Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2008-11-10 (02)• • City of Lake Oswego d Planning Commission Minutes : fe _,pro November 10,2008 / \ I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Julia Glisson called the Planning Commission meeting of Monday, November 10, 2008 to order at 6:00p.m. in the Cmillcil Chamb~rs of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL III. Members present were Chair Julia Glisson, Vice Chair Philip Stewart and Commissioners Adriai1Ile Broclqnan, Mmy Olson, Scot Siegel* and Alison Webster. City Council liaison Frank Groznik was present for part of the meeting. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Sarah Selden, Neighborhood Planner; Laura Weigel, Neighborhood Planner, Sidaro Sin, Senior Planner; Jonna Papaefthimiou, Natural Resoutces Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris Treinen, Administrative Support. CITIZEN COMMENT None. IV. MINUTES Commissioner Brocklll.an moved to approve the Minutes of_ July_ 28. 2008. Commissioner Olson seconded the rn.otion l:llld it passed 4:0. Commissioner Webster. recused herself and Coiilii:ii_ssi<mer Siegel was not present. Commissioner Brocklll.an moved to approve the Minutes of September 22. 2008. Commissioner Olson seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. Commissioner Siegel was not present. Commissioner Brockman moved to approve the Minutes o(September 29. 2008. Vice Chair Stewart seconded the lllOtion and it passed 4:0. Commissioner Webster recused herself and Commissioner Siegel was not present. *Commissioner Siegel joined the meeting at 6:07p.m . · City of Lake Oswego ~Ianning Commission Minutes ofNovember 10, 2008 Page 1 of 10 V. OTHER BUSINESS-PLANNING COMMISSION ~eq~est for <;ode Tex.t Amend111~nt f~o~ ()ur Lady oft~e Lake ~hurch Mark Stayer and Father Joseph McMahon, representing Our Lade of the Lake Church, asked the Commissioners to consider amending the code so it allowed private schools to have as much lot coverage as public schools (see Reverend McMahon's October 31, 2008 letter to the Planning Conunission). They explained the church wanted to remodel the parochial school. The code limited its lot coverage to 25%, but public schools were ~llowed to cover 35% of the lot. They explained that the Evergreen Neighborhood Overlay Code imposed the front setback plane that pushed the building far . back on the lot, but the lot was sloped and that would "cut off the top of the building." They said that limitation was appropriate for a residential structure, but was not fair to a commercial project like theirs. Staff asked the Commissioners if they wanted staff to initiate a process to explore such code changes, and if the Commissioners wanted to suggest what that process should be. They advised there was IJ.O existing process that allowed a member of the public to do so. They explained that public schools were defined as "major public facilities" and those sites had been recently rezoned Public Function (PF), which allowed the larger lot coverage. Private schools were defined as "institutionl:ll uses" and they had not beeiJ. considered during the PF rezoning process, so they were still limited by whatever zone they were in. The Commissioners observed such a code change could impact many neighborhoods and they directed staff to ask all neighborhood association chairs to comment, and to arrange a Planning Commission work session with them if they wanted one; Commissioner Siegel advised staff to research how the ReligiOlJ.S Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act might affect the City. Staff confmrted the front plane issue seemed to be how the building would relate to A Avenue. Mr. Stayer explained the building would have to be set back 16 feet from the street and was limited to a roof pitch that matched residential development in that area. Father McMahon explained the chu:rch. wa,nted to position th~ building in a way that would ensure there was a larger buffer on the residential neighborhood sides of the sit~. VI. WORK SESSIONS Neighborhood Planning Sarah Selden and Laura Weigel, Neighborhood Planners, presented the Staff report. They suggested forming a work group ~o meet a few times to fashion a recommendation to the Planning Conunission that the Commission could recommend to the City Council before their next goal setting session in January 2009. The group would be composed of staff, Planning Commissioners, a City Councilor, and neighborhood representatives. They would recommend a process to use to select the next neighborhood to be planned, a process and timeline for a neighborhood plan, and a format and contents templat~. Commissioner Brockman recalled the City Council discussion of the Palisades Neighborhood Plan and saw a need for the group to help the City Council understand what the function of a neighborhood plan was. She said the process should offer a format the planners could use to incorporate neighborhood plan policies and implementation . strategies. She said the work group and staff should talk to the City Attorney and clarify City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes ofNovember 10, 2008 P~ge 2 of 10 r • • • '·' • • . what the "regulatory policy" was. She said the City needed to decide if neighborhoods could be allocated funds and offered the ability to add projects to the City's Capital Improvement Project program. Commissioners Brockman and Olson and Chair Glisson volunteered to join the working group. Commissioner Webster moved to approve the formation of a "Neighborhood Plan Work Group," as outlined in the November 10, 2008 staff memorandum. ·Commissioner Brockman seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. Comprehensive. Plan Update(PeriodicReview!Vi.sioning <P:P 08~0012) Sidaro Sin, Senior Pianner, updated the Commissioners on the status of the work program . al)d outreach effort. He reported that staff had held public forums and talked to other City boards and coinmissions to find out what people thought should be addressed. He said he planned to describe their proposed work program to the Planning Commission at their December 8th meeting. He explained that staff believed that a broad, all-inclusive, public involvement process Was in the best interest of the City and they would recommend a process for that, but another altem~tive would be to address just those items on the DLCD periodic review "checklist," which had to be accomplished within thtee years, so they would also recommend a process for that. When asked, Mr. Sin confirmed that the staff report would be submitted to the DLCD before December gth, but it was unlikely that agency would issue their response .before the Platliling Commission meeting. He also confirmed that staff would summarize and present all public comments received. When invited by the Chair, no one suggested additional items for the work program. Chair Glisson thanked Mt. Sin for his work. VII. PUBLIC HEARING Community Development Code. Amendments A request from the City of Lake Oswego for amendments to the Community Development Code (CDC)· and an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, continued from October 13,2008. Ordinance 2527, LU 08-0051, CDC-Sensitive Lands Overlay District Amendments. Amends portions of the Community Development Code Article 50.16. Proposed updates pertain to the following topics: consistent usage of terms, permitted uses in tesoutce 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 aiid Tualatin Rivers, hazardous materials storage, and ivy removal as a condition of development approvaL Staff coordinator is Jonna Papaefthimiou, Natural Re~ources Planner. Ordinance 2525, L U 08-0052, CDC -General Housekeeping Amendments. Amends portions of the Community Development Code, Chapter ·50, for the purpose of clarification, correction, formatting, and updating sections. Proposed updates pertain to City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes ofNovember 10, 2008 Page 3 of 10 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 management area, building design, open space, landscaping, access, on-site circulation, street conn~ctivity, 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 Planning Manager. . - Chair Glisson opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedure and criteria. She asked the Commissioners to declare anY ex parte conUicts (Including site visits), bias or conflict of interest regarding the application. None were declared. Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, recalled the Commissioners had been concemed that proposed ru:nendments to LOC 50.16, Sensitive Lands Overlay District allowed staff to modify setbacks of minor developments within a delineated Resource Protection (RP) District or its buffer. He clarified that although a party who. had testified had called this a "counter variance," it was not a "variance" that was regulated in the variance section of the code [LOC 50.68]. He advised the Commissioners to consider whether the proposed criteria staff was to base modification on were appropriate. He noted the process included notification of neighbors and the staff decision was appealable to the Development Review Commission (DRC). Commissioner Brockman saw a need to add criteria-regarding how the development related to the neighbors. Public Testimony Kate Ludwig, 15818 Springbrook Court, questioned how the owners of a property in her neighborhood could be allowed to enlarge their home until it towered over neighbors' houses, blocking their air and sunlight, and would be so close to the narrow, curved street it would create a·traffic hazard. She said the notice that had been sent out had not offered enough. information to alert neighbors about what was b~ing proposed, in time for them to take action_. She said other owners of the mostly cottage-style homes in the R-7.5 neighborhood had understood for years they could not add onto their homes because they were close to Springbrook Creek. Commissioner