Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2008-03-10 (02)• I. CALL TO ORbER City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 2008 Vice Chair Julia Glisson called the Planning Commission meeting of Monday, March 10, 2008 to order at approximately 6:00p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. ~ II. ROLL CALL Commissioners present were Vice Chair Glisson and Corru:nissioners Adrianne .Brockman, Philip Stewart and Alison Webster. Chair Colin Cooper and Commissioners Mary Beth Coffey and Scot Siegel were excused. Staff present were Denrus Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris Treinen, Adn:rin_istrative Support. . III. ClTIZEN COMMENT • None. IV. PUBLIC HEARING New.Flood Management Area Map and Related Amendments (LU 07-0085) A request from the City ofLak:e Oswego regarding: • Adoption of a new Flood Management Area Map; and, • Amendments to LOC Articles 50.02 (Definitions) and 50.44 (Flood Management Area) Vice Chair Glisson opened the public hearing and explained the ~pplicable procedure and time limits. She asked the Commissioners to declare any_ conflicts of Interest. None Were declared. Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager, presented the staff report. He explained that the proposal conta.ihed changes recommended by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and City staff. He said new maps that were based on a more recent flood insurance study would replace current floodplain maps. He pointed out an updated Digitized Flood Insurance Rate Map. He explmned the terms, "base flood elevation," "100,.year floodplain," and "Special Flood Hazard Area" all essentially referred to 1 00-year flood elevations, but FEMA preferred to use the terrn, "Special Flood Hazard Area," He cl!Uified that no regulations were proposed to apply to the 500-year floodplain, which was also indicated on the maps. He clarified that a "flooc:lway" was an City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes ofMarch 10,2008 Page 1 of8 ( area through which floodwater would move with relatively hjght;:r volume than over the floodplain. He advised that development was allowed in a floodway if the developer could prove it would not result in increased flood levels. He advised that the 1996 flood • had not reached the 1 00-year flood elevation in some places around the lake and along the Tualatin River. He explained that Metro Title III requirements had spurred previous code revisions that applied flood standards to areas intmdated by the 1996 flood as well as a 1 00-year flood, and that process had generated a Tualatin Basin remapping effort that had just been completed and presented at public open houses. He reported that FEM:A agreed with the proposed mapping changes and gave the City six months to adopt the new code and m11ps. He said the new maps revised the base . flood elevation along the Tualatin River, the Rivergtove Gap, Oswego, Canal and Oswego Lake. He advised that the norma.! lake elevation was 98.6 feet and the 1996 flood had raised the lake to 102.5 feet.·. He sa:id the proposed chMges would raise the base flood elevation of the lake from 1 01 feet to 103.5 feet, but they would not affect most City strea:ms. He said the proposal corrected a previous omission of land at the old chip plant on the Willamette RiVet. Mr. Egner discussed some impacts of the proposed changes. He advised that any new floor area in a ''substantial'~ remodeling project had to be one foot above the base flood leveL A developer ofland in the Rivergroye Gap would have to prove the project would not result in a rise in flood level there. He reported tha:t open house attendees seemed to . be primarily concerned that the changes would affect their ability to get flood insurance, mortgages and refinancing loans. He advised that the City h11d to adopt the new maps in order to participate in the federal flood insurance program. However, he said he under~tood that a property owner could apply to FEMA for a map amendment that would exclude his/her property from the requirement for flood insur~ce, Md that some lenders • would accept City data showing a property was above the base flood level. He asked the Commissioners to contin11e the hearing until March 24th to give staff time to determine and insert base flood elevations for areas along the Willa:mette River. He clarified that that the base flood elevation along Oswego Canal was not the same as at the lake. He anticipated that after the City adopted the flood elevations along the Willamette River, developers could tely on that data, and they would not hctve to estllblish what the flood elevation was themselves. He reported that notice of the proposed amendment h11d been sent to all (lffected property owners. Mr. Egner pointed out that staff had added the Historic Flood Overflow Code section, which was not required for Flood