HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 2004-08-09 PM ,,ku°s City of Lake Oswego
f
• , Planning Commission
Monday,August 9, 2004
6:00 p.m
Work Session
Members:
Kenneth L.Sandblast,Chair
City Hall Council Chamber
Frank Gro.73ik,Vice Chair 380 A Avenue
M.aiy Beth Coffey,Mark stayer,Daniel vim and Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Alison Webster
For Information: 503/635.0290
Council Liaison: Jack Hoffman
.AGENDA
This meeting is in a handicapped accessible location. For any special accommodations,please
contact Iris Treinen, 503/697-6591,48 hours before the meeting.
I. CALL TO ORDER 4 ,.. ,
A ED
II. ROLL CALL
III. CITIZEN COMMENT-Regarding Issues Not On the Agenda(3 minute l' t per individual)
0
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
June 28, 2004
July 12, 2004
V. GENERAL PLANNING—WORK SESSION
• LU 04-0004 Community Development Code Updates
Staff coordinator is Susan Millhauser, Associate Planner.
• P 027 Lakefront Zoning
Staff coordinator is Deborah Andreades, Associate Planner.
• P 04-41007 Variances and Adjustments
Staff coordinator is Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager.
• P 04-0008 Partitions and Flag Lots
Staff coordinator is Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager.
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
10 VII. ADJOURNMENT
Agenda Book*
.,
1
II `,et° `P42
Community Development
, Department
i
•
`— Fr
Memorandum
S
TO: Lake Oswego Planning Commission
FROM: Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager
PREPARED BY: Susan Milihauser, Associate Planner t
SUBJECT: August 9, 2004 Work Session on 2004 Community Development Code
Update (LU 04-0004)
DATE: August 2, 2004
ACTION:
The purpose of the work session is to continue revi
S ew and discussion of proposed updates to
the Community Development Code (CDC)with the Planning Commission prior to holding a
community open house and public hearings (scheduled for September 27, 2004).
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Division and the City Attorney's Office have been working on proposed changes
to the Lake Oswego Code (LOC). The purposes of this update are multiple: correct errors,
eliminate text ambiguity, update for Oregon statutory changes, clarify code text so that it reflects
existing code interpretations, reorganize for reader and staff ease in using the codes, and to
make minor substantive changes. This annual process is part of the City's on-going effort to
make the regulations more accessible for developers, residents, and city staff.
Attachment C, Community Development Code Update 2004—Additional Provisions, draft July
29, 2004, shows proposed changes to the Community Development Code— LOC 50.
Following consideration and recommendation by the Planning Commission, a formal ordinance
to update the Community Development Code, listing the code sections recommended for
revision, will be prepared, in numerical order. ("Section )0XXX" preceding each code section is
a placeholder; the actual ordinance section number will be assigned when the formal ordinance
is prepared.)
DISCUSSION:
The proposed code amendments have been organized on a "subject matter" basis, rather than
numerically. Thus, sometimes, a code section appears in multiple sections of the attached
0 Update because changes are proposed to a code section that combines multiple needs for code
section revision. When reading a code section proposed for multiple revisions, it should be read
Planning Commission Work Session—August 9, 2004 Page 1
LU 04-0004—Community Development Code Update 2004
as limited to the subject matter being addressed. In other words, revisions to code sections are
cumulative: if a code section is proposed to be modified for two reasons, then if both
amendments are recommended, the final ordinance version will contain the code revisions
proposed to implement both changes.
The attached annotated version of ordinance amendments sets forth a brief summary of the
reason for the proposed revision underneath either the proposed subsection, or at the end of
the section (shown with highlighting). Proposed updates are grouped into the following major
topic areas.
1) Additional Provisions (pp. 1-19)—The following updates include new items that have
been added into the proposed CDC update document in sections that the Planning Commission
has already reviewed
a. Administrative Modification (FAN) (p. 1) —The proposed update is to correct the list
of what qualifies for an administrative modification in the R-6 zone (First Addition).
b. Standards for Approval (Parking) (p. 1)—This revision to the parking standards
reflects how compliance with the parking standard is now determined for residential
development.
c. Garage Appearance and Location (pp. 4-5)—The proposed update is to reflect the
intent of this section that garages for corner lots (attached or detached)are to be
situated directly behind and set in by more than 2 feet from a line extended from the
side elevation towards the rear lot line. Additionally, the drawing in Appendix 50.07-
B has been revised to add a side-accessing garage on a corner lot, showing the
garage behind the house. •
d. Accessory Uses (p. 5)—The proposed addition to this section is to reflect that
special R-6 zone accessory structure requirements exist and should be used instead
of the setback reductions allowed by this section.
e. Structure Design — Residential zone (pp. 6-8)—The title three sections have been
changed from "Dwelling Design"to"Structure Design"as the old title is misleading,
as it suggests that the section only applies to dwellings. The text of the section
applies to "structures", so the title has been changed to reflect that the section
pertains to dwellings and accessory structures.
f. Pre-Application Conference (p. 8)—The proposed update reflects recent staff
recommendation that a pre-application conference be required for all minor and
major developments.
g. Garage Appearance and Location (pp. 8-12)—Several sections are proposed for
revisions that clarify standards related to garage appearance and location.
