Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2008-10-13 (03)• • • City of Lake Oswego · · d Planning Commission Minutes fe ~pro October 13, 2008 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Julia Glisson called the Plahriing Commission meeting of Monday, October 13, 2008 to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. \. II. ROLL CALL III. Members present were Chair Julia Glisson, Vice Chait Philip Stewart and Commissioners Adrianne Brockman and Mary Olson. Scot Siegel and Alison Webster were excused. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Jessica Numanoglu, Associate cPlanner; Russ Chevrette, Engineering Technician III; Jonna Papaefthimiou, Natural Resources Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Iris Treinen, Administrative Support . CITIZEN COMMENT None. IV. MINUTES Commissioner Olson moved to approve the Minutes of September 8. 2008 with edits suggested by Chair Glisson. Commissioner Brockman seconded the motion and it . passed 4:0. V. PUBLIC HEARING Outdoor Lighting Amendments (LU 08-0058) Legislative amendment of CDC, Article 50.63, modifying lighting standards for street lights on public and private streets and outdoor lighting on public properties (properties zoned Public Function and Patks and Natural Areas). I Chair Glisson opened the public hearing and explained the procedure and time limits. She asked the Commissioners to declare any conflicts ofinterest. None were declared. Jessica Numanoglu, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She reported the • ? .. proposed ordtliance would apply to new streetlights and new outdoor lighting related to public property in the Public Function (PF) and Parks and Natural Area (PNA) zones. It would not apply to private property, and it would not require retroactive changes of existing lighting. She advised the proposed ordinance would generally require less City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 13, 2008 Page 1 of9 lighting along local collector and minor arterial streets than on streets in a commercial area; However, some lighting, such as sports field lighting, was allowed to exceed the standards. • Ms. Numanoglu reported the current draft incorporated the Commissioners' suggestions to put limits on flagpole lighting and define the tertii, "isocandle." She concluded that staff found the application met the applicable criteria and recommended the Commissioners recommend that the City Council approve it. She said the City Council was to heat the application on December 2, 2008. Public Testimony John Kysar, 17617 Arbor Lane, related that he and three neighbors had worked for over a year to resolve lritrusive lighting generated by six huge light poles with sodium fixtures along their back fences. He said the City had required this lighting along the narrow driveway to a development that had been approved in 2006, and staff had eventually acknowledged that although the code required it, it was excessive and inappropriate. After unsuccessfully trying to resolve the·pi'oblem with shields and lower wattage bulbs, staff had four of the lights dis<;onnected in 2007. He said he appreciated that action, but he asked that the huge poles looming over his property be removed. John Pullen, 18 Britten Court, held that good lighting helped protect residents frorn criminals and many City residents were not aware the City was considering changing lighting standards. He said police officials should be asked to comment on the proposed standards and the City should solicit more public input. Commissioner Brockman suggested fashioning the ordinance in a manner that offered different lighting standards along a little lane to an infill development like the one Mr., Kysar described than along a more traditional street, with residences fronting on both sides. Ms. Numanoglu anticipated the new standards would more appropriately address the situation Mr. Kysar described. They focused on safe lighting of intersections, and would not require uniform lighting all the way down the narrow lane. She said the· new standards would not be retroactive, or apply to private property, but she suggested Mr. Kysar ask the City Manager to consider removing the unused poles ~fter the ordinance was adopted. Chair Glisson and Commissioner Olson referred to the technical specification tables in the appendix. They acknowledged they were not lighting experts and they wanted to know how they could expect lighting along a street, such as Sunset, to look under the proposed standards. Chair Glisson noted that Su:nset was very dark between intersections. Staff observed that Sunset was a local street that would only be lit at intersections. They explained that the City received complaints from residents when the City installed new streetlights where there had been none before. They added that the proposed ordinance would limit the total amount of illumination allowed on each fixture. Staff related that in anticipation of the City adopting new lighting standards for private • property they had been recommending development