Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2008-09-29 (02)• • • I. City of Lake Oswego al Planning Commission .Minutes ~~~V SPECIALMEETING t._(lft\V~ September 29, 2008 J'~t ~,- CALL TO ORDER Chair Jtllia Glisson called the Planning Commission meeting of Monday, September 29, 2008 to order at 6:05 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL III. Members present were Chait Glisson, Vice Chair Philip Stewart and Commissioners Adrianne Brockman and Mary Olson. Scot Siegel and Alison Webster were excused. Brian Newman had resigned. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Jessica Numanoglu, Associate Planner; Jonna Papaefthimiou, Natural Resources Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and !tis Treinen, Administrative Support . CITIZEN COMMENT None. IV. GENERAL PLANNING-WORK SESSION Outdoor Lighting Amendments (L U 08-0058) Jessica Numanoglu, Associate Pbtnner, presented the staff report. She explained that the City Council had decided to apply outdoor lighting standards to public properties first, to test how they worked, before applying them to private property. The new regulations were intended to conserve energy, minimize glare and preserve the dark night sky. Ms. Numanoglu stressed the currently proposed requirements would only apply to new lighting, not existing lighting. The City Engineer would be authorized to review applications that apply the performance standards. Some exceptions to the standards would be allowed .related to uses like sports field lighting, if the applicant had tried to find an alternative and mitigated impacts. She advised that the proposed street lighting requirements differentiated between local. streets in residential and commercial zones, which was what neighborhood associations had been asking for. She clarified that the City Engineer had the authority to determine the necessary amount of lighting fot major arterial streets, and could require more lighting on any street if necessary to alleviate a traffic safety hazatd. She said the City Council hearing was scheduled for December 2, 2008 . City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes ofSeptember29, 2008 Page I of9 During the questioning period, Ms. Numanoglu confirmed that neighbors would receive notice of and be offered an opportunity to comment on applications subject to the proposed lighting standards. She confirmed the Engineering Department would review a • photometric analysis and the standards would establish maximum allowable levels at the property 'line. Vice Chair Stewart observed that the term, "isocandle" should to be defined and he asked staff to address lighting of flagpoles. V. PUBLIC HEARING Community Development .Code Amendments A request from the City of Lake Oswego for a.Illendments to the Community Development Code (CDC) and an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The following . two proposed ordinances had been continued from September 22, 2008. ···. · Ordinance 2527, LU 08-0051, CDC-Sensitive Lands Overlay District Amendments. Amends portionsofthe Community Development Code Article 50.16. Proposed updates pertain to the following topics: Consistent usage of tetrns, permitted uses in resource areas (second-story additions, utility tunneling, street or trail signs, access to new lots), "wildlife-friendly" fences, "reasonable development" on property totally covered by wetland or stream resources, map corrections, development procedures, water-dependent uses such as docks along the Willamette and Tualatin Rivers, hazardous materials storage, and ivy removal as a condition of development approval. Staff coordinator is Jonna Papaefthimiou, Natural Resources Planner. · Ordinance 2525, LU 08-0052, CDC -General Housekeepi_ng Amendments. / Amends portions of the Community Development Code, Chapter 50, for the purpose of clarification, correction, formatting, and updating sections. Proposed updates pertain to the following topics: Definitions, the master plant list, uses, map administration, setbacks, structure heights, accessory structures, dwelling design, coinmercial development standards and requirements, accessory and temporary uses, flag lots, vision clearance, exceptions, special standards, flood management area, building design, open space, landscaping, access, on-site circulation, street connectivity, street lights, downtown redevelopment district standards, Old Town neighborhood design standards, West Lake Grove district standards, variances, conditional uses, and procedural requirements. Staff coordinator is Dennis Egner, Long Range Pla.niling Manager. Chair Glisson opened the public hearing, explained the applicable procedure and asked the Commissioners to declare any conflict of interest. None were declared. Jonna Papaeftbimiou, Natural Resources Planner, presented the staff report regarding Sensitive Lands amendments. The Commissioners had asked staff to sort out the changes that would be necessary to comply with the Metro Titles 3 and 13 deadlines from other . proposed changes. A table in the supplemental staff report categorized all proposed changes. Ms. Papaefthimiou explained that some of the other changes corrected errors, clarified the· code and codified current staff practices. An ivy removal provision and a . required review of change of use improved resource protection. Physical markers were City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 29, 2008 Page 2 of9 ,. ·~ • : ·.