Ther~ were many small lots in the R..;7.5 zone that did not get the same attention from the lnfill 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 lnfill Task Force recommended and ask for publie 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 structu_re 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 lnfill T~sk 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 euts had to be balanced with filL The more excavation, the h~rder 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 Page 5 of 11. • • • Commissioner Gustafson said the Planning Commission should ask the public if they supported the proposed changes. Until then they should trust the lnfill 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 lnfill fask 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. lnfill Task Force Final Reco'mmendation) The Commissioners examined the ln.fiH Task Force recommended language that changed the setback requirements for Planned Developments (PO). lhe 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 recommendatiory, once the first structure was built that set the zone standard, including the allowable ~etback 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 1 0-foot setback. Mr. Boone advised an owner could seek a modification of the PO approval in order to change the setback on a particular lot, but it was an arduous process that required notice to all the other PO 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 wa~ necessary. Commissioner Johnson said the developer of a PD should have the whole layout figured out before the plan was approvect Commissioner Gustafson said the developer could simply lay out the entire PO 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 sa.id that would look better, too, but sometimes houses had to be positioned to avoid trees. The Commissioners agreed to forward this lnfill Task J=orce 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 PO in a way that was beneficia_! to al.l those who would live there. Duplexes and Single Family Attached (Section 1 0) Should the infill design standards apply to duplexes and attached dwellings in the high and medium density zones? Should garage appearance standards be more flexii:Jle for duplexes and attached dwellings? Comrnissioner 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 Page 6of 11 \ • • • to a certain percentage of the "structure fac;ade width," but tfle 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 fac;ade 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. lnfill 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 st~ndard, not an infill standard. When a niulti-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 e~tire project covered, not what individual units covered. Chair Stewart announced a short break and thereafter reconvened the work session. Commissioner Paretchari observed that in. Supplemental Staff Report #11, page 7, staff propos~d a few small changes to the lnfill 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. Flag Lots/Serial Partitions (Section 11 > 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 backy~rd. Commissioner Johnson also liked the site arrangement. The Commissioners discussed the co.nnectivity 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 rtever 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 tnat 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 Page 7 of 11 • • • Commissioner Paretchan asked if that decision was left to staff discretion. Mr. Boone 1said the staff decision COLIId 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 parc~ls. 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 a:ffect 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. · Commissiener 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 lnfill 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 hollses' front yards would be al_igned the right distance from the street. He predicted that many parcels in Rivergrove wo~.:~ld request annexation in the future because they needed a sewer connection. Many had very narrow frontage and would likely ~e partitioned into flag lots with three to five houses on them. The houses would likely be built one at a time over time, like ihfill. 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 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 14, 2009 Page 8 of_11 • • • 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 Chait Stewart observed the Commissioners wanted more staff ciC1rification and direction. He s1,Jggested the Commissioners take time in the ilitetitn before the next meeting to read and understand the proposed language and get ready to address the idea of single farnily home design review. The Commissioners generally agreed they needed more staff explanation and guidance regarding Sections 10 and 11. · Design Review Commissioner Brockme1n 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 reqi,Jiring design review fot such a house. She said neither the lnfill Task Force recommended standards not 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 infiiL 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 u.sed very often. But it was important to have the review process because the four examples st1,Jck 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? Vice Chair Glisson noted that the Planning Commission had improved the RID process. Commissioner Brockman cla'rified that she did not believe the proposed setback planes and regulations to break up a large fac;ade would solve the problem. She recalled the lnfill 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 avoi.d that, she said for one thing they could require the windows to be very high. She clarified that if the Planning Commission coi,Jid come up with stande1rds 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 cleat 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 • • • narrow scope review with a specific trigger. The trigger would be a long, skinny, two- story, house that impacted every bit of th~ privacy of the adjacent ho~se . 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 se1w the need for a design solution. Commissioner Paretchan said part of the ptoblem 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 toqay that close to the road. Another example of undesirable infill had been forcea to move back to meet the current front yard setback. She suggested applying the code adjustments the lnfill 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 ParetchC~n suggested addres~ing that with a rule that they could not have views irito somebody's backyard. When the Commissioners discussed what the next step was, Commissioner Brockman suggested they ask staff to apply all the lnfill Task Force and Planning Commission- proposed standards to the problematic examples of i.nfill 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 character with the neighborhood they were in. He indicated that the City needed to tty to address the1t 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. ' , • • ,I 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 smal.ler 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 ~s standards. He 0bserved 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 t.he Commissioners were split on the issue. He asked staff to apply the newly proposed standards to the four "bad" examples of infi·ll 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 • • • VIII. IX. Commissioners were to decide if they needed additional building design standards, or a design review process. Mr. Boone said he w~s hee~ring 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 wa_nted to first find out what attributes made the undesirable examples of infill 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. OTHER BUSINESS.-. PLANNING COMMISSION Findh1gs, Conclusions and Order ~U_09-:0_00_4 -Institutional Uses (Lot Coverage Related to Schools) Commissioner Brockman recalled the Pl~nning Commis$ion had heard testimony that increased lot coverage generated increased noise and air pollution and institutional uses might even need to acquire adjoining proper:ties so they had enough room for things like parking. All schools, public-and private, had those impacts and they affected neighborhood character and compatibility. · Commissio~er Brackman moved to approve LU 09-0004-1709. Findings. Conclusions and Order, with the words, "noise and air pollution" inserted into the list of impacts on Line 24 Commissioner Jones seconded the motion and discussion followed. Commissioner Johnson explained that he had reviewed the record and would vote on the findings. He clarified that he would have advocated either the conditional use option or reducing the acreage. The vote was then conducted and the motion passed 5:0. Vice Chair Glisson abstained. Mr. Boone advised the City Council hearing was not yet scheduled, and interested parties should check with Iris McCaleb later to learn when it was set. OfHER BUSINE:SS-COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVMENT None. X. ADJOURNMENT i There being no further bUsiness before the Planning Commission, Chair Stewart adjourned the meeting at 9:52 p.m. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 14; 2009 Respectfully submitted, Iris McCaleb _ ( Administrative Support Page 11 of 11