permit conditions of ~pproval that • postponed installation of street lights under the current code and called for the applicant City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 13, 2008 Pitge 2 ef9 • • to sign a waiver of remonstrance for a future Local Improvement District (LID) and submit funds to pay for future street lights. When asked, staff confirmed light encroachment was measured at the property line and the measurement was not influenced by existence of anY light-blocking vegetation because it might not be there in the future. They said there would be open houses and more opportunity for public input when standards to apply to private property were proposed. By that time the City would have the benefit of knowing how the new standards worked on public property. ~ Commissioner Broclqnan moved torecommend that the City Council adopt LU 08-0058. Vice Chair Stewart seconded the motion and discussion followed. Chair Glisson and Commissioner Olson explained that although they did not have the technical expertise to understand what the results would be, they would agree to trust staff artd the consultants and apply the new standards to a few public properties. They anticipated that when the standards were proposed to be applied to private property the public would be more involved irt that process. Staff explained they had not asked the Police Department to comment on the proposed ordinance beca~se that department had no specific minimum lighting standard to refer. to; the proposed standards did not affect private property; the current code said that personal safety issues were not a consideration for additional lighting; and the City Engineer had the authority to require more lighting for safety reasons. They acknowledged the exceptions section could be expanded to address a public safety hazard. They said they had tried to balance effective lighting with residents' desire to minimize intrusive lighting. When asked, staff said if the new limit on total · illumination and the new specifications related to design and shielding had been applied to Foothills Park it would feature slightly less illumination that it did now. They suggesteo that the Commissioners visit Ladd Street to see how it was lit, because the lighting there complied with the proposed standards. The vote was conducted and the motion passed 4:0. The vote on the findings was to be conducted on October 20, 2008. Community Development Code Amendments A request from the City of Lake Oswego for amendments-to the Community Development Code (CDC) and art amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. the following two proposed ordinances had been continued from September 22 and 29, 2008: ' . Ordinance 2527, LU 08-0051, CDC .. Sensitive Lands Overlay District Amendments .J Amends portions of the Community Development Code Article 50.16. Proposed updates pertain to the following topics: Consistent usage of terms, 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 was Jonna Papaefthimiou, Natural Resources Planner . City of Lake Oswego Planning Comrilission Minutes of October 13, 2008 Page 3 of9 Ordinance 2525, LU 08 .. 0052, C:OC -General HolJse)<eeping 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, commercial development standards and requirements, accessory and temporary uses, flag lots, vision clearance, exceptions, special standards, flood m~mtgement area, building design, open space, landscaping, access, on-site circulation, street connectivity, street lights, downtown redevelopm{!nt district standards, Old Town neighborhood design standards, West Lake Grove district standards, variances, conditional uses, and procedural requirements. Staff coordinator was Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager. Chair Glisson re-opened the continued public hearing. Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager, disc~ssed the October 10, 2008 .Planning Division Memorandum, "Draft Work Program 2008-2012." {le observed th~t the Planning Commission h~d a lot' of work to do and it was important to work as efficiently as possible to complete the current set of CDC amendments; work on implementing several neighborhood plans; work on a couple of new neighborhood plans; and then participate in periodic review of the Comprehensive Plan. He suggested the updated Sensitive Lands Atlas could be considered and adopted as the first task in the periodic review process. He conftrt11ed that what type of appeal process could be used depended on whether or· not the map was adopted during the periodic review process. ,. • The Commissioners suggested it was confusing to call both simple housekeeping changes • and changes that codified current staff practices but might have policy implications, "Housekeeping.'' Sensitive Lands Overlay District Amendments Jonna Papaeftbimiou, Natural Resources Planner, presented the staff report. She reported the natural resources inventory had been updated, and she showed the Commissioners the maps staff had been working on. She reported that the adopted Sensitive Lands