·.; • .. -~ • • required. Mitigation was to be monitored after planting to etisure the plants survived. Some changes made it easier for a property owner to accomplish resource protection projects, home repairs or development" on his/her lot. They allowed the buffer from the top-of-bank to be measured from a legally filled location. They allowed buffer averaging on a constrained lot. They allowed water dependent uses along the rivers. P~blic Testimony Cap Hedges, 2620 Poplar Way, said he owned a_ totally encumbered patcel. He expla:ined how in 2004 he had unsuccessfully tried to both build on it and protect the resource by clustering three modest sized homes. He said that application was denied when staff interpreted the code to mean he was only allowed one house. He said he sought a remedy under Measure 3 7, but Measure 49 imposed appraisal requirements that he found impossible to fulfill unless the property was outside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). He indicated that he had consulted With several individuals as high up as· he could go to find clarification on appraisal requiremems and was unsucces·sful. He said he still wanted to 'build a single-family home on the property. He worried the_ proposed amendments would tighten the code in a way that would further shrink his building envelope. He said other Glenmorrie neighbors shared his concern. He asked the City to offer the complete text of the rewritten code staff proposed to public scrutiny before it was adopted. During the questioning period, Mr; Hedges .clarified his R-15 zoned lot was 46,400 sq. ft. and completely constrained by protected slopes, stream and woods. He thought three lots might be fit on it. Commissioner Brockman suggested the Commissioners consider allowing density transfer on such a lot. Ms. Papaefthirrtiou said his lot could serve as a case study of what might be done on a totally encumbered lot. She said the current code allowed· him to transfer density. to someplace outside the resource area, but his lot was basically a ravine with a stream through it, and With hardly any flat area on it. When asked, she said she was aware there were at least five or six similar, totally encumbered, properties. She clarified the proposed amendments would not create any new ones. She offered to schedule a Planning Commission meeting to examine case studies and consider how to define what was "reasonable single-family development" on a totally constrained lot. Mr. Hedges suggested the Planning Commission examine his Measure 37 application to, see the alternatives he had explored. Mr. Boone related that the Hedges application had been the genesis of the cutrent code interpretation that the one, reasonable, single-family house to be allowed was the "maximum size house on the minimum size lot in the zone." The site was zoned R-15, so if the parcel were partitioned into three, 15,000 sq. ft. lots, the proposed change to LOC 50.16.040 mi~t ailow each totally constrained lot,to use 5,000 sq. ft. for a house. He cautioned that staff did not currently support using the Planned Development (PD) process on a totally constrained site because the co:rrent code specified such a site was allowed to have one, single-family, residence on it. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 29, 2008 ·Page 3 of9 Audrey Mattison, 2929 Glen Eagles Road, said the timetable was t9o "aggressive," and the Planning Commission should first address the changes necessary to comply with .•. . '· Metro ~d then slow the process down and refer the rest of the Sensitive Lands amendw.ents to an ad hoc committee (which would include a.t le~t three owners of property that featured sensitive lands on it). She Said the public needed more time to review the proposed changes. Earl Levin, 1~459 ~ex~ngton Court did not come forward to testify when called. Kirk Smith, 15847 Springbrook Court said the proposed changes went far beyond the minimum requirements of Metro Title 13. He held that the correct process Would be to examine the maps first, so owners would know their property would be impacted, and then modify the code. He asked what would happen if the City did not meet Metro's deadline, When asked, Mr. Smith clanfied that he had not read the supplemental staff report, Which identified which changes were necessary to satisfy Metro. Staff advised that Metro could choose to withhold transportation funding i( the City was not in compliance. Lauren Hughes, 18711 Westview Drive, recalled at the last hearing she had heard that she would not be allowed to rebuild her-house on the same footprint if it were destroyed in a catastrophic event, but she had been told she m:ight be able to get a variance. She explained that she owned a 23,500 sq. ft. lot that was zoned R-15 and was not dividable and that her house had been constructed in 1985; She said the "protected resource" would actually be the little ditch that ran through her backyard, and the protected area would cover about 10,000 sq. ft. of