Additionally, a separate section has been created to make the garage requirements
easier to find when a person is proposing an attached garage. An attached garage
is not an accessory structure, so persons were not looking to LOC 50.07.045
Accessory Structures on how to locate a garage.
h. Commercial Uses (p. 12) —The proposed amendment clarifies that the use of
industrial tools in an artists studio is allowed in a commercial zone.
Planning Commission Work Session—August 9, 2004 Page 2
LU 04-0004—Community Development Code Update 2004
i. Definitions (Lot Coverage) (pp. 12-13)—Two revisions to the lot coverage definition
1111 are proposed. The first amendment is to make it clear that lot coverage includes the
area that is covered by any structures, not just buildings (as commonly defined).
This amendment is consistent with existing interpretation. The second proposed
revision is intended to make it clear that the reference to Net Buildable Acre is only
for the manner of calculating the street, private street and access easement area, not
that the other deductions found in Net Buildable Acre are also to be deducted from
the lot area for purposes of determining, e.g., Open Space, resource lands, hillsides,
flood, hillsides.
j. Ministerial Development Classifications (pp. 13-14)—The text proposed to be
removed serves as reminder that modifications to the buffer under LOC 50.16.030(3)
are minor developments rather than a statement of what is a ministerial development
classification. Staff has noted that the action is a minor development under the "if
not a ministerial development, then it must be a minor development" provision of the
CDC.
k. Screening, Buffering and Landscape Installation (pp. 14-15)—The proposed change
of"dwelling" to "residential structure" in second sentence of this section is made to
conform to use of"residential structure" in the first sentence. "Dwelling" is one of the
types of residential structure, but is not the only type of residential structures, i.e.,
garage. The exception language of the second sentence would thus appear to be
available only to dwellings, but not non-dwelling residential structures. Current
interpretation is that the use of"dwelling" in the second sentence was not intended in
its limiting definition, but was intended to apply to all residential structures subject to
• the standard.
I. Lot Coverage and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) (pp. 15-19)—There is currently an
exception in lot coverage for garages, one of which is found in the lot coverage
sections and the other found in the Garage Appearance and Location section. Staff
recommends that the lot coverage exceptions be placed in one section, for ease of
use. Additionally, when placing them together, it is helpful to define when one
section.is available—only for detached garages, regardless of orientation, and when
the other section is available-attached garages if rear-or side-loading. Another
proposed amendment in this section reformats the General Exception provisions for
ease of reader and staff.
m. Special Requirements (p. 19)—The proposed amendment clarifies that articles of
incorporation of a homeowner association or a print out from the Oregon Secretary of
State, Corporation Division showing the existence of the homeowner's association
are sufficient information to verify that a homeowners association exists, rather than
their bylaws.
n. Setback Requirements; Buffers [Old Town Design District (DD)] (pp. 19-20)—This
section currently basically requires a 25'setback on the DD lot when it abuts an East
End Commercial (EC) or R-0/EC lot. This would effectively result in a 25' setback on
the EC site and a 25' setback on the DD site, for a total of 50'setback that is
basically equivalent to the width of a typical lot in the DD zone. Variances to this
standard have been granted routinely in the past, principally because of the extreme
effect this code provision has on the DD lot. Absent a circumstance unique to the
• property, not arising from the application of a code provision, staff now believes that
the applicant cannot show an unnecessary hardship; the hardship is necessary when
Planning Commission Work Session—August 9, 2004 Page 3
LU 04-0004—Community Development Code Update 2004
it arises from the mere application of the code. Staff therefore submits that a code
amendment is warranted. Staff believes the required 25' setback on the EC lot and a
•
standard 10' setback on the DD lot would be sufficient to provide adequate
separation and buffer between the dissimilar uses. The 5-foot landscape buffer
required in LOC 50.09.025(4) to provide a vegetative screen is retained.
2) Sensitive Lands (p. 21-22)—The revisions in the Sensitive Lands section, based on
input received at the previous Planning Commission work session, make it clear that a change
of use or change of structure in the RP District requires review. This change is proposed to
address changes in uses of structures that are believed to have a negative impact on the
functions and values of the resource.
3) Collocated Telecommunication Facilities (pp. 23-29)—The proposed amendments in the
Telecommunication section relating to collocation requirements, based on input received at the
previous Planning Commission work session, are intended to address priority and suitability of
facilities for collocation.
4) Residential Infill Design (RID) Review (pp. 30-34)— Several sections of the CDC are
proposed for revision to clarify and correct elements of the RID Review process. Brief
summaries of proposed revisions follow.
a. Several proposed amendments would expand the use of the RID Review from single
family residences (detached or attached), to any outright permitted residential
dwelling or its accessory structures. Staff believes the RID Review process can be
applied to all forms of residences, includes attached dwellings, duplexes and multi-
family dwellings, to assure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. RID
Review should not, however, be available to conditional use residential dwellings,
because the neighborhood compatibility requirement is addressed through the
conditional use standards.
b. Additional amendments clarify that RID Review can be used to modify the zone
requirements as established by a Planned Development (PD) Overlay, without
requiring a PD modification.
RECOMMENDATION:
Review and discuss the proposed amendments to the CDC. Identify and discuss additional
issues of concern. Make recommendations to staff in preparation for public hearings scheduled
for September 27, 2004.
ATTACHMENTS:
C. Community Development Code Update 2004—Additional Provisions, draft July 29,
2004.
