Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2008-06-23 (02)• ~ • • I. City of Lake Oswego d Planning Commission Minutes appro'~~ June 23,2008 ,. CALL TO ORDER Chair Julia Glisson called the Planning Coriunission meeting of Monday, June 23, 2008 to order at approximately 6:00 p.rn. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 380 "A'' A venue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL IlL Members present were Ch11ir Juli.a Glisson, Vice Chair Philip Stewart and Commissioners Adrianne Brockman, Brian Newman, Mary Olson, and Alison Webster. Scot Siegel was excused. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Paul Espe, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris Treinen, Administrative Support. CITIZEN COMMENT Barbara Zeller, 3335 Sabina Court, submitted copies of an article from the Journal of Urban Design entitled, ''McMansions: the Extent and Regulation of Super-sized Houses," and a copy Delray Beach, Florida Landscape Regulations. N. MINUTES Commissioner Brockman moved to approve the Minutes · of May 28, 2008. Commissioner Olson seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. Commissioner Webster recused. V. PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION Flood Management Options (PP 08-0010) Paul Espe, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He reviewed flood mitigation options in the Foothills District and around Oswego Lake. Mr. Espe noted the recently adopted Flood Management Area Map showed that most of the Foothills area was in the 100 year floodplain (an area that has a 1% chance of flooding in any given year). He recalled after the 1996 flqod, the City had installed a pump station on the 'foklat property. Foothills Park was constructed in 2006 and was created so there would be no net increase in flood elevation. The ground surface was recontoured to create a partial berm that might help to protect the Foothills District from future flooding. He showed photographs of buildings in a floodplain in Portland's south Waterfront District and pointed out that City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of June 23, 2008 Page I of8 parking was on the ground floor and the liviQ.g spa,ce wa,s above it and above the ba,se flood elev~tion. Mr. Espe discussed the options of protecting Foothills with a berm or levee; filling areas of Foothills to 011e foot above the b3$e flood level; or requiring building designs that elevated habitable floors over parking and above the base flood level. He explained that buildings protected by a berm or any other uncertified structure would still be considered to be in the floodplain. Buildings protected by a levee would not be in the floodplain, but nothing could be planted on or constructed on the levee. He indicated that levee construction would be subject to multi-level government agency approvals~ Raising the elevation of a la,rge pwt of Foothills using fill would require a lot of grading and risk violating the balanced cut and fill standard. The option utiliZing architectural designs that put living space and roadways above the base flood elevation could satisfy those standards, but those developments would still be required to obtain flood insurance, Mr. Espe discussed Oswego Lake flood mitigation. He recalled that the primary problem during the 1996 flood was that the dam had not released water fast enough. He discussed mitigation options which included making improvements to the dam itself and blocking water from entering Lakewood Bay. He advised that since the 1996 flood a valve had been installed that allowed more water to escape from the lake during a flood event, and the City could now close the North Shore inlet and keep floodwater out of Lakewood Bay. Mr. Espe reported th11t consultants believed mitigation measures could keep the lake from rising more than two inches. The Lake Oswego Corporation was considering dredging the lake to increase its water quality, and that project could be timed to coincide with the sewer interceptor project in 2009-2010. He added that previous studies suggested that dredging offered vety limited benefits for flood management. He reported that some concepts suggested in previous studies-such as removing a tualatin River dam, and increasing the capacity of Oswego Canal -had been rejected because of their impact on other areas. During the questioping p~riod, t:he Conunissio11ers w~re conc~med about potential impacts on the Willamette River. Mr. Egner explained that mitigation efforts should -result in waters flowing in and out of the lake at about the same tate so the lake did not serve as a significant storage area, and the downstream impact during a large flood event would be relatively minor, He said it was ha,rd to estiii111te impacts because the Willamette and Tualatin Rivets peaked at different times during a flood. Chair Glisson recalled testimony that the lake should be lowered in anticipation of flood sellSon. Mr. Egner recalled a 2003 study had concluded that the lake would simply fill back lip again. He confirmed that current. studies did copsider the impact of future Tualatin Basin urbanization and increased impervious slitface on flood levels. Commissioner Brockman observed that the base flood elevation had just been raised, and it might be raised again in the future, as developments were built on fill. Mr. Egner suggested that the Commissioners discuss what the City's strategy should be. He asked if the Lake Oswego Corporation should be responsible for fixing the dam, and if owners in • • Foothills should be responsible for addressing flood management there, or was a • public/private partnership justified? Commissioner Olson suggested the dam should be City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of June 23, 2008 Page 2 of8 • • • '··.