her backyard that she would not be allowed to enjoy. She held the tree code already offered plenty of protection. Ms. Hughes said the variance process would require inordinate time and effort just to rebuild on the same footprint, a,nd it was unnecessary and l.lllfair, particularly for homes that were not impacted by the sensitive lands ordinance when they were built, and were on lots that were not dividable. She asked the Commissioners if that was really what the code intended. She said the pending resource buffer would impact four properties on her street and ran through the house oil one lot. She urged the Commissioners to go back through the code and differentiate between undividable, developed lots, and those that were not. During the questioning period, Ms. Hughes clarified the ditch was sometimes dry, but the water could swell to two feet wide and one foot deep when it rained. She questioned why the City would want to protect something like that and diminish her property rights. She contended the public was not fully aware of the propo$al and would be shocked to learn about it. When asked, she said she found out about. the pending designation in March, when she received a notice and was invited to a,n open house. She felt the pending designation was mostly due to the neighbor's tree canopy, so she invited staff out to the lot to talk about it. During the field visit, the staff person saw the little ditch ih the backyard and noticed that the drainageway also went through her neighbors' properties. Mr. Egner explained the Infill Task Force-recommended package of amendments would a_llow a structure to be rebuilt in the same footprint after it burned down or was <;lestroyed by natural causes, City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 29, 2008 Page 4 of9 . ' ,.-. . . ·. • • • • Comn'lissioner Brockman questioned whether the same standards for along rivers and streams should apply to ditches. ·She asked if Metro differentiated between them. Ms. Papaefthimi.ou clarified that neither the City .code nor the Metro model code used the term "ditch," but the City used two different classifications and applied two different widths of buffers (25 and 30 feet), plus a 1 0-foot construction setback, and Metro suggested a 50- foot setback, but had accepted the City's setbacks. She advised the proposed amendments would not change the required buffers. She offered to prepare a presentation explaining how habitat was identified and evaluated. Coii1II1iS$i011er Olson observed that Ms. Hughes' lot was already developed. Ms. Papaefthimiou advised that the proposed changes would actually make it simpler for an owner of developed property with designated reso\.Irces on it to maintain, repair and landscape their house. Staff explained it made sense to change the code before adopting the new rnaps because that would correct or remove flaws in the code before the Sensitive Lands District was extended onto other land and help newly affected property owners understand what the designation meant. An Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy (ESEE) analysis would be made for each property to weigh the benefits of protection against the benefits of other uses. Staff said they had notified the owners of every property being considered for the Sensitive Lands Inventory, asked for permission for the consultant to make a field visit to evaluate it, and invited the owners to see and comment on the proposed maps. Carolyne Jones, 2818 Poplar Way, said big houses uphill adversely impacted the Gleninorrie neighborhood even though the City assumed those builders addressed runoff from each lot. She al)ked why she should be "stuck" with the same 1,050 sq. ft. house footprint she had now if het house w~re invoiuntarily destroyed while h~r neighbors were allowed to have much bigger houses. She asked for a line-by-line comparison of current and proposed code in~tead of sunuilaries. She wanted the Commissioners to examine the new code and new maps together. She said canal, lakefront and riverfront property owners should not be given special privileges. She added that allowing gas-powered , boats did not promote better water quality. She said she disagreed with the concept of robbing citizens of use of their properties so th_e City could get funds from Metro. She said any Metro funds should be used to compensate people deprived of their rights by extreme regulations. Chris Robinson, l4000 Goodall Road, Chair of Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association, asked the Commissioners to sort out what . were truly "housekeeping" changes and wait to consider sensitive 18Jlds and "substantive" changes ulitil periodic review of the Comprehensive Plan, unless a change was necessary due to some eil1ergency. The Commissioners confirmed they had sorted through all the proposed changes in· previous meetings, but they intended to keep looking for policy-related changes that might still be in the housekeeping amendments. They pointed out that staff had highlighted sensitive lands code changes that were necessary to meet Metro deadlines in the supplemental staff report. They anticipat~d they would, consider policy-related changes in January 2009. They