lilsutance Ptogra:m compliance. It would require a developer of property around L~ewood Bay and the main dam (in ateas where the lake had overflowed in 1996) to provide a hydrologic study to prove the project would not obstruct flow or redirect floodwater to properties that had not been flooded in 1996. He said the former members of the Floodplain Standards Work Group recommended further studies to determine how to protect these properties from flooding. He said some solutions might be to Wotk in partnership with the Lake Oswego Corporation to redesign or replace the dam. If that worked, there would no longer be a need for the· proposed regulations. He sa:id staff suggested allowing the work group to continue to discuss that, and he suggested the Planning Commission discuss possible options in a separate hearings process. He explained the current version of the draft ordinance Was color• • · coded to show changes recommended by staff (yellow) and changes recommended by the City of L~e Oswego Planning Commission Minutes ofMatch 10,2008 Page 2 ofS • • • Floodph,tin Standards Work GrQup (red). During the qu~stioAing period, he clarified tha,t FEMA allowed nonresidential structures to be "floodproofed," but he needed to research whether that was allowed in residential areas. Public Testimony Mert Meeker, 726 McVey Avenue, suggested the dam could be replaced at the same time the City sewer line was replaced. AI Hall, 17112 Kelok Road~ said the City should exert more control over the wintertime lake level, bec~mse, the L~e Oswego Corporation was relu~tant to lower the lake in the winter, even though that would make room in the lake for incoming flows and prevent flooding. He said lake water level was also affected by siltration. He testified that his backya,rd was typically flooded after heavy rains, but it had not flooded in November 2006 (a yeat of record rainfall) because the lake had already been lowered to allow owners to work on their boat docks. He held that the water level in the lake affected manY more property owners tha.n just those a,round the lake. Denny .Hageman, 1784l.Cardinal Drive, rela,ted thllt he had served on the Floodplain Standards Work Group, which had met again recently. He was concerned that although the majority of properties around the lake featured a house that was above the ll:lke and above the base flood elevation, l~nders would a,utomatically require flood insutailce if the maps showed the property was touched by the federally drawn floodplain boundary. He asked the City to fashion the code to allow a property owner to ask for a City engineering survey showi_ng the hpuse was outside the floodplain that the owner could submit to the lender. Mark Eves, 237 North Shore Road, indicated that he represented Lake Oswego Corporation. He said the Lake Oswego Corporation would support the amendment with the following changes. They wanted to remove and table the section related to historic flood overflow areas because they believed that further study of how those regulations would affect redevelopment was necessary. They suggested adding language to the Residential Constn,lction section to allow floodproofing, as described in FEMA regulations. They suggested the section related to Nonresidential Construction should clarify that the lowest floor area that was intended to be a "regular workpla,ce" for people had to be above the base flood level, but if it only served as a place for equipment that could still fun~tion in a flood; it did not have to be. They Suggested the Construction Materials and Methods section should allow utility service facilities to be :Ooodproofed as defined in FEMA regulations. Mr. Eves related tba,t the Floodplain Standards Work Group agreed with the philosophy that floodplain standards should be tightened until they complied with FEMA requirements, but no further. He said the historic flood overflow area provisions went beyond what PEMA required. He related that Lake Oswego Corporation believed the cost of modifying the dam was in the "possible" realm.· He recalled previous testimony and clarified that the elevation of the water in the lake was not changed by siltration . C~ty of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of March 10, 2008 Page 3 of8 During the questioning period, Mr. Eves clarified. that the requirements proposed for redevelopment in the historic flood overflow area were so burdensome it would be almost impossible to rebuild. He stressed that was a vita,l commercial area, and he recalled that • business property owners there had taken the risk and rebuilt after the 1996 flood. He held the proposed regulations needed more study. He said the Lake Oswego Corporation wanted to work together with the City to find a way to address the dam that would make the proposed regulations moot. Mr. Egner explained that staff had suggested the