L:\Case Files\2004\LU 04-0004 2004 Community Development Code Updates\Planning Commission\PC memo
worksession 08-09-04.doc
•
Planning Commission Work Session—August 9, 2004 Page 4
LU 04-0004—Community Development Code Update 2004
Community Development Code Update 2004
40 DRAFT July 29,2004
Table of Contents
Additional Provisions 1
LOC 50.07.065 Administrative Modification (FAN) 1
50.55.010 Standards for Approval (Parking) 1
Section 50.07.045 Garage Appearance and Location 4
Appendix 50.07 —B 5
Section 50.14.005 Accessory Uses 5
LOC 50.06.060 Structure Design —R-5 Zone 6
LOC 50.07.040 Structure Design 6
LOC 50.08.045 Structure Design 7
Section 50.77.020 Pre-Application Conference 8
Section 50.06.065 Garage Appearance and Location 8
Section 50.07.047 Garage Appearance and Location 9
Section 50.08.055 Garage Appearance and Location 11
Section 50.11.010 Uses [Commercial] 12
Section 50.02.005 Definitions (Lot Coverage) 12
Section 50.79.010 Ministerial Development Classifications 13
Section 50.20.035 Screening, Buffering and Landscape Installation 14
Section 50.08.040 Lot Coverage and Floor Area Ratio (FAR). 15
Section 50.06.040 Lot Coverage [R-0—R-5 and WR zones] 17
Section 50.17.020 Special Requirements 19
Section 50.09.025 Setback Requirements; Buffers [Old Town Design
District] 19
Revised Provisions— Sensitive Lands 21
Section 50.16.015 Applicability 21
Revised Provisions —Collocation of Telecommunication Facilities 23
LOC 50.30.015 Specific Standards for Telecommunication Facilities 23
Additional Provisions — Residential Infill Design Review 30
Section 50.72.005 Purpose 30
Section 50.79.020 Minor Development Classification 30
Section 50.72.020 Authorization and Criteria 31
Section 50.68.017 Variances Not Allowable 33
Section 50.17.010 Procedures 34
411 Exhibit A— Appendix 50.07-B 36
CDC Update 2004-Additional Provisions ATTACHMENT C
DRAFT July 29,2004
• Additional Provisions
The following items are being added into the CDC Update document on a page that the
Planning Commission has already reviewed at their May 10, 2004 work session.
Section XXXX
LOC 50.07.065 Administrative Modification(FAN)
1. Notwithstanding LOC Article 50.68 (Variances), the City Manager may grant an
administrative modification to the lot coverage, height, front, and garage rear and side
yard setback requirements of the underlying zone, in the following amounts:
a. Lot coverage: Up to 200 sq. ft.
b. Front Yard Setback: Up to 2 feet.
c. Garage front yard setback: Up to 10 feet
2. The granting authority may grant an administrative modification pursuant to(1)(a),
(b) or(c), above, if:
a. The proposed development makes desirable visual linkages between
surrounding buildings by repeating or incorporating similar ridge lines,eaves,window and
door openings; or
b. The requested modification results in a development that is designed more
compatibly with the topography and/or physical limitations of the site; or
c. The requested modification will enhance or better protect a significant natural
feature(s) on the site (RC or RP Overlay districts); or
d. The proposed development provides visual continuity and cohesiveness with
• any abutting historic landmarks through the incorporation of style features, proportions
and massing of the landmark structure.
3. An administrative modification shall. be processed as a minor development
pursuant to the review procedures for minor development contained in LOC Article 50.79.
The general listing of what qualifies for an administrative modification is too numerous;
it includes items that are not within the actual scope of what can be reduced.
Section XXXX
50.55.010 Standards for Approval (Parking)
1. Vehicle Parking:
a. Required parking spaces shall be available for the parking of operable
passenger vehicles of residents, customers, patrons and employees and shall not be used
for the storage of vehicles or materials or for the loading and unloading or parking of
vehicles used in conducting the business or use.
b. Number of Required Parking Spaces:
i. Refer to Appendix 50.55-A to determine the number of parking spaces
required. The number of parking spaces specified for each type of use are the minimum
standards. Fractional space requirements shall be counted as the next highest whole space.
ii. Except for residential parking requirements, the maximum number of
parking spaces shall not exceed 125% of the minimum number of required spaces.
iii. Handicapped parking and ramps shall be provided in accordance with the
• Uniform Building Code.
CDC Update 2004-Additional Provisions Page 1
DRAFT July 29,2004
iv. In the case of mixed uses, the total requirements for off-street parking
facilities shall be the sum of the requirements for the various uses computed separately. •
c. On-Site Location of Required Parking Spaces:
i. All required parking shall be off-street. Parking may not be located in a
required yard or special street setback, except where driveways for single family
ii. Except for tandem parking in residential developments of single-family
detached and attached dwelling units, duplexes, and zero lot line dwelling units, design
shall insure that the parking of any vehicle shall not interfere with the parking or
maneuvering of any other vehicle.