suggested the Forest Highland representative read the City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 29, 2008 Page 5 of9 minutes of the previous meetings because they summarized their discussions. They asked him to alert the Planning Commission if he found other changes in the housekeeping runendm.ents that he believed were actually' policy changes. • Planning Commission Discussion The Commissioners used the supplemen~l staff report to ex:runine sensitive l~ds co<le changes necessary to comply with Metro Title 3 and Title 13. Staff explained that ,the City Council wanted to bring the City into compliance by the end of their current term. Staff clarified that Title 13 did not specifically require the ivy-removal regulation, but Metro staff supported it. Commissioner Brockman said examining the new map at the same time as the code changes would be beneficial because that might uncover issues that had not been raised before and it would ensure affected land owners felt they had been treated fairly. She suggested forming a subcommittee to study issues such as what was to be allowed after a house burned or· was torn down; if cl1,lstered development should be alloWed oil a lot that was totally encumbered by protected resoutce; and if ditches should be treated differently than rivers and other water courses. Commissioner Olson observed the Commissioners needed to determine what a "reasonable house" was. She cautioned the process should not be rushed. Staff indicated that the Conimissioners could form a "Work group," but only the City Council was authorized to appoint a committee. They suggested such a work group · should include experts on resource protection as well as affected property owners. They offered to prepare and present case studies of totally encumbered lots. Ms. Papaefthimiou cla,rified the sensitive lands code did not specifically address houses that were destroyed, • but the proposed infill changes added a "compassionate exception" to allow a nonconforming house that burned down to be rebuilt on the same foundation and within the same envelope. Chair Glisson observed that the Commissioners would need to see the mapping changes at some point in the process, but the currently proposed code changes applied to property that was currently mapped. She suggested they address Metro Title 3· and 13 changes first. Staff explained the maps they were preparing would not only show the Overlay District, but also the associated b1,lffer in which people could not build. The changes imposed a deadline for the City to make a map change after it found qualifying resources. They added the Oregon Freshwater Assessment to the process of evaluating a wet a,rea. Commissioner Brockman was concerned that property owners were adversely affected by wet areas that were getting bigger because the City did not have a storm sewer system. Staff clarified that the purpose of the new water qUality assessment was not to identify new wetlands, but to rank existing wet areas by how well they functioned in improving water quality. They advised that the ESEE analysis wo1,lld weigh the benefits of resource protection against economic and social benefits. They said the code did not use the term, "ditch," but the Habitat Assessment Score (HAS) would help determine if a wet area were a "ditch" or a more significant water resoutce (one that showed the appropriate htyers of vegetation and a hydrology, and/or tree grove connection that deserved protection). Staff indicated the proposed changes would protect all perennial (year-round flow) streams. • City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 29; 2008 Page 6 of9 • • • They said there was a process for removing protected resource designations from the map if they had been mapped in error~ or if a wet area dried up or became an intermittent stre~. The property owner was to submit an expert's evaluation and map to the City and pay a review fee (unless the City Manager waived the fee). Staff confirmed that replacing invasive plants courited as mitigation. Staff said the buffer for a stream at the bottom of a steep slope was measured from the top of bank and the proposed change was to conform to Metro requirements and measu.re a wetland bt:tffer the same way. Commissioner Brockman worried that would affect existing developments, like those around Lilly Bay, but staff advised the resource had already been delineated and recorded there, land they offered to examine the Sensitive Lands Atlas to see if any other developments were affected. Staff explained that federal wetland delineation guidelines described the method of finding the bound_aries of a jurisdictional wethmd.