··. 1: ~ ••• fixed at the same time the sewer interceptor Was installed. She asked if dredging the lake could interfere with interceptor work by stirring up unwanted material on the lake bottom . Chair Gli_sson invited public comment Public Comment Skip O'Neill, _l673L Greenbriar, President of the Lake Oswego Corporation, reported that samples of the lake bottom showed it was "healthy" due to Lake Oswego Corporation's efforts over the past ten years. He said they had set aside millions of dollars to pay for dredging large del~ being created by silt running into the l~e. He said the Lake Oswego Corporation had been asking the City to create detention ponds upstream on the major tributaries to slow the water and silt flow. He advised there were about a dozen major tributaries and about 30 smaller tributaries. He said the Lake Oswego Corporation had much. better data to Work with now and that would help them sta,rt lowering the lake earlier than in the past. He reported that they had raised the headgate last year but the dam would have to be modified in order to let water out as fast it came into the lake. He said that would have less impact downstream than trying to hold more water in the lake. He clarified that the City owned the bridge at the dam, which the City Engineering Division had advised acted like a levee, but was not strong enough, or the right size or design to handle the extra charge from a flood. He recalled a large volume of floodwater that had flowed over Highway 43. He anticipated that improving the dam would help protect Foothills properties. He. advised ··that many homes were below the new base flood level. He said Lake Oswego Corporation tried to maintain the lake at about 98.8 elevation . Dwing the questioning period, Mr. O'Neill said the Lak_e Oswego Corporation estimated that dredging would cost $8 to $10 million. He said they would also dredge Lost Dog and Springbrook Creeks and the main canal. · He said it was also a water quality issue, because the accumulating silt deltas contained fertilizer and inva.Sive plants. He clarified that Lake Oswego Corporation had been allowed to raise the headgate back to the height it was during the 1996 flood, and no higher .. He clarified that once the Tualatin River had reached flood level, most of the additional water had ruil off streets aroliild the lake, and that would happen again if there were a flood today. He clarified that Lake Oswego . I' . Corporation had been advised that it would be less expensive to modify the dam than to install a bigger pipe under Highway 43. However, they had negotiated ail agreement with the owner of the Bayrock Apartments that gave them the right to remove a wall and install a pipe going that direction. Mr. O'Neill confirmed that Lake Oswego Corporation cWtently did not have a plan to modify the dam, but this year they planned to consider whether to do that and to reexamine a related 1996 report they found in their records. He said they might have to also purchase two homes and docks next to the datil that had blocked water flow during the 1996 flood. He explained that Lake Oswego Corporation measured the water level every day and it averaged about 98.6-98.8 feet. He explained that they used to draw the lake down every other year, until they had found and fixed most of the leaks. They had drawn it down just after the 1996 flood, and a year ago. He said they coUld now fill it with water that drained into it from the watershed, and they could avoid using Tualatin City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of June 23, 2008 Page 3 of8 River water, which carried a lot of fertilizer, silt and invasive species. When asked, he said the Hunt Club would be a good place to position a hrrger size holding pond. He said it could help slow down fast-moving Springbrook Creek after a heavy rain and it would • be easy to dredge regularly with a backhoe. He explained that Lost Dog Creek gained velocity due to topography and picked up and deposited many tons of silt in the lake. ~ob Fallow, 91 Foothills Ro~d, explained that it had been the City's idea to redevelop Foothills, not Foothills property owners, and the owners wanteq to· be involved in ,the process to ensure it would be economically viable for them. He stressed that economic impact, as well as physical aspects of the proposal should be considered. He stressed that flood insurance was costly. He said the owners wanted the City to close a 60-foot gap in the berm the City had built across the park. He suggested that the berm might be