Explanation: In determining whether a residential site provided sufficient off-street
parking,the Zoning Code used to provide that the garage/carport spaces were excluded
from that determination. In other wards,garage/carport parking for vehicles was riot
considered available"off-street parking",so driveway parking was used to meet the
parking requirement. A"driveway"is defined as the connection between the parking
area/garage and the street,so there must be a real parking area at the end of the
driveway, The Code was changed in 1997 to count garage/cavort parking area for
purposes of determining whether adequate parking spaces exist. It is no longer necessary
to consider the"driveway" to meet the parking standard;the real parking area is
examined to determine compliance with the parking standard,
c. On-Site Location of Required Parking Spaces:
i. All required parking shall be off-street. Parking may not be located in a
required yard or special street setback, except where driveways for single-family •
residential use constitute the required parking area.
ii. Except for tandem parking in residential developments of single-family
detached and attached dwelling units, duplexes, and zero lot line dwelling units, design
shall insure that the parking of any vehicle shall not interfere with the parking or
maneuvering of any other vehicle.
d. Parking Options:
i. Within commercial, industrial and campus institutional zones parking may
be provided on lots which are within 500 feet of the property line of the use to be served.
Within the EC (East End General Commercial) zone only, unless otherwise prohibited,
employee parking may be allowed within 1,000 feet of the property line of the use to be
served.
ii. Shared parking is allowed if the application can demonstrate that the
combined peak use is provided for by a parking study that demonstrates:
(a) There are a sufficient number of parking spaces to accommodate the
requirements of the individual businesses; or
(b) That the peak hours of operation of such establishments do not overlap,
and
(c) That an exclusive permanent easement over a delineated area has been
granted for parking space use.
e. Reduction for Parking Space Requirements:
i. Parking space requirements may be reduced in developments where
compensating factors exist which would offset the parking demand (such as Access to
CDC Update 2004-Additional Provisions Page 2
DRAFT July 29,2004
Transit Facilities, Pedestrian and Bicycle Access, Development Size, or combined, or the
40 Parking Study provision). Refer to Appendix 50.55-C for reduction options.
ii. Within the East End General Commercial zone only, only the parking
modifiers permitted by LOC 50.65.055 (Downtown Redevelopment District Design
Standards) and Development Size, or the Parking Study provision are permissible for
reduction options.
f. Parking Dimensions:
i. Refer to Appendix 50.55-B to determine the minimum dimension and
layout of parking spaces.
ii. The minimum dimension to meet single family residential parking space
requirements shall be 8 feet 6 inches wide and 18 feet 6 inches long for each space.
iii. Up to 50% of the total parking requirement may be provided in compact
car spaces. All parking spaces designated for compact vehicles shall be signed or labeled
by painting on the parking space.
g. Loading:
Loading berth in sufficient numbers and size to adequately handle the needs of
the development shall be required. The off-street parking areas to fulfill the requirements
of this standard shall not be used for loading and unloading or the storage of vehicles or
materials or parking of trucks used in conducting business or use.
h. Employee Carpool and Vanpool Parking:
Commercial and industrial development which requires a total of 50 or more
parking spaces shall designate at least 5% of the number of parking spaces as employee
carpool or vanpool parking. The carpool/vanpool spaces shall be full sized parking
• spaces. The spaces shall be clearly marked"Reserved-Carpool/Vanpool Only"with hours
of use. Except for designated handicapped parking spaces,employee carpool and vanpool
parking spaces shall be located as follows:
i. Where employee parking spaces are designated, the designated carpool and
vanpool parking spaces shall be the closest employee parking spaces to the entrance
normally used by employees.
ii. Where employee parking spaces are not designated,designated carpool and
vanpool parking spaces shall be located in close proximity to the building entrance
normally used by employees.
2. Bicycle Parking:
a. Bicycle parking shall be provided for all new multiple family residential
developments (4 units or more) and commercial, industrial and institutional uses, except
seasonal uses, such as fireworks stands and Christmas tree sales; drive-in theaters; and
self-storage facilities are exempted.
b. The minimum number of required bicycle parking spaces are listed in
Appendix 50.55-D.
c. Modifications which increase the size of existing commercial, industrial or
institutional buildings by more than 10% or a change of use shall provide bicycle parking
spaces to meet the requirements of Appendix 50.55-D for the entire development. For the
purposes of this section, an "existing building" is a building as it exists on February 19,
1998.
d. Bicycle parking shall be separated from car parking and vehicular traffic by a
physical barrier or sufficient distance to protect parked bicycles from damage by vehicles.
CDC Update 2004-Additional Provisions Page 3
DRAFT July 29,2004
•
e. Bicycle parking for multiple uses may be clustered in one or several locations
meeting all other requirements specified in this section for bicycle parking. 40
f. 100% of all required bicycle parking spaces for residential and industrial
categories shall be covered. These required bicycle parking spaces may be provided
within a building. Bicycle parking spaces for employees of commercial and institutional
uses are encouraged to be covered and secured. Cover for bicycle parking may be
accommodated by building or roof overhangs, awnings, bicycle lockers, bicycle storage
within buildings or dwelling units or free standing shelters.
g. Required bicycle parking inside a building shall be provided in a well
illuminated, secure location within 50 feet of a building entrance.
h. Outdoor bicycle parking spaces shall be clearly visible and shall be located
within 50 feet of the public entrance to the building unless clustered pursuant to subsection
(2)(e) in which case the parking spaces shall be no more than 100 feet from a public
entrance.
i. If the required bicycle parking spaces cannot be provided on-site within the EC
(East End General Commercial) zone, bicycle parking racks may be provided on the
sidewalk adjacent to the property's frontage providing a minimum five foot unobstructed
sidewalk width is maintained.
j. Bicycle parking spaces shall be a minimum of 6 feet long and 2 feet wide, and
provide a minimum 5 foot access aisle. For covered spaces the overhead clearance shall
be at least 7 feet.