-They said a "wetland" was defined as wet land that supported vegetation that can survive in wetl~d conditions; was wet at least 10% of the growing season each year; and featured soils that were oxidized (lacked oxygen). The Corrunissioners generally agreed with the proposed provision to prohibit storage of prohibited hazardous material on sensitive lands. The Commissioners examined the new provision that would require new development to remove invasive plants. They wanted to better understand why it was proposed. They were concerned because they believed ivy did a good job of containing steep slopes in heavy ra:ins, and they wondered which native species would do a comparable job. They suggested just requiring owners to keep ivy off trees. Staff advised an owner could use a fabric cover to contain the soil while nativ~ plants took root. If removal of the ivy might create an erosion problem, the owner had to submit an erosion control plan and obtain a permit from the City. They explained that invasive plants, such as ivy, blackberries and · bamboo, diminished habitat value because they were not a fooq source and inhibited growth of the understory of native plants that were. They confirmed that Title 13 did not specifically require the proposed provision. Coilunissioner Olson observed the City needed to do a better job of controlling ivy on municipal land -particularly the South Shore/Overlook. She suggested the City should encourage invasive plants removal, but not require it. Staff stressed the proposed provision would only apply to property on which a new dwelling unit was being constructed and where the soil would be disturbed. They said the area to be enhanced was in scale with the size of the house footprint and would not be the entire lot. Staff explained invasive plants thrivea and took over in the compacted, disturbed soil atourtd new development. They suggested replacing invasive species With native plants, such as Salal and Oregon grape. They anticipated that after the enhanced area started looking better, the owner would be more inclined to keep it up. The Commissioners invited public comments. ' Audrey Mattison, 2929 Glen Eagles Road, related that she had hired consultants to help her plan and eflhance a wet area on her property. She said it was a voluntary effort with two other prop'erty owners to stabilize the steepest part of the drainage channel. She estimated it would cost at least $2,000 and take at least three to five years (because of the risk of erosion, she could only safely remove one-third of the ivy on the steepest slope _each year). She said they would likely replant the bottom of the steepest part with sedge City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 29, 2008 Page 7 of9 and plant other native species elsewhere. She said this wa_s a project the City should not expect the "average" homeowner to undertake, but she hoped it would encourage others •. and 'enhance Springbrook Creek. She stressed that the amount of water draining onto her property from an outfall on Glen Eagles Drive varied with the season but it had significantly increased since the City did some work on an uphill pond. During the questioning period, she clarified that her consultants had recommended not pulling all the ivy at once, and they had created a preliminary stabilization pl~.tl. Carolyne Jones, 2818 Poplar Way, said the Campbell pathway; was over~own and she did not support the idea of the ivy, removal. She and Barbara Zeller, 3335 Sabina Court, Chair of the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association, observed tha~ people could walk through and see over ivy. The Commissioners considered whether to recommend the amendments in sections, or all at once. Staff advised they were still reconciling the document the Commissioners and staff were Q.sing with interim code revisions that might have been made during the three years staff Was assembling the amendment package. They suggested the Commission- give "conceptual approval" to certain sections they were ready to recommend, and eventually recommend adoption of the entire set of amendments at on~e. Chair Glisson agreed the public would find that less confusing. The Commissioners and staff examined the schedule and observed some meetings were on religious holidays. They directed staff to reschedule those meetings and postpone an upcoming joint meeting whh the lnfill Task Force, which had not completely finalized their recommendation. They generally agreed to push ahead with their examin;1tion of CDC General Housekeeping changes at the next meeting. Commissioner Olson and Coininissioner Brockman explained they did not support the propo~ed ivy regulation and preferred to see it modified to only require the property owner to remove ivy from trees and keep it off trees. The Commissioners confirmed, that with the exception of the ivy removal provision, they could agree to all of the changes related to Title 3 and Title 13. Commissioner Brockman moved to continue LU 08-0051 (Sensitive_ Lands_ Overlay I)istri~t Amendments) to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Olson seconded the motion and it passed 4:~. Commissioner Brockman moved to continue LU 08-0052 .JCDC-General Housekeeping Amendments) to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Olson seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. VI. ·.OTHER, BUSINESS -.PLANNING COMMISSION VII. OTHER BUSINESS-COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT None. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 29, 2008 Page 8 of9 · • • • • • VIII . ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Olisson adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 29, 2008 Respectfully submitted, ' !J~~ Administrative Support -, Page 9 of9