Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2008-04-28 (02)• • • I. City of Lake Oswego d Planning Commission Minutes fe _,,,, April 28, 2008 CALL TO ORDER Chair Colin Cooper c~lled the Pl~illg Colllinission meeting of Monday, April 28, 2008 to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 380 "A" A venue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL III. Members present were Chair Colin Cooper, Vice Chair Julia Glisson and Colllinissioners Adrianne Brockman, Philip Stewart and Alison Webster. Commissioners Mary Beth Coffey and Scot Siegel were excused. Staff present were Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager; Jontia Papaefthimiou, Natural Resources Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris Treinen, Administrative Support . CITIZEN COMMENT None. IV. MINUTES Commissioner Brockl;nan moved to approve the Minutes of March 10, 2008 after they were revised to clarify that she had been concerned that alloWing storage ateas to be at an elevation that could be flooded would result in increased insurance "payouts." Vice Chair Glisson seconded the IIlOtion and it passed 4:0. · Chair Cooper recused himself. V. PLANNING COMMISSION-WORK SESSION Community Development Code Amendments (PP 08-0002) Update on proposed text amendments to the Lake Oswego Code (LOC), Chapter 50 (Community Development Code), clarifying, correcting and updating sections. Staff recalled the Commissioners had asked how allowable height was calculated in tl}e Campus Institutional (CR&D) zone. Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager, related that most development in that zone had happened before the land was annexed to the City, When infill was proposed there now, the City Code controlled the height City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 2008 Page 1 of5 relationship of buildings in that zone by limiting the new development to the averaged height of all the surtou:ilding buildings in the zone, not to exceed 78 feet. The Commissioners began review of the proposed changes contained in the second packet. Chair Cooper observed that a cemetery was to become a conditional use, and the code would distinguish between pet day care and a kennel. Staff proposed to revise setback provisions in the Public Functions Zone so the setback requirement would apply even when the proposed project was across a street from adjacent lots. The Commissioners examined Accessory and Te10porary Uses. CoJN11issioner 8roclanan cautioned that allowing the setback of a heat pump to be reduced if neighbors agreed to it in writing was an improper legal delegation and would put too much burden on the neighbors. Staff explained that the proposed code revisions addressed situations where the current, broad, definition, "Accessory," might ha:ve unintended. consequences as businesses added more secondary uses. For example, if a grocery store wanted to add a gas station. the Commissioners agreed this was a policy question to be discussed in more depth later. They also agreed to consider later wha:t the allowable square footage of a guesthouse could be and whether it could be closer to the property line. if it were reduced ill height or mass. MJ. Pishvaie explained the accessory structure setback on a .flaglot was consistent with the flaglot ordinance and the concept that fla:glot neighbors needed more protection from infill. Vice Chair Glisson observed the code did not allow "dish" type antennas to be pll;lced on roo(s. Staff observed that type of antenna was much smaller now and they advised that federal legislation significantly limited the City's control of such antennas. The Commissioners asked staff to investigate an existing provision that allowed the City Manager to extend a Special Event Permit from 15 to 120 days. Commissioner Brockman stressed that four months was a long time and she recalled that some events were very noisy. She suggested a neighbor notification requirement and a means to appeal the administrative decision. The Commissioners agreed that code provisions regarding the tent canopy setback needed to be clarified. They suggested a weekend time limit for a seasonal retail sidewalk sale. They observed those were policy decisions to be formally considered later in the process. They asked for cleatet commercial and industrial zone diagrams in this section. · The Commissioners did not comment on the Greenway Management Overlay District and went on to examine Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts. Staff explained the difference between a Resource Conservation (RC) District and a Resource Protection (RP) District was that the former protected tree groves and the latter protected water resources. Staff explained the methodology for determining whether a,n area qualified as a protected natural resource involved first assessing the habitat and/or water quality, then comparing and evaluating potential competing uses in an Economic, Social, Energy and Environmental (ESEE) Analysis. Commissioner Brockman advised. against reducing City control over City standards by referring to "current'' state assessment methodology, rather than a specific version of state methodology. City of Lake Oswego Planning Coll1Plission Minutes of April 28, 2008 Page 2 ofS • • • • • • When the Commissioners examined Delineation of Resource, sU:lff clarified that an RC District Overlay was designated on a parcel at the time of a.Iiiiexation. Then, when development was proposed, the applicant had to protect at least 50% of the RC District by delineating a Resource Conservation Protection Area (RCPA) and the remainder of the District was no longer considered an RC District. However, if a roadway had to cross the RCP A, the applicant had to include more of the RC District in the RCP A to make up for it. Several Commissioners commented that they could not understand the graphically depicted examples of delineation in Appendix 50.16.035( 1 )(a). Commissioner Brockman suggested that the methodology for delineating a wetla.Jid Was not specific enough, because it referred. to a 1987 federal manual, but allowed "an equivalent methodology." Staff explained the federal manual was published by the Army Corps of Engineers, which was workip.g on region-specific supplements that would likely be available at the library or on the Internet. Staff pointed out they recon:unended a chiU)ge in Review of Delirteation that would keep it a ifiiilisterial·lartd use decision, but classify it as a Minor Development that required public notice. Vice Chair Glisson commented that the water res.ou:rce related graphics were well done. The Con:unissioners examined Modi:flcations to Dimensional Standards and Setbacks of the Underlying Zone. They agreed that the Minimum Disturbance Area and Density Transfer provisions were confusing and should be made more understandable. Staff clarified that if the code were changed so that a proposed delineation was a Minor Development, the provision that required written approval from the abutting property owner would not apply. Staff described the sign to be used to indicate a Resource Conservation Area. They clarified that the list of permitted uses in an RC District or buffer were still subject to development tev.iew. They explained the proposed revisions would allow a lakeside property owner to