Brockman reported that she had met with the neighbors and had to advise them that the code offered them no remedy because the applicable criteria focused solely . on how the house related to the protected resources and it did not address impacts on neighbors. When asked, Mr. Boone confirmed that minor development was subject to the Solar Access code. Staff suggested a "maximum development area" limit might have helped. The Commissioners looked forward to examining case studies and fashioning . criteria to address building-to-building relationships when they discussed LOC 50.16.040, Modifications to Dimensional standards and Setbacks of the Underlying Zone. Chair Glisson announced a five-minute break in the proceedings and thereafter reconvened the hearing. . ,. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes ofNovember 10, 2008 Page 4 of 10 • • ' • c • Kirk W. Smith, 15847 Springbrook Court, said he thought LOC 50.16.040 should be eliminated because it was a "counter variance" that violated the Land Use Boatd of Appeals (LUBA) and Oregon appellate court case law because a planner made a decision and there was no record to use to appeal. Jonna Papaefthimiou, Natural Resources Planner, then presented ''housekeeping changes,'' · She explained code changes listed under this category clarified current staff interpretation of the code, incorporated current staff practices, and corrected errors and omiSSions. As she went through the Hst and explained them, the Commissioners indicated whether or not they accepted each proposed change. The Commissioners accepted a change that made it easier to repair existing houses in : protected resource areas by allowing work activity within a ten-foot Wide perimeter. · They were concerned that people would not be allowed to adequately fence children's play areas and keep their dogs in their yard if they had to use "wildlife friendly" fencing, which required a one-foot opening at the bottom and had to be less than four feet tall so wild anh:mtls could go over and under it. Staff explained the code already called for fencing that allowed wildlife passage in resource districts so wild animals would not get trapped. Ms. Papaefthimiou showed examples of different types of fences and combinations of fencing material that could be used and advised that the City Manager would have the authority to approve some other design of fence that served the same purpose. She said most lots that featured a resource district had other area that was not in the district where they could erect fences to protect children and pets. She clarified the new standard would only apply to fencing erected after the change was adopted. The Commissioners then accepted this change because they planned to fashion some type of exception or special standard to apply to lots that were completely within a resource district when they considered what was reasonable development on such lots.. They also accepted a change that consolidated several City plant lists into one list. Car.olyne .Jones,H 2818 Poplar Way, s~d her lot was totally encumbered by natural resources; but her neighbors' lots were not. She indicated that she disagreed with the proposed wildlife fencing and asked why she had to allow deer to destroy her garden and yard. She related that neighbors' fences forced wild animals o'nto unfenced property, onto the roadway where they had been hit by cars, and into the stream corridor where they polluted the water. The Commissioners then considered changes to Resource Conservation (RC) and Resource Protection (RP) District Development Standards. They ~greed to allow developers to use the tunneling method ~o install utility lines under the RC District because it avoided tree roots. They agreed to allow tunneling under a stream if it did not harm the resource. Commissioner Brockman stated that sewer lines could be installed in streambeds in a manner th~t did not damage the resource. The Commissioners agreed to clarify that developers were not allowed to. make drainage alterations that damaged resources. Ms. Jones recalled the City had damaged the natural environment when it installed utility pipes. She stressed the regulations should specify the City as well. The Commissioners agreed to consistently use the term, "Resource Protection District," City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes ofNovember 10, 2008 Page 5 of 10 instead of, "Resource Preservation District." They agreed to consolidate all requirements for setbacks into one code section for easy reference. Staff proposed a change to clarify current code provisions that allowed tree removal from a resource protection area under specific circ~stances, such as when a tree was hazardous (i.e., posed a safety risk to persons or property); when it needed to be removed in an emergency situation; if it were an invasive species; if reJ;npval wot.,Ild enhance the resource; or to accommodat~ approved development, such as a trail. Ms. Papa~fthimiou