Section XXXX
Section 50.07.045 Garage Appearance and Location •
[This comes from 50.07.045 Accessory Structures. It has been suggested to create a new
section for"Garages". A new section is included below-50.07.047.]
2. Garages. In addition to compliance with subsection (1) of this section, a garage shall
comply with the following requirements.
a. Garages shall be accessed from an alley, if available. If a property is located
on a corner lot, garages may also be accessed from the street that abuts the side of the
primary dwelling when the following criteria are met:
i. The garage is located between the primary structure and the alley,
ii. The garage is set back a minimum of 15 feet from the side street property
line, and
iii. The garage is set back a minimum of 2 feet from a line the-extended from
the side elevation of the primary dwelling to the rear lot line, and behind the primary
structure. See Appendix 50.07-B.
The intent is that this requires garages for corner lots(attached or detached)to be situated
directly behind and set in by more than 2 feet from a line extended from the side
elevation towards the rear lot line. As currently written,the fact that the 2 foot setback is
from the extended side elevation is not clear-it suggests that the garage may be located
to the side of the house,if separated by 2 feet. But this would not meet the requiremer t
that the garage be between the house and the alley. So it must mean that the garage in
behind the house,set back 2 feet horn the extended side elevation line.
•
CDC Update 2004-Additional Provisions Page 4
DRAFT July 29,2004
Note Appendix 50 U7;13&mini has been revised to sad e- es age o
• corner lot shoykrg the garage behind the house:'
b. For interior lots, garages shall be located so that the side of the garage facing
the street is set back a minimum of 15 feet behind the front building line of the house
(excluding a porch). (See Appendix 50.07-B).
c. When a side-loading garage wall is exposed to the street or abutting property,
the front or side of the exposed garage building wall shall have more than one plane or
shall include fenestration equal to at least 10% of the exposed garage wall.
3. This section shall not apply to secondary dwelling units, which shall be governed
by the requirements for the primary structure and LOC 50.30.010.
Section XXXX
Appendix 50.07—B
Appendix 50.07-B is amended in its entirety by Exhibit A.
Section XXXX
Section 50.14.005 Accessory Uses
1. Accessory uses are allowed in conjunction with the principal use and shall comply
with the requirements of this section and all requirements for the principal use, except
where specifically modified by this Code.
2. A greenhouse or hothouse may be maintained accessory to a dwelling only if there
are no sales.
3. A guesthouse may be maintained accessory to a dwelling provided there is no
kitchen space or cooking facilities in the guesthouse and the square footage is less than
400 square feet.
4. Pool covers shall not exceed 15 feet in height.
5. A side or rear yard setback may be reduced to three feet for an accessory structure
in a residential zone if the structure complies with the following four criteria:
a. The accessory structure is erected more than sixty-five feet from any street.For
the purposes of this section, an alley shall not be considered a street. The side and rear
setbacks for a detached garage obtaining access from an alley may be reduced to 3 feet or
to the degree the garage maintains access that provides an outside front wheel turning
radius of at least 25 feet,whichever is greater.
b. The accessory structure is detached from other buildings by five feet or more.
c. The accessory structure does not exceed a height of ten feet nor an area of six
hundred square feet.
d. The parcel is zoned other than R-6.
The*4 zone,LOC 50 0,045 o C 50.07.025 fo twiag i do DC
Update),fides fb aceessory rear andan4,aiiivyar4 setbacks of 5 feet fOiltrouturesieS
than 5;feet,or ifreater than 18 f theri side yards<muatbe not n than4feet o one
side and cumulatively not less than 15 foot id,the resi?yard is notliss than 0 Aint.
These epeeist R4 none accessory striteture requirements should he used instead°title
setbackreductions.allowed
•
CDC Update 2004-Additional Provisions Page 5
DRAFT July 29,2004
The setback exception authorized by this subsection does not apply to setbacks
required by LOC 50.22.035 (Special Setbacks). The setback exception also does not apply all
to noise producing accessory structures such as heat pumps, swimming pool motors, etc.
Flag Lots. The setback exception authorized by this subsection does not apply to flag
lots. However, a side or rear yard accessory structure setback may be reduced to six feet
on a flag lot when the above criteria(a-c) are met.
6. "Dish" type antenna may only be placed in rear yards, on the ground, and must be
screened by landscaping.
7. Except as provided in LOC Article 50.16, boat houses and docks along Oswego
Lake and its canals may be placed on a property line.
Section XXX
LOC 50.06.060 Dwelling-Structure Design—R-5 Zone
1. Front Setback Plane in the R-5 Zone.
a. Front Setback Plane. The front profile of a structure shall fit behind a plane
that starts at the front yard setback line and extends upward, to 20 feet in height, then
slopes toward the rear of the lot at a minimum slope of 6:12, up to the maximum allowed
height at the peak, as illustrated in Appendix 50.07-C.
b. Exceptions to the front setback plane. Any individual roof form may
penetrate the front setback plane if it is less than one-third of the total structure width at
20 feet in height. Two separate and distinct roof forms, such as dormers, may project
into the front setback plane if they are less than one-half of the total structure width at 20
feet in height. •
2. Maximum Side Yard Plane. The side elevation of a structure must be divided into
smaller areas or planes to minimize the appearance of bulk when viewed from
neighboring properties or a side street. When the side elevation of a primary structure is
more than 500 square feet in area, the elevation must be divided into distinct planes of
500 square feet or less. For the purpose of this standard, areas of side-yard wall planes
that are entirely separated from other wall planes are those that result in a change in plate
height or other change in plane such as a recessed or projecting section of the structure,
that projects or recedes at least 2 feet from the adjacent plane, for a length of at least 6
feet.