converted into a levee, and the existing pumping di_strict might become a dike district. He suggested that if the lake Were dredged deeper, those "cuts" could be used to offset "fill" in Foothills. During the questioning period, staff clarified that a couple of concept plans . had been fashioned for the Foothills area, but none had been adopted. They anticipated that a staff person woUld be assigned to work with Foothills owners to plan the area. Rich Martin, PO Box 999 (220 Foothills Road), anticipated a berm or levee would be easy to construct at the terminus ofF oothills Road, but it would be more of a challenge to construct one at the Tryon Creek treatment plant. He advised the existing pump station was designed to handle :tunoff from First Addition Neighborhood and Foothills Road, but not river floodwater. He reasoned that because the 1996 flood had covered the road with only about six inches of water, that situation would be easily addressed, except that the • Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) base flood level was higher than that. During the questioning period, staff clarified that a levee was an engineered structure, and a berm was not. They said completing the existing berm could provide some additional degree of flood protection, but it would not ju,stify removing the floodplain regulations unless an analysis showed it was made of compacted material that qualified as levee material and could be modified to serve as a levee. They advised. that seawalls also served as levees, and a concrete seawall would take up much less land area than a levee. They advised that the code and Metro allowed both levees a:nd berms, but a levee might require a more extensive approval process; the only vegetation that could be planted on it might be grass; and it could significantly affect the topography of Foothills Park. Jim Mreen said he had purchased his building in Foothills in 1986. He stressed that his business employed 100 persons @d it would be extremely expensive to move. He asked the City to eliminate as many floodplain restrictions as possible and try to redevelop Foothills into a robust economic generator the City could be proud of. Discussion The Commissioners indicated they wanted to understand the underlying methodology and assumptions of the f}oodpl~n studies that had been used to generate the FEMA · floodplain map. They Wanted that information because they tho\,lght it would help the City evaluate the risks of investing in projects in the floodplain. They wondered if the • City of Lak:e Oswego Planning Commission Minll,tes of Jtine 23, 2008 Page 4 of8 • • • projected flood levels reflected the impact of developed u,rban land differently than undeveloped land. They wondered if the studies had considered the trend toward increased lot coverage. Staff said the most recent study, the Tualatin Basin study, likely used the most C\lll'ent methodology, but the Willamette Basin study was much older. Chair Glisson agreed with their suggestion to submit a recommendation related to flood mitigation options around the lake and in Foothills fot the City Cooocil to examine durjng their schedt,Iled floodplain amendments study session in July. She observed the Commissioners believed it was important to make improvements at the lake sooner, rather than later; they wanted to have more information about the potential cost of the projects and if a ''t~ increment financing-type" (TIF) fu,ndi_ng mechanism could be :used;· they thought the Foothills studies should be reexamined, especially if the City ihight invest in a streetcar project there; and they wanted to better understand FEMA's assumptions and methodology. CQmmissioner Bro<;kman suggested staff find . out how Multnonu:lh Colll1try org@ized and operated drainage districts that contained levees and requited ongoing maintenance. She anticipated that' the trend toward increased lot coverage and the fact that an increasing nUJilber Qf hom,eowners were disconnecting their downspouts would affect future drainage patterns and flood levels. She recalled seeing areas flooded that had not flooded in the past. Chair Glisson announced a .five-minute break in the meeti_ng and thereafter reconvened it. Community.Development CodeAmendments.(PP 08-0002) Neighborhood Association Comment Barbara Zeiler •. 3335 __ Sabina Court, Chair of the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association, encouraged the Comttlissioners·to read the Delray Beach, Florida Landscape Regulations she had submitted. She said they would find that code wa.s easy to read and l.lnderstand. She reported she was receiving•cornplaints about the impact of smoke from fire pits, particularly when they Were bUrning refuse. She asked if that was addressed in the Community Development Code (CDC).