it:lstall Lake Tram access to the lake over an RCP A. Commissioner Brockman agreed with Mr. Boone that it would be helpful if the staff developed handouts to better explain protection area setback requirements. Staff explained that the Invasive Plant Removal section addressed the threat that development disturbance would contribute to th~-success of invasive plant species. The section would require that invasive plants be removed from the protected area and from land surrounding it. It was up to property owners to decide if they wanted to remove the invasive plartts themselves, or pay the City a fee-in-lieu that would be used to c'ean up City property. They assured the Commissioners that although the code allowed the required buffer to be reduced if a qualified professional demonstrated that would not devalue the resource, the hearings body would hear the staff response and all the evidence and then determine if the request met the. applicable criteria. Staff discussed RP District Protection Areas, and explained they had simplified the Tree Removal section. A Tree Removal Permit could be issued to remove a tree in an RP District for the purpose of development (such as to install a lake tram), or to eliminate a hazardous tree. They said there was now better tunneling technology, so that was allowed. The City was also allowed to repair public utilities and install regional trails and City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 2008 Page 3 of5 bus shelters in the resource area, if that impact was mitigated. They said if the only way to access buildable areas was to build a driveway through the resource area, that could be allowed, with mitigation. Wildlife friendly fences Were required that offered an opening • at the ground that allowed small animals to pass under. Staff explained that property owners who wanted to erect fencing Ulat would prevent a small child from crawling under it, could build such a fence outside the protected resource area. They said that resource enhancement projects were allowed in the buffer area if they did not cause permanent degradation and resulted in some improvern.e:nt in the q11ality of the resource. They said necessary signs and interpretive kiosks would be allowed there. They explained that land divisions could not position bound~es in a manner that would impact a resource. Staff explained the issue of how to offer reasonable development opportunities in an RP District. They advised that when a lot was mostly or entirely constrained by a protected resource, the City had to give the owner the opportunity to build a rea~onable-size single family house in order to avoid ''taking" property. They saw this as a major policy issue and recommended fashioning clear and objective standards. They suggested that "reasonable size" could be described as the largest single-family house that could be built oil a lot that was that zone's miniri:mm allowable lot size. They suggested establishing a maximum land disturbance area that would factor in all pervious areas, lawns and decks that would disturb the resource. Staff reported the Infill Task Force planned to recommend code changes to pervious area limitations. They anticipated the City would see an increase in requests to build or expand on constrained lots. They asked for Planning Co:mmission gUidance. They pointed out the staff notes suggested thtee policy choices: (1) th~ current approach that reasonable use was maximum lot coverage on the • minimum size lot in .the zone; (2) 50% of the zone's minimum lot size limit on land disturbance; or .(3) allowing up to .the averaged lot coverage, plus the averaged impervious area in the zone. · During the ensuing discussion, the Commissioners observed that not limiting expansion of an existing house on a stream could reduce the natural resource and impact neighbors. They suggested there might even be two standards: one that limited expansion of an existing house on a stream, and another to be applied to a new development on a vacant, constrained lot. Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, recalled that the variance process would allow a small existing house to be expanded a reasonable amount that was enough to prevent unnecessary hardship for the o'Wner and allow the o\vner to enjoy a house that was like those on similar surrounding properties. He confirmed the maximum land disturbance area would apply in addition to the stream buffering requirement. Staff added that an owner was not allowed to culvert a stream or fill it to build a house, either. The owner had to protect the function of the stream to the maxiiilum extent possible. Commissioner Brockman held that limiting expansion of an existing house on a stream was not a ''taking," and there should be a cap on such expansion to protect stream corridors and wildlife habitat. Mr. Boone observed that the Variance Process might allow ~ larger house, and he reasoned that a cap on expansion might motivate an owner to decide to tear down the existing house and build a new one. However, the Commissioners generally indicated they favored establishing a limit on expanSion, which could not be exceeded. Staff agreed to provide case studies and examples of what had • happened on completely or mostly encumbered lots in wetlailds. They clarified the City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 2008 Page 4 of5 ·' c\ • • • maxim\lill land distwba.J:lce a.re~ would bt: what was left after the non-resource area was deducted from the lot area; development had to be placed on the non-resource area first; and the proposed development had to have the least impact on the resm.trce area. They clarified that the City used federal standards for delineating wetlands, and applicants were required to obt~in a federal permit as well as~ local permit. Ch~ir Cooper wanted to be assured that Special Standards for the Lake Oswego Canal would actually require mitigation because he recalled that many trees had been removed from River Run Park in 1996-97 without mitigation. Staff reported that the Lake Oswego Corporation had done sorn¢ planting tber~ in JaJJ.Ulll'Y 2008. They explained some "housekeeping" changes . to the resootce district construction standards, including a change that would allow surface runoff to be directed toward a resource, like a wetland, instead of into a storm system. They pointed out the revised code strengthened enforcement standards and required an o'Wner to ensure mitigation planting stayed alive at least three years. · Vl OtHER BtJSIN'ESS-PLANNING COMMISSION VII . VIII. LU 07-0~85:: New Flood Management Area Map and Related Amendment~ Commissioner Brockman JllOVed to adopt LU 07-0085-1670. Findings, Conclusions and Order. Vice Chair Glisson seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. OTHER BUSINESS ,;.. COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT Commissioner Brockman noted that the most recent edition of Hello LO! was bigger and included an arbor month insert. She commented that the City should be able to use this to COII1llltJI1icate neighborhood news as well. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Cooper adjourned the meeting at 8:10p.m. Respectfully subrttitt~d. ~ Iris Treinen Administrative Support City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 2008 Page 5 of5