The text of the section applies to"structures"and thus would include dwellings and
accessory structures. The title to the section is misleading,as it suggests that the section
only applies to dwellings.
Section XXXX
LOC 50.07.040 Dwelling-Structure Design
1. Roof Design. The minimum roof pitch for primary roof forms of a single family
dwelling shall be 6:12. Shed type and flat roofs are not permitted as primary roof forms
on single family dwellings. Secondary roof forms, such as sunrooms,balconies, dormers,
porticos, or bays may be flat or shed roof types (See Appendix 50.07-A).
2. Front Porch Required. All new dwellings shall include a projecting covered front
porch a minimum width of 50% of the building width at the front building line and six feet
CDC Update 2004-Additional Provisions Page 6
DRAFT July 29,2004
deep. Porch supports shall be provided and shall be wood or masonry or a solid material
• with the appearance of wood or masonry.
3. Front Setback Plane.
a. The front profile of a structure shall fit behind a plane that starts at the front
yard setback line and extends upward to 20 feet in height, then slopes toward the rear of
the lot at a slope of 6:12, up to 28 feet in height at the peak, as illustrated in Appendix
50.07-C. This requirement shall not apply to flag lots.
b. Exceptions to the front setback plane. Any individual roof form may
penetrate the front setback plane if it is less than one-third of the total structure width at
20 feet in height. Two separate and distinct roof forms, such as dormers, may project
into the front setback plane if they are less than one-half of the total structure width at 20
feet in height.
4. Maximum Side Yard Plane. The side elevation of a structure must be divided into
smaller areas or planes to minimize the appearance of bulk when viewed from
neighboring properties or a side street. When the side elevation of a primary structure is
more than 500 square feet in area, the elevation must be divided into distinct planes of
500 square feet or less. For the purpose of this standard, areas of side-yard wall planes
that are entirely separated from other wall planes are those that result in a change in plate
height or other change in plane such as a recessed o.r projecting section of the structure,
that projects or recedes at least two feet from the adjacent plane, for a length of at least 6
feet.
The text of the section applies to"structures"and thus would include dwellings and
• accessory structures. The title to the section is misleading,as it suggests that the section
only applies to dwellings.
Section XXXX
LOC 50.08.045 Dimling Structure Design
1. Front Setback Plane.
a. The front profile of a structure shall fit behind a plane that starts at the front
yard setback line and extends upward to 20 feet in height, then slopes toward the rear of
the lot at a minimum slope of 6:12, up to the maximum allowed height at the peak, as
illustrated in Appendix 50.07-C.
b. Exceptions to the front setback plane. Any individual roof form may
penetrate the front setback plane if it is less than one-third of the total structure width at
20 feet in height. Two separate and distinct roof forms, such as dormers, may project
into the front setback plane if they are less than one-half of the total structure width at 20
feet in height.
2. Maximum Side Yard Plane. The side elevation of a structure must be divided into
smaller areas or planes to minimize the appearance of bulk to properties abutting the side
elevations of a primary structure. When the side elevation of a primary structure is more
than 750 square feet in area, the elevation must be divided into distinct planes of 750
square feet or less. For the purpose of this standard, areas of side-yard wall planes that
are entirely separated from other wall planes are those that result in a change in plate
height or other change in plane such as a recessed or projecting section of the structure,
CDC Update 2004-Additional Provisions Page 7
DRAFT July 29,2004
that projects or recedes at least 2 feet from the adjacent plane, for a length of at least 6
feet. at
The text of the section applies to"structures"and thus would include dwellings and
accessory structures. The title to the section is misleading,as it suggests that the section
only applies to dwellings:
Section XXXX
Section 50.77.020 Pre-Application Conference
1. A pre-application conference with the City Manager is required for the
felllewingminor and major development permit applications:
a. Minor developments described in LOC 50.79.020 (2)(f)-and (g).
b. Major developments described in LOC 50.79.030(2)(d) through (g).
Initially,staff proposed amending this section as follows:
a. Minor developments described in LOC 50.79.020(2f)athrouh
f; e ciusling(n ):
b. Major developments described in LOC 50.79.030(2)(d )through(g ).
However,staff recommends that a pre-application conference be required for all minor
and major developments. The purpose of a pre-application conference is for the staff to
meet with the applicant and go over the criteria and submittal requirements for the
development application. Since every minor and major development is subject to criteria,
and is subject to public hearing and appeal,staff believes that minor or major •
development action should require an opportunity for staff to familiarize the applicant
with the criteria and submittal requirements.
2. A pre-application conference is not required for other development applications,
but may be scheduled at the request of the applicant or when required by the City
Manager.
3. The purpose of the pre-application conference is to discuss the proposal, the
applicable criteria and the requirements for completing an application.
Section XXXX
Section 50.06.065 Garage Appearance and Location
1. In the R-5 zone, the following standards apply, except when a garage is located
behind the primary structure or the garage is side- or rear-loading, as shown in Appendix
50.02-C:
The intent of this exception was to avoid garage doors facing the street. This can occur
when the garage is rear-loading,as well as side-loading:
a. The garage shall:
i. Not be located closer to the street than the dwelling, unless the exception
criteria outlined in subsection (1)(c)below are met.