· Mr. 8oo11e advised that the CDC did not address that, but Fire Code or Municipal nuisance ot sanitation regUlations might apply. Ms. Zeller related that her neighborhood . was keenly aware of the silt problem in Springbrook Creek and believed that should be addres~ed by requiring llli'g~:t setbacks from the stream, educating homeowners .along the stream that they could not fill it with rocks, and related regulations. She said that might be a simpler solution than building dikes and levees. She reported that stream restoration work had been accpmplished at the Twin Fir bridge and that woulc:l'be a good Iopation for a small catch basin. She .reasoned that faster stream flows were the result of development of latget homes ~d increased impervious sUtface. Commissioner Brockman conveyed questions and coinnlellts she had received from other Citizens. She reported hearing concern tha~ a ravine wa.s being filled, tree roots were being disturbed and a watercourse had been inappropriately incorporated into a water featute where a new house was being constru~ted at the ~nd of Fairway Road. She related hearing concern that LOC 50.20.010(1), which called for consideration of neighborhood plans in partition actions, Was not being addressed in staff reports. She said City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of June 23, 2008 Page 5 of8 neighborhoods wanted to be conswted. She related heating that neighborhoods wanted LOC 50.20.020(3), which specified driveway minimum width, to also specify a •. maximum width in otdet to keep front yards from being paved for pa,rkiiJ.g. · · Commissioner Brockman related hearing from residents upset by the amount of noise on Sundays and that the Noise Ordinance needed to be reexamined and the police needed better tools to determine whether it was violated. She related hearing concerns about LOC 50.22.005, which called for a developer/neighborhood meeting. Ms. Zeller came forward and explained that land partition applicants typically did not. know exactly how they would develop the ·lots at the time of the meeting, so the meeting was useless. She explaiiJ.ed the neighborhood wanted to know things like how many homes the applicant proposed to build, how big they would be, wh~1.t traffic problems they would generate, and how many trees would be removed. Staff said developers shoUld have some sense of what they wanted to build on their sites by that time because the developer/neighborhood meetings were supposed to happen after the pre-application conference.·· Commissioner Brockman referred to the parking standard$. She explained that she wanted to ensure that all interested parties had ·an opportunity to be heard when an applicant opted to submit their own parking study instead of complying with the code- specified parking requirement. She recalled neighbors concem.s that a recently approved congregate care facility would generate parking that would back into their neighborhood. Mr. Boone advised that the code allowed an applicant to opt to submit a parki11g study. He said an application for a new building on a vacant lot would be subject to a developrn.ent review hearing that included jan examination of parking . and' offered • opponents an opportunity to show the study was deficient. He recalled the congregate care facility applicant Collliilissioner Brockman was referring to had provided staff with three parking studies and staff had recol'lll'nended the one that cited the most comparable use should be submitted. He recalled that opponent$ had an opportunity to dispqte that at the Development Review Commission (DRC) hearing. He said the DRC had found the parking study was credible and the amount of proposed parking was adequate, based on the evidence in the record, but they had imposed conditions of the conditi011al USe permit to ensure onsite parking would not spill over into the neighborhood. He said after the City Courtcil affirmed the DRC decision and accepted the parking study at the appeal heating (where opponents had an opportunity to argue against it), the neighborhood association had appealed to the tand Use Board of Appeals (LU:BA), which was about to hear the matter. Mr. Egner pointed out the proposed CDC changes were more specific abo.ut what had to be in a parking study. Staff characterized most of the proposed changes to LOC 50.55, Parking, as simple housekeeping changes intended to clarify how parking requirement m6difiers were applied. They explained one proposed change would make the development and fire codes consistent regarding allowable driveway grade ( 15%) when, fire spriliklets were requited. Public Comment Cheryl Uchida; 15790 Ouarn; Road, asked if a change from fast food use to a sit-down eatery required. more parking spaces. Mr; Boone pointed 011t LOC 50.5S offered the "Numerical Method'' of calculating required spaces that specified the number of spaces • · City of Lake Oswego Plapning Commission Minutes of June 23, 2008 Page 6 of8 1.~ • • • ! ~ . ' • 1.. • per square foot for dtfferent types of food ~d beverage related use. The reqmrements were lowest fot a convenience food store, hig];ler for a drive-up window business, and highest for an eat-in establishment. Ms. Uchida asked who enforced that. Mr. Boone ,said the City might lecun about the change vyhen it received an application for a building permit to make tenant improvements, or if someone complained. He pointed out that the proposed code updates to LOC 50.55 also addressed how to analyze parking when multiple uses shared parking. He expl~n.ed the concept that the amount of parking was to be adequate, but not excessive, and there might be times when demand exceeded the number of available spaces.