Overlay currently overlaid about 1,750 tax lots and it might potentially be expanded to overlay about 450 more tax lots by the time the updated resources inventory was ready to adopt. Mr. Eg11er said it was better to identify and inventory protected lands outside the city limits before they were annexed. Ms. Papaefthimiou suggested several strategies for making code changes. Alternatives included utilizing a public forum, and/or task force, and/or the Natural Resources Advisory Board (NRAB), . and deferring Sensitive Lands Overlay (SLO) changes to periodic review to fashion the big picture perspective first and thereafter work out the details. The Commissioners were inclined to address the easiest ·housekeeping changes and the changes necessary for Metro compliance first and then utilize the public fol1llll and a task force. Mr. Egner suggested a task force might be of better service if it were charged with rewriting code, not resolving issues. Commissioner Brockman stressed the code needed to balance public need and private interests and be fair (so the property • owners and the City shared burdens, such as stormwater management). She suggested City of Lake Oswego Plllillling Commission Minutes of October 13, 2008 -Page 4 of9 • • • giving owners alternatives to either leave a drainageway as it was and set back from it, or enhance it under City oversight She stressed alloWing a house to be moved around on a resoUrce-constrained property should not be oilly to protect the resource, but also protect the spatial relationship between that house and the neighbor's house. She said owners and prospective land purchasers should be able to get a definitive answer about what they could or could not do under the code. She said the code should be something everyone could read and understand. Commissioner Brockman indicated she did not agree With limiting the owner of one acre of R -7.5 property to one house. She suggested forming a task force composed of people who lived in resource-overlaid lots to address the issues and make a recommendation to · the Planning Commission. Chair Glisson suggested such a task force should also include at-large members who wanted to maintain habitat. Commissioner Brockman stressed that the process should ensure that people believed they had been treated fairly. When Mr. Egner asked if sensitive lands protections should be fashioned after they were considered in the visioning process, Commissioner Brockman anticipated that vyould delay the process two years, which was too long. She said people had waited long enough. Chair Glisson agreed there were some decisions that could be made quickly. She suggested a task force could inform the visioning process. She indicated slte believed a task force could consider and reconu:nend policy choices. When asked, Ms. l>apaefthimiou clarified the NRAB had not examined the. sensitive lands code amendments in the kind of detail that the Platuting Commission examined them. Chair Glisson asked how the NRAB could be involved in the process. Commissioner Brockman suggested they report to a task force. Cofilmissioner Olson suggested half of the task force be propex:ty owners and the other half could be experts and planners. Staff suggested there were some changes the Planning Commission .could settle at the current hearing that corrected errors and omissions and inconsistencies in. the code and that would clarify current staff interpretation of the code. Chair Glisson invited public testimony. Pub(ic Testimony ' AudreyHMattison, 2929 Glen Eagles Road, asked if the map staff had shown that evening included buffer areas that would help the public better understand the restrictions. Ms. Papaefthimiou confirmed that it did. Ms. Mattison referred to the October 9, 2008 letter she ancJ. Michael Buck. .3155 Edgemont Road, had submitted. The letter asked the Planning Commission to form a Sensitive Lands Task Force With at least half the members to be owners of property constrained by sensitive lands. Ms~ Mattison said it was appn;>priate for the Planning Commission to have both. the maps and the text amendment when they considered the changes. It was important that all affected owners .understand what the changes meant. She said she believed the City should focus on ways to encourage people to Wailt to protect sensitive lands (using tools such as pilot programs and tax exemptions) before they codified regulations. · City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes ofOctober 13, 2008 Page 5 of9 Carolyne Jones, 2818 Poplar Way, cautioned the Commissioners not to rush, the process. She stressed they needed to examine an4 consider the maps and text together at • the hearing to follow due process. Kirk Smith, 15847 Springbrook Court, referred to Lake Oswego Code (LOC) 50.16.040 and asked the Commissioners not to agree to allow staff to issue a ''counter variance" to setbacks so an applicant could avoid a formal variance process. He said he , lived along Springbrook Creek and the proposed code change would mean that he would have no right to