clarified trees coUld not be removed for landscaping purposes or because they were dead. She explained dead trees served as habitat. When the Commissioners asked if trees with rot could be removed from wooded areas where children p~ayed -like Springbrook Canyon-or if an ugly, brown, dead, tree could be removed for aesthetic purposes, staff advised a Hazard Tree Removal Permit could be used when a tree was likely to fall and injure persons or property and a dead tree could be pruned for aesthetic reasons. Ms. Jones cautioned that leaving dead wood as habitat for animals could increase problems with carpenter ants and termites. The Commissioners recalled testimony of a representative of the Lake Forest Neighborhood Association and agreed to examine the issues of connectivity of streets and public rights-of-way through a resource area and requiring shared driveways in a future public forum. They ~ccept~d ~ word change (to delete the word, "new") so both new construction and existing, nonconforming houses (houses constructed within 1 0 feet of the resource buffer before the buffer was established) had to comply with the 10-foot construction buffer. Staff explained it would prevent the owner of a nonconforming , structure from increasing its nonconformity (encroaching further into the resource) when it was remodeled. ~s. Jones questioned why bt.,Iilding in ~ resource ~ea was ·~ problem. She recalled the Frank Lloyd Wright house that had a waterfall going through it. She suggested standards to make houses compatible with a resource area, such as not allowing treated wood to be used. Staff offered to distribute Metro's scientific justification of even greater resource setbacks than Lake Oswego applied to protect riparian zones and water quality. Mr. Smith contrasted the focus on protecting a resource area with the lack of protection of his family from the neighbor who remodeled and expanded his house until it was too close _to his house. He stressed that adoption of LOC 50.16.040, Modifications to Dimensional Standards and Setbacks of the Underlying Zone would mean that would happen to others. Commissioner Brockman assured him that code provision would be addressed -later as a policy issue and he could testify at that time too. She suggested developers be required to use the variance process in the interim. -' The Commissioners suggested the proposed provision specifying the setback for lighting should be incorporated into a previous provision thfl.t already described setbacks for decks and accessory structiires. Ms. Papaefthimiou explained it was proposed to clarify· an existing code prohibition again~t shining light into a resource area. When asked why, she explained light adversely impacts wildlife habitat because it influences the behavior of r • • wildlife, insects and fish. She cl~fied that patio lights and other outdoor lights that were • pointed at the patio, or any developed area were allowed if they did not shine into the RC City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes ofNovember 10, 2008 Page 6 of 10 • • • or RP area. Commissioner Brockman held this was a policy issue because her neighbors' houses were along the Springbrook Creek corridor and their decks and patios were generally within the stream buffer. Ms. Papaefthimiou advised the code already said people could not shine lights into a resource buffer and the City would not issue an electrical permit to fnstall a light there. The Commissioners accepted the proposed change as the "rule," but planned to consider allowing "exceptions" related to outdoor lighting, accessory structures and . fences on completely or largely resource-constrained lots when they considered what was reasonable development on such lots. Ms. Jones said sbe understood the new lighting code only applied to public property. She stressed outdoor lighting was an important safety feature, Staff clarified that the recently adopted lighting standards were actually stricter standards, ~d that a public facility also had to comply with resource protection standards. The CoilliiJ.issioners accepted a change that prohibited fences within twenty feet of a stream's centerline. They agreed to changes that clarified that resource enhancement projects could occur in the buffer and allowed temporary degradation during construction, as long as the applicant submitted an enhancement plan showing how they would repair the damage. They accepted a change that closed a loophole that allowed using a lot line adjustment to create a totally encumbered lot. The current provision only prohibited a partition that would create such a lot. The Commissioners examined proposed changes that related to construction near resources. The "City Manager," or his delegate (likely the City Engineer), would review the plans. The Commissioners heard Ms. Jones ask why canals were treated differently than other bodies of water and anticipated they might eventually refashion the existing classification system (perhaps based