· Staff asked the Comrrtissioners to determine whether proposed changes to section LOC 50.60, Local Street Connectivity, were ''housekeeping" measures or a policy change. Mr. Egner explained the current code required the developer to continue a stubbed street through a parcel, if the parcel were five acres or larger. He explained the proposed change would remove the size threshold. He acknowledged that would influence how a parcel could be partitioned and where buildings could be located. When asked, he· confirmed th~t the requirement would apply when a vacant, 10,000 square foot, R-10 zoned lot was developed. He noted that street connectivity was a communitywide goa!. He described how the proposed change would affect smaller parcels in an area where a through street would h~ve to cormect to Atherton Drive. He confirmed for Commissioner Brockman that a developer could make the stub a cul-de-sac if resources or topography constrained a through connection and if the plan met code standards for cul-de-sacs. Chair Glisson observed a consensus that this change was not to be categorized as a policy decision . Staff explained they planned to propose, more extensive changes to LOC 50.65, Downtown Redevelopment District Design Standards, in a separate process, and the updates to be considered in the current code amendments were related to landscaping. The Con:iinissioners suggested the ·provisions should not force an owner to grow vines directly on a wall, because that could destroy it. They suggested requiring vines (but not invasive ivy) be planted on a trellis or espaliers. When they were asked how the landscaping requirements would be enforced, staff advised that a landscaping plan would be reviewed and approved with the development application and the developer was requited to follow thatplan. The Commissioners examined LOC 50.68, Variances. Staff proposed to add a new Class 3 Variance to ~low adjustments that would allow a use to comply with federal or state law. Comrrtissioner Brockman suggested requiring the variance to be recorded on the deed to ensure that potential buyers were notified and understood that the variance was associated with a particular land use and would become invalid if the use were changed. In the interest of public awareness, Commissioner Brockman suggested the Planning Commission consider the potential cumulative effect of combining an existing, allowed, Cl~s 1 (minor) Variance with the proposed change that aUowed a Bay Window to be closer to the property line. She cautioned that the existing allowable variance and the proposed Bay Window allowance would each move the window further into the side yard setback. · City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of Ju:ne 23, 2008 Page 7 of8 Mr. Boone observed that both the Class 1 Variance process and the Fire Code allowed variation of the maximum grade of a private street or driveway, so they should be • consistent. He advised that a request for a Class 1 Variance (a Minor Development) VI. would also have to confonil to the Fire Code. Commissioner Brockman suggested that a provision giving the City Manager discretion to require a Class 1 or 3 Variance applicant to fulfill LOC 50.77.025 requirements (to meet with the neighborhood) should either specify the meeting was requited, or not required, in order to remove the possibility of a:ny public suspicion of a discriminatory motive. Staff then observed that the staff• proposed provision might not be necessary at all, because another section of the Code already gave hiin that authority. They said that authority would allow staff to require a developer/neighborhood meeting when they sensed the variance might be controversial. Mr. Newman observed the provision gave the City Manager the authority to require the meeting, but not waive it. When asked, one of the neighborhood representatives present confirmed th~t she had received a notice of a Class 1 variance application, but had not called a meeting to discuss it. Mr. Newman called the notice an "invitation" to comment. Staff recalled hearing some applicants and neighborhood chairs questioning why notice had been sent regarding a "common sense" request. Mr. Boone ~dvised that since a previous CDC revision had changed LOC 50.77 .020, Application Requirements, Pre-application Conference, a pre-application conference was required for both minor and major development applications, and Class 1, 2 and 3 Variances were minor developments. J OTHER BUSINESS-PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioner Brockman asked staff to consider printing reports on 3-hole-punched paper. The Commissioners anticipated that they would elect officers at their first meeting in July. VII. OTHER BUSINESS-COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT None. VIli. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Glisson adjoU11led the meeting at 9:12p.m. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of June 23, 2008 Respectfully submitted, Iris Treinen Administrative Support Page 8 of8 • •