object if staff granted his neighbor a variance that brought the neighbor's house closer to his house. Commissioner Brockman agreed that he would have no basis for appealing the staff decision because the code would allow staff to move the other house around solely to adjust the resowce disturbance ar~a. How that impf.lcted the :?:one- required setback and his house would not be a code criterion. If it were not a code criterion, it could not be the ba.Sis for an appeal. Mr. Smith described proposed changes to LOC 50.16.085 as "modification by creeping." He said he knew when he bought hi_s property that he lived aJong f.l str~am ar1d would not be allowed to erect a fence or build a house as large as the lot might otherwise accommodate. He observed that staff interpretation of the code had "morphed" over time from a position that the owner of a completely constrained lot had a right to a single- family house; to a right to a "reasonable" house, which was the maximum house. He stressed that their interpretation hf.ld never been examined, voted on ar1d adopted in a public process. He said his experience as a mtitlicipal attorney made him aware the code had inconsistent sections and cross references to language that had been deleted. He stressed the code should be fair and make sense,. He said it was not fair and put those Who could not afford to,hire a land use attorney at a disadvantage. Sensitive Lands Ordinance Housekeeping Changes Ms. Papaefthimiou explained each of the proposed "housekeeping" changes and the Commissioners indicated whether they agreed to each change or wanted to schedule time for the public to weigh in. They agreed to changes to correct the scale of maps; spell out the acronym EESE, and 'iorrect inconsistencies between the resource setback area that was regulated and the area that was reviewed. They agreed to the proposed process of correcting a mapping error and plaillled to submit an accompanying recommendation that the City Council refund the application fee when an owner successfully proved there was no resource to be protected. They agreed to codifY current staff practice to allow protected trees in a stream corridor to be counted as part of the stream buffer as well as part of the 50% protected tree grove because they said it made sense to protect trees in a stream corridor and it offered the owner more flexibility in planning the site. Staff clarified the change would not preclude buffet averaging. The Commissioners agreed to specify the Army Corps of Engineers' method was the only method to be used to delineate wetlands after staff explained it was an objective method used by most other jurisdictions and the federal government. • The Commissioners asked Mr. Boone to explain the need to change language that • allowed decisions by the "City Manager" to decisions by the "Reviewing Authority." City of L&ke Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 13,2008 Page 6 of9 • • • Staff explained the City Manager could delegate decision-making to staff. The Coininissioners asked what "revieWi.r;tg authority" meant. Mr. Boone explained that some changes were proposed to allow staff to make ministerial decisions when the decision had to be based on cle~ and objective standards. But when a land use decision involved discretionary standards, it was to be made :bY the appropriate public review body. That was why staff recommended saying, "reviewing authority," instead of ''City Manager." Coii1IIlissioner Brockman , suggested offering citizens who came to the planning department to get information about the Sensitive Lands Ordinance the definition of ''reviewing authority" so they knew who that was. The Commissioners theri' agreed to this change. The Commissioner§" agreed to change "yard setbacks" to "building setbacks" to be consistent with other sections of the code. Staff clarified that the "lot depth" issue would be considered in the policy hearings phase of the CO'C update process. The Planning Cotnmission agreed to change the provision that said the Resource Conservation Protection Area .(RCP A) shall "maintain viable habitat" to "consist of viable habitat" so readers would not assume they had to maintain it. Staff discussed changes to the Resource Conservation (RC) District (tree gtove) !;tandards. This section referred to a list of allowable uses in another subsection, which would be changed later in the process. The Commissioners agreed to it, but suggested it should more clearly tell the reader where to locate the list. The CoilliJ1issioners agreed to a provision that protected tree roots by requiring a driveway to be 5 feet from an RCP A and clarified an existing provision that the driveway could pass through an RCP A on one property to serve the buildable area of an adjacent property. Staff explained the 5-foot setback made this provision consistent with the existing 5-foot construction setback from a· protected tree grove, and the 5-foot buffer was not counted as RCP A. They said mitiga,tion of the impact was required to ensure the RCP A atea was the same size