•
ii. Not occupy more than 60% of the width of the facade of the structure.
CDC Update 2004-Additional Provisions Page 8
DRAFT July 29,2004
iii. Minimize the appearance of the garage by complying with at least two of
• the following standards:
A. Set the garage an additional two feet further from the front property
line than the facade of the dwelling;
B. Provide individual garage doors, not to exceed 75 square feet each, for
each parking stall;
C. Any individual garage door may not exceed 50% of the width of the
structure facade. Any garage opening width beyond 50% of the primary structure width
must be set back at least 2 feet further from the front property line than the facade of the
other garage volume;
D. Provide a decorative trellis or other feature that will provide a shadow
line giving the perception that the garage opening is recessed. The feature shall be
provided across the top and along the width of the garage door(s) and shall be at least 12
inches deep and 6 feet tall.
b. Multiple Garage Opening Setbacks. In any instance where a garage is
designed to park 3 or more vehicles, only the garage openings for the first 2 vehicles may
occupy the same building plane. Each additional building plane with a garage opening
shall be set back by a minimum of 2 feet from the previous garage building plane.
c. Exceptions. The standards in subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) shall not apply in
any one of the following circumstances:
i. Where the average slope of a parcel exceeds 20%,
ii. Where the width of a parcel is less than 50 feet, or
iii. Where the garage is proposed to be set back at least 60 feet from the
11) public right-of-way-ef
iv. Where the width of the lot at the front building line is less than 30 feet.
Subsection iv is a duplication of ii,because"width of a parcel"is the same as the"width
of the lot at the front building line",and since satisfying either one would result in a
exception,being less than 30 feet width at the front building line is automatically being
less than 50 feet parcel width.
2. When a side-loading garage wall is exposed to the street or abutting property,the
front or side of the exposed garage building wall shall have more than one plane or shall
include fenestration equal to at least 10% of the exposed garage wall.
3. For garages located at the rear of the primary structure or for side-loading
garages, the area of the garage, up to 200 square feet, shall be exempt from lot coverage
calculations.
Section XXXX
[Add as a new LOC Section:]
Section 50.07.047 Garage Appearance and Location
2. Garages. In addition to compliance with subsection (1) of this sectionLOC
50.07.025 (accessory structure setback requirements) and 50.07.045, a garage shall
comply with the following requirements.
•
CDC Update 2004-Additional Provisions
p Page 9
DRAFT July 29,2004
This is created as a separate section because the garage requirements were hidden when a
person is proposing an attached garage. It is not an accessory structure,so persons were •
not looking to LOC 50.07.045 Accessory Structures on how to locate a garage. "Garage
Appearance and Location"sections appear in LOC 50.06.065 (RO r-R-5 zones)and
50.08.055 (R-7.5—R-15);
Note: for ease of determining what text is different than currently existing,the entirety of
LOC 50.07.047 was NOT shown in double underline in this annotated version of the
ordinance amendment.
a. Garages shall be accessed from an alley, if available. If a property is located
on a corner lot, garages may also be accessed from the street that abuts the side of the
primary dwelling when the following criteria are met:
i. The garage is located between the primary structure and the alley,
ii. The garage is set back a minimum of 15 feet from the side street property
line, and
iii. The garage is set back a minimum of 2 feet from a line the-extended from
the side elevation of the primary dwelling_to the rear lot line, and behind the primary
structure. See Appendix 50.07-B.
The intent is that this requires garages for corner lots(attached or detached)to be situated
directly behind and set in by more than 2 feet from a line extended from the side
elevation towards the rear lot line. As currently written,the fact that the 2 foot setback is
from the extended side elevation is not clear-it suggests that the garage may be located
to the side of the house,if separated by 2 feet. But this would not meet the requirement •
that the garage be between the house and the alley. So it must mean that the garage in
behind the house,set back 2 feet from the extended side elevation line.
Note: Appendix 50.07-B drawing has been revised to add a side-accessing garage on a
corner lot,showing the garage behind the house.
b. For interior lots, garages shall be located so that the side of the garage facing
the street is set back a minimum of 15 feet behind the front building line of the house
(excluding a porch). (See Appendix 50.07-B).
This change is suggested because in all cases there is a side of the garage facing the
street,and this was being confused by the public as applicable only to side-loading
garages.
c. When a side- or rear-loading garage wall is exposed to the street or abutting
property, the front or side of the exposed garage building wall shall have more than one
plane or shall include fenestration equal to at least 10% of the exposed garage wall.
The intent of this exception was to avoid garage doors facing the street. This can occur
when the garage is rear-loading,as well as side-loading.