historic flood overflow area regulations in order to protect other properties by keeping future flood water flow in the same pattern a,s the 1996 flow. He acknowledged that the City might find it made more sense to send water in a new direction. He said staff assumed that if the dam were rebuilt, the result would be that the base flood level all around the lake would go down. He agreed the regula,tions cou,ld be repealed, if that happened. Mr. Eves stressed that the Lake Oswego Corporation did not see a need for the historic overflow area regulations, and w~s concerned they could have unanticipated consequences. He stressed the last large flood was twelve years ago and they were investigating using a combination of engineered solutions, including installing stop logs under the Half Moon Bay bridge and modifying the dam. When asked, staff said they assumed that if the· theater were rebuilt in its existing footprint, it would not change floodwater flow. However, Mr. Eves cautioned that even using the same footprint, it Would be impossible to reconstruct and floodproof the building with no impact to wa,ter level. Vice Chair Glisson asked if changes and fill around Oswego Lake that backed up flows • might adversely impact upriver jurisdictions. Mr. Egner advised they Would not impact Tualatin, which was at a much higher elevation that) the lake. Mr. Eves agreed and explained the dam had been modified so it could be manipulated to move more water forward CJ,Ild out of the lake. He reiterated that the Lake Oswego Corporation was ready to join forces with the City to change the dam, Michael Holmes, 17881 Cardinal nrive, related that he had served on the Floodplain Standards Work Group in 2002 and participated in their recent meetings with staff. He observed that Kristen Meyers, Ptogtatn Specialist, NFIP ~Map Modernization, FEMA Region X, had requested changes in the amendments, but he advised that the official FEMA position was in the agency's December 17th letter to the City regarding fifial determination of base flood elevation. He advised that tbe new historic flood overflow area provisions were not subject to the six-month deadline for adopting the statJ.dards. He recalled the Work Group wanted "Review of Suilding Permits" language that addressed , situa~ions where elevation data was not available to require an applica~ion to propose construction that would be "reasonably safe from flooding.'' They wan:ted to eliminate the additional requirement that it was to be elevated at least two feet above the highest adjacent grade because tha,t could result in higher insurance rates. He also . noted the definition '~Highest Adjacent Grade" was not necessary in the code because it was already defined in FEMA regulatioils. Staff explained they intended the language to convey the intent to keep property reasonably safe from flooding, atJ.d that two feet offered a larger m~~~~~~ • City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of March 10, 2008 Page4 ofS • • • Rich Martin, PO Box 999, Lake Oswego, 97034, said he owned property at 220 Foothills Road and was speaking for other Foothills property owners. He said they were concerned the ~dditional regulations propos~d by staff for the historic flood overlay area were far-reaching and would impact redevelopment of Foothills Road. He asked the City to adopt oilly those regulations necessary for FEMA compliance. Commission Discussion Vice Chair Glisson closed the public hearing and opened deliberations. When asked, Mr. Egner confirmed that all areas within the 1 00 year floodplain would be eligible for flood insurance without the historic flood overflow area provisions, but he said staff had added that section. and its set of regulations to ensure a development would not displace water in a manner that damaged other property. He;: added th~t FEMA stand~rds di4 not prevent fill. He said that the commercial area along Lakeview Bay was at a lower elevation, so at a flood level of 103.5 feet, water would flow out of the lake there. For that reason the proposed regullltio]1s required a developer to demo_nstrate th~t a new structure would not divert floodwater toward other properties. Staff agreed thar it was a policy decision whether to apply that requirement, or just wait for another signific;:ant flood and let lawsuits between property ·owners settle the issue of who was liable for the impact of diverted flood water on property not covered by flood insurance. Commissioner Brockman cautioned that allowing an equipment or inventory storage area to be built at a level that coUld be flooded would have public impact because the cost of the damage would result in in.cre~sed insurance payouts. Mr. Egner said he planned to research the extent of flood insttrance coverage of non-habitable spaces in nonresidential construction and whether or not F:E:MA accepted f)oodproofipg