after the driveway was installed as it was before. They said both a private street and a public street had to have the 5-foot setba,ck. Staff said the changes would allow driveways, public streets, bus stops and lake trams to be located in the RCPA when there was no other practicable access method. Ms. Jones suggested that trams be allowed through the RP District (stream corridors) as well. Chair Glisson recalled testimony from people who were concerned that allowing streets to cross sensitive lands in order to meet the City goa,l of street connectivity created unnecessary impacts, She indicated she was not ready to approve that change until she heard additional testirrtony. Staff explained the RC District standards referred to-transit stops because they might have to be in a tree grove at a park. Commissioner Brockman suggested changing the proposed provision to refer only to connectivity between larger arterial or major collector streets. Chair Glisson favored setting such a threshold. Mr. Egner advised that local street standards specified the spacing and size of streets and the intent of the proposed coiltlectivity provision had been to resolve conflicts between those standards and the RCP A provisions. The Commissioners agreed to all the provisions, except the language related to street coilnectivity. They asked staff to prepare to disctJss the implications later . City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 13, 2008 P;:t.ge 7 of9 The Commissioners agreed to a change that would consistently use the term, "street" instead of "roadway" ot "private street." Staff explained a change that applied the same requirement for shared driveways in tree groves as was already applied in stream corridors. The intent was to minimize the impact. The Cpnunissioners agreed to set this decision aside until they heard public coiilment after Corrtmissionet Brockman observed there were)maintenance and liability issues associated with shared driveways. They asked staff to prepare to discuss that issue and the impacts of more driveways. Chair Glisson ·recalled the Laurelhurst Neighborhood of Portland featured many shared driveways. Staff explained a provision had been clarified that addressed situations where the RCP A had been designated ap.d the structure had been built, and then the lot was partitioned and the second house needed access through the RCP A. In that case the lost RCP A had to be made up elsewhere. The Commissioners agreecJ to this, but suggested clarifying that the RCP A was to be compensated for the lost portion to accommodate a "new" street or transportation facility. "' Staff proposed a change to clarify that "land disturbance" in a resource protection area triggered a review, but adding another story over the existing footprint did not. They clarified that zpne and SLO standards and the building code had to be met; so nothing in this provision allowed the owner to break the zone's maximum height or setback rules. · They recalled the Commissioners had previously decided to examine LOC 50.16.040, Modifications to Dimensional Standards and Setbacks of the underlying zone, in a future public hearing, so that would be when they considered the issue of how much encroachment into side yards could be ·allowed by staff maneuvering the footprint. Commissioner Brockman saw major policy implications. She was concerned that someone who wanted to adcJ a story to his one-story structure would read in this section that additions to existing or nonconforming structures were permitted, provided they did not expand lot coverage, and think he could ,proceed without finding out about other standards that applied. She said the provision needed to specify e:><actly what owners could and could not do. Staff explained they were trying to say that the mere fact the first floor was in a resoijl"ce area did not prevent the owner from adding a second story .. · They said when someone asked what their options were in a resource area staff needed to ask what they planp.ed to do. They stressed that base zone standards could not be ignored. Vice Chair Stewart suggested adding a ''blanket" statement to remind people they were still subject to any other applicable zone st::u1cJards. Staff observed the Commissioners generally agreed with the intent of the provision, but wanted better language. Staff said they would revise it. Commissioner Brockman moved to continue LU 08-0051 and LU 08-0052 to November 10. 2008. Commissioner Olson seconded the motion and it p_3sSed 4:0. LU 08-0031, Amel)dments to Citizen Involvement Guidelines Commissioner Brockman moved to approve LU 08-0031, Findings. Conclusi~ns and Order. Vice Chair Stewart seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 13, 2008 Page 8 of9 , • • • • • • VI. OTHER BUSINESS ~PLANNING COMMISSION None . VII. OTHER BUSINESS -COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Planning Coii1IIlission, Chair Glisson adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 13, 2008 Respectfully submitted, 9.~ Iris Treinen Administrative Support Page 9 of9 v