3. This section shall not apply to secondary dwelling units, which shall be governed
by the requirements for the primary structure and LOC 50.30.010. •
CDC Update 2004-Additional Provisions Page 10
DRAFT July 29,2004
S
Section XXXX
Section 50.08.055 Garage Appearance and Location
1. The following standards apply, except when a garage is located behind the primary
structure or the garage is side- or rear-loading, as shown in Appendix 50.02-C:
The intent of this exception was to avoid garage doors facing the street. This can occur
when the garage is rear-loading,as well as side-loading,
a. The garage shall:
i. Not be located closer to the street than the dwelling, unless the exception
criteria outlined in subsection (c)below are met.
ii. Not occupy more than 60% of the width of the facade of the structure.
iii. Minimize the appearance of the garage by complying with at least two of
the following standards:
A. Set the garage an additional two feet further from the front property
line than the facade of the dwelling;
B. Provide individual garage doors, not to exceed 75 square feet each, for
each parking stall;
C. Any individual garage door may not exceed 50% of the width of the
structure facade. Any garage opening width beyond 50% of the primary structure width
must be set back at least 2 feet further from the front property line than the facade of the
• other garage volume;
D. Provide a decorative trellis or other feature that will provide a shadow
line giving the perception that the garage opening is recessed. The feature shall be
provided across the top and along the width of the garage door(s) and shall be at least 12
inches deep and 6 feet tall.
b. Multiple Garage Opening Setbacks. In any instance where a garage is
designed to park 3 or more vehicles, only the garage openings for the first 2 vehicles may
occupy the same building plane. Each additional building plane with a garage opening
shall be set back by a minimum of 2 feet from the previous garage building plane.
c. Exceptions. The standards in subsections (1) (a) and (b) shall not apply in the
following circumstances:
c. Exceptions. The standards in subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) shall not apply in
any one of the following circumstances:
i. Where the average slope of a parcel exceeds 20%,
ii. Where the width of a parcel is less than 50 feet, or
iii. Where the garage is proposed to be set back at least 60 feet from the
public right-of-way,-ef •
iy. ere-the dth-o e-lot at the rt-building line i less than 30 feet.
Subsection iv is a duplication of ii,because"width of a parcel"is the same thing as the
"width of the lot at the front building line",and since satisfying either one would result in
a exception,being less than 30 feet width at the front building line is automatically being
less than 50 feet parcel width.
CDC Update 2004-Additional Provisions Page 11
DRAFT July 29,2004
2. When a side- or rear-loading garage wall is exposed to the street or abutting
property, the front or side of the exposed garage building wall shall have more than one
plane or shall include fenestration equal to at least 10% of the exposed garage wall.
This should also occur when the garage is rear-loading,as well as side-loading.
3. For garages located at the rear of the primary structure or for side-or rear-loading
garages, the area of the garage, up to 200 square feet, shall be exempt from lot coverage
calculations.
This should also occur when the garage is rear-loading,as well as side-loading.
Section XXXX
Section 50.11.010 Uses [Commercial]
10. Services -Professional Offices:
Note: only section 10(B) is shown here; all other sections remain the same.
B. Artists studios, including those that use industrial tools.
NC, GC,HC, OC,EC, CR&D and MC
In revising the uses permitted in the Industrial Zone,artist studios using industrial tools
was added. That raised the question of whether,by specifying that artists using industrial
tools was then no longer permitted in the Commercial Zones,because when one use is
defined in one area,it is presumed prohibited in all other zones unless expressly
authorized in other zones.
Section XXXX
Section 50.02.005 Definitions (Lot Coverage)
Lot Coverage. The ratio of A to B where A is the area of the polygon formed by the
surrounding exterior walls of all buildings-structures or portions thereof including
over 30 inch in height with or without exterior walls,but exclusive of
vent shafts and courtyards; and B is the gross acreage of the site excluding area in street
right-of-way,private streets and access easements (calculated in the same manner pursuant
as provided in te"Net Buildable Acre"). Boat houses shall not be included in lot coverage
calculations.
1. "Buildings"and"structures"are used somewhat interchangeably in the Code(see
Definitions),but commonly are not thought of as identical. This amendment would make
it clear that lot coverage includes the area what is covered by any structures,not just
buildings(as commonly defined). Note the mixed use of buildings and structures in the
"Lot Coverage"definition,indicating that it was intended to apply to all structures. This
amendment is consistent with existing interpretation. •
CDC Update 2004-Additional Provisions Page 12
DRAFT July 29,2004
2. The"pursuant to"Net Buildable Acre is being revised to make it clear that the
4110 reference to Net Buildable Acre is only for the manner of calculating the street,private
street and access easement area,not that the other deductions found in Net Buildable
Acre are also to be deducted from the lot area for purposes of determining,e.g.,Open
Space,resource lands,hillsides,flood,hillsides.
Section XXXX
Section 50.79.010 Ministerial Development Classifications
1. A ministerial development is a development which requires a permit from the City
where the decision:
a. Is made pursuant to land use standards which do not require interpretation or
the exercise of policy or legal judgment;
b. Approves or denies a building permit issued under clear and objective land use
standards; or
c. Determines final engineering design, construction, operation, maintenance,
repair or preservation of a transportation facility which is otherwise authorized by and
consistent with the comprehensive plan and land use regulations.
2. Ministerial developments include:
a. Exterior modification of single family detached dwellings, duplexes or zero lot
line dwellings or modification of an accessory structure in the DD zone except for
modifications that are processed through the Residential Infill Design Review process
(LOC Article 50.72).
• b. Construction or exterior modification of a detached single family dwelling,
duplex, zero lot line dwelling or a structure accessory to such structures which:
i. Is not processed through the Residential Infill Design Review process
(LOC Article 50.72).
ii. Is not located within a delineated RP resource or buffer area [ufie
applicant desires to modify the buffer pursuant to LOC 50.16.070 (3), in which case the
or RC protection