of residential co]1st;ruction_. He explained that "floodproofing" meant designing a structure to prevent water from flowing into it. He anticipated the result of floodproofing a rebuilt structure could be diverting more floodwater to other properties, even. if the structure were rebuilt within the old footprint. He clarified for Cotnniissioner Brockman that the requirement to mitigate fill by , developing . capacity for flow somewhere else only applied in a floodway. He ref~rred to the proposecl requirement tp elevate floor area at least two feet above the base flood level and suggested the Cotnmissioners discuss that. He advised that it was not a FEMA requirement and clarified that it would only apply to small areas along Springbrook Creek, Oswego Creek (below tile dai11), an4 Tryon Creek ... not to the Oswego Can~l. He said it would not affect many properties, and development on that land was already constrained by protective . Sensitive Lands Overlays. Commissioner Brockman Was concerned about how the description; "reasonably s~fe" would be interpreted without the two-foot specification. She asked staff to discuss that at the next meeting. Commissioner Webster pointed out that section also offered a ''test'' for -reasonableness. Comfilissionet Webster moved to continue_ LU 0.7-0085. to March 24. 2008. Commissioner Brockman seconded the moti~n atJ.d it passed 4:0. Vice Chair Glisson a,rJllounced a five-minute break in the meeting and subsequently reconvened it. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes ofMarch 10, 2008 Page 5 of8 v. PLANNING COMMISSION -WORK SESSION Community Development Code Amendments CPP 08~0002) Update on proposed text amendments to the Lake Oswego Code (LOC), Community Development Code, Chapter 50, clarifying, correcting and updating sections. The Coil11ll.issioners continued to categorize. proposed changes to definitions into those that they detenn:ined actually required a policy decision and those that were "housekeeping" measures. Since the previolis meeting, Commissioner Stewart had ero~led a list of questions and comments dated March 10, 2008. Mr. Egner reported he planned to consider changes to the definition, "Lot Depth." The Cog:upissioners recalled they had previously categorized the proposed definition, ''Net Buildable Acre," as a policy decision. Commissioner Stewart suggested using a less specific definition of Masonry, because it could mean thin veneer masonry or terracotta, as well a structural masonry. Staff explained the definition in the proposed amendments had been fashioned to exclude thin veneers in order to meet the intent of code provisions that addressed the EC zone, skilled nursing facilities and the Lake Grove Village Center Plan (not yet adopted). Commissioner Stewart and Vice Chair Glisson then indicated they could agree to the proposed definition. St,iff clarified th~t when a term, such as ''stone," was not defined in the code, the commonly understood definition was assumed. • The Commissioners recalled they had discus$ed whether ''Open Space" could be • something other than natural area; if it was public or priyate; and if it should be consistently referred to as either ''Park," or "Open Space." Staff saw a need to discuss this at the time the Commissioners considered the Park$ and Open Space !)ection of the code. · Staff reported that "Daily Pet Care" had recently been proposed as ~ home occupation. The Commissioners observed there were all kinds of businesses associated with dogs. Staff explained ''Daily Pet Care'' was boarding, grooming, sitting and daycare. Th.ey clarified that pet fashions would be a retail use, and a pet camp would be categoriZed as a "Kennel." Staff pointed ou,t they had selected a 25% threshold (referring to the number of animals on site each day) between "Daily Pet Care" and a "Kennel" (overnight boarding). They said the zone controlled the number of dogs at the facility during the day. The Commissioners cautioned that barking dogs could be a problem. Staff advised that whether "Daily Pet Care'' could be a home occupation was not yet settled, but staff was leaning toward recommending that it not be allowed. They advised that a home occupation permit revieW looked at how much the home was used. Staff explained they had added "Group Care Facilities" under "Residential Care Housing'' in order to conform to state law. The Commissioners recalled they had agreed that the proposed bhange to "Secondary Dwelling Unit" was a policy decision. Staff confirmed that a "Perennial Stream" was continuous, because it did not dry up in summer. They said they had modified "Stream Corridor" to address situations where a stream did not have a • City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minyt¢s of March i 0, 2008 Page 6 of8 • • • "top of bank" to measure the buffer from. In that case, the buffer was measured from