on the function of the water body). Staff explained the current classification system had been based on the quality of a resource at the time , the natural resource inve-ntory was conducted. Cortuhissioner Brockman advocated basing classification on function and held that owners of property on a . drainageway should have more planting options and less buffer area. Staff saw a need for a post-development-approval process that required the developer to submit a construction plan and narrative describing how the. protected resource area would be protected during construction. They thought that would eliminate some inadvertent violations during the construction phase. Mr. Boone planned to talk to Mr. Pishvaie to find, out how adding that to the process would affect the 120-day rule timeline. Commissioner Siegel reported the City of Corvallis held such a follow-up conference. Staff proposed to correct an error .in the code and require an RP District as well as tbe RC District to be protected during construction whether the resource area had been delineated or not. When asked, Ms. Papaefthiiniou explained that sometimes it had never been . delineated because the resource was on adjacent property and sometimes the construction activity was related to repair or maintenance of an existing structure. She stressed the resource should be protected in any case. The Commissioners accepted temporary construction standards that protected resource areas by requiring protection fencing City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes ofNovember 10, 2008 Page 7 of 10 around a wetland or stream, as well as around trees to be preserved. They agreed the fencing could be six feet high (which was also a Tree Code standard), and an alternate 'method of protection would be' accepted I if it achieved the same protective purpose in • areas where erecting a fence was impractical or unnecessary. They accepted changes that clarified that when temporary draining of a water body Was necessary to perform work in a stream, it could not be permanent, and it had to be planned to minimize excavation. Ms. Papaefthimiou explained this would typically apply to City projects and such projects were subject to Army Corps of Engineers approval. Commissioner Brockman related that the sewer line frorp Mountain P~k w~s in Springbrook Creek. The Commissioners continued to examine changes to construction standards to be applied near protected resource areas. They accepted a change to require surface water to be managed so there were no adverse impacts to the resource. When Ms. Jones asked if this provision would interfere with a property owner's ability, to manage their own stortnwater, the Commissioners clarified they were examining proposed changes to short- term construction standards for approved development projects that would ensure the project would not alter pre-COI)stn,lction hydrology and exacerbate erosion. Ms. Papaefthimiou explained that the code already contained tree removal mitigation requirements, and the proposed revision would codify the current staff practice of asking the applicant to submit a task list, timelitie and measurable goals. Staff confirmed for the Commissioners and Barbara Zeller that the tree remov~l permit required three years of monitoring the· mitigation planting, and larger projects were required to submit a performance bond, or some other security, such as a letter of credit. They advised that the • code priority was onsite mitigation planting for impacts to protected resou.rces, but if that were not possible, planting was to be as close to the project as possible. If that was not possible the Tree Code offered an alternative to pay into the City; s tree fund the amount listed on the City's Master Fee Schedule (see LOC 55.02). Staff proposed changes that would require those who il_legally damaged the protected resource to be obligated to submit a mitigation plan and monitor and maintain the resource for three years. Mitigation was to be with plants on the consolidated City plant list. When Ron Anderson asked how mitigation was enforced, Ms. Papaefthimiou explained that was cuq~ntly the responsibility of code enforcement staff. Next Steps The Commissioners noted they had addressed and accepted the bulk of proposed· code changes and wol!ld eventually vote to recommend them. They directed staff to compile a simplified list of changes they had accepted so they could refer· to it at future meetings. They directed staff to compile the list of policy issues that would require further attention and to schedule a public forum to present them and. solic.it comments. They anticipated they would also eventually discuss whether to recommend that the City Council form a work group to examine them. Staff confirmed that the proposed revised Sensitive Lands District map was available to the public on the City website; that they had a list of all (about 400) additional properties • . City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes ofNovember 10,2008 PageS of 10 .. • • • the revised ovetlay would affect; and that they would invite owners to a public forum. They suggested holding a separate forum to discuss the Sensitive Lands mapping changes . in order to have time on that occasion to explain the process and studies. used to extend the resource protection district onto more properties and to address all the issues it might raise. Another reason Was because the majority of newly added properties were in the county, not the City. Staff clarified that they were not yet ready to send the revised map out in a legal notice because they were not finished finalizing it and they might remove the overlay from some properties. Ms. Papaefthimiou related she had already met with at least 40 propertY owners at their houses. ' The Commissioners suggested staff send a letter to the chairs of all neighborhood assocations and submit an article to the local newspaper to tell the public the proposed map was available on the City's website and to outline the Plartrting Commission's "next steps.'' They asked staff to try to schedule a public forw:n the first week of December. If that were not possible they asked staff to schedule a fotum in January 2009. Commissioner Brockman suggested the Commissioners consider looking at the ·list of policy issues to see if they could address any of them prior to the public forum. She explained the Commissioners might be able to list options for determining what was reasonable development on completely resource-encumbered property and forward them to the City Council to consider. However, Comtnissioner Webster and Chair Glisson saw a need for more public input on all issues before they did that. Chair Glisson thanked Ms. Papaefthimiou for her work. VIII. OTHER BUSINESS -PLANNING COMMISSION (CONTINUED) Planning Commission Goals 2009 Mr. Egner said the Planning Commission must identify their 2009 goals and forward them to the City Council before the Council's goal setting session in January 2009. He provided them with copies of 2008 Planning Commission and City Council goals. He recalled he had also sent them a suggested fout-yeat work progtain in October. Commissioner Siegel suggested it would be helpful to find out what the Council wanted to focus on so the Planning Commission could select appropriately related projects from the long list of projects they might work on.. He said that would enable the Commissioners and staff to devote quality time to a few of those projects. Chair Glisson observed that the Planning Commission was working on a long list of code revisions that had accumulated over the past thtee years. She. asked if there could be a process in which staff brought suggested changes to the Planning Comm_isslon when they identified a need for them. Commissioner Siegel suggested staff design a process that solicited public input before staff brought the proposal to the Planning Commission so the Commissioners could be less involved in "fashioning a process and more involved in critical review of the proposal. He commended staff for the efficient rriahiler in which they had presented the Sensitive Lands amendments. Commissioner Brockman moved to continue LU 08-00SJ andLU 08-0052 to November 24. 2008. Vice Chair Stewart seconded the motion and it passed 6:0 . City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes ofNovember 10,2008 Page 9 of 10 The Commissioners discussed the suggestion to repeal LOC 50.16.040, Modifications to Dimensional standards and Setbacks of the Underlying Zone, and require those kinds of modifications to be subject to the variance process. This was to be an interim measure • until the issue of allowing. such modifications to be a miilisterial decision that was solely focused on protecting the resource was addressed. Commissioner Brockman moved to repeal LOC 50.16.040 and require applicants to use the variance process until the Planning Commission could address the issue or recommend the City Council address the issue. Commissioner Siegel seconded the ·motion and discussion followed. Commissioner Broclanan anticipated the Commissioners could decide at their next meeting whether to keep it out or put it back into the recommendation they forwarded to the City Council. Mr. Boone advised the Commissioners could insert a "Suilset ClaQ.se" that set a· date for it to expire and Commissioner Brockman suggested it could expire after 180 days (six months). The motion passed 5:1. Commissioner Webster voted against, indicating she felt she did not h~ve ~nough information to vote for it. IX. OTHE-R BUSINESS -COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT None. X. ADJOURNMENT The next meeting was scheduled for November 24, 2008. There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Glisson adjourned the _meeting at • approximately 10:00 p.m. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes ofNovember 10,2008 Qly submitted, Iris Treinen Administrative-Support • Page 10 of 10