the center of the stream. They advised that change in measilrement had potential policy implications. The Commissioners agreed there was a need for more discussion about this to help them completely understand it · Staff explained they had consolidated several plant lists into one plant list that included street trees, @d native and invasive plants. Commissioner Stewart suggested adjoining jurisdictions might coordinate their lists. Mt. Boone confirmed for Commissioner Brockman that the City had a solar ordinance and he plaillled topropose changes to it that would make it more understandable and user friendly. Staff e}{plained that one ~one might be a mixed .. use (combination) zone, such as OC/NC. However, some parcels were actually split by coinmercial artd residential zone designations, for example a parcel that included both Office Campus (OC) and R-3 zoned areas. In that case, they proposed that if the development there featured residential use, it was required to comply with the residential zone's density, hut the commercial zone's standards. · Commissioner Brockman wondered if that mjght result in setbacks that allowed commercial use to be too close to a residential zone. The Commissioners wondered what the minimum density requirement would be for OC/R-3 or Neighborhood Commercial (NC)/R-0. Staff offered to arrange for the Development Review Manager to discuss the effect of minirinliil density requirements on multiple' zone designations and other policy issues with them and explain how staff had approached a,ctual cases. Staff and Commissioners anticipated they would engage in a broad policy discussion about minimum density and maximum density requirements. Staff confirmed that they anticipated that the City would soon be notified that it was time for periodic review of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Boone confirmed staff would change the title, "Lot Area" back to "Lot Size" after the Commissioners observed the language addressed lot size standards. Staff explained they had reformatted the code to give Floor Area Ratio (FAR) its own section because there were many exceptions to FAR and they wanted to make the regulations easier to understand. They added that pending proposed Infill amendments made other changes to FAR. The Commissioners saw inconsistency in the percentages of allowed lot coverage in the R-0 and R-2 zones. Ct>Ihlilissioner Stewart pointed out the densest zone had the smallest lot coverage and he said he thought lot coverage in the two zones should at least be the same. Staff explained the lot coverage bonus for a recessed or detached garage was capped, but it allowed a developer to build to maximum lot coverage, plus the bonus amount of coverage. They explained it did not matter if there was living space above the garage, because that space did not take up any more of the lot than the garage below. The staff indicated that the bonus provision was sometimes abused in. First Addition Neighborhood when an owner built both a detached and attached garage. They said the forthcoming Infill proposal would recommend changing that. At 8:40 p.ril .. the Commissioners agreed to stop on page 61-of the staff report and continue the work session at the next meeting . City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of March I 0, 2008 Page 7 of8 VI. OTBER BUSINESS -PLANNING COMMISSION Planned Development Overlay and Open Space Amendments_JLU_07-0088) Cor_nmissioner Brockman moved to approve LU 07-0088.,.1664 Findings, Conclusions and Order. Commissioner Stewart seconded the motion and it passed'4:0. Mr. Egner confirmed that there were now three vacant Plaiming Commission positions to be filled. He updated the Commissioners regarding the progress of the buildable lands i11ventory effort. He said Metro and the DLCD had agreed to the methodology the City staff used, and he and Sidaro Sin, Senior Planner, were scheduled to discuss the maps and whether the many small, fractured, parcels and oversized -flag lots they showed as redevelopable actually reflected achievable density potential. He confirmed that the City might have to increase required densities if the inventory showed a shortage of buildable land. The Commissioners asked him to review the methodology ~gain with them to help them understand it. Vice Chair Glisson suggested estimating a certain percentage "capture rate" of tedevelopable parcels when staff calculated potential future density. Commissioner Brockman stressed the need to be s~nsitive to what the community wanted. VII. . OTHER BUSINESS-COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT • There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Vice Chair Glisson • adjou,rned the meeting at 8:50p.m. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of March 10, 2008 Respectfully submitted, Iris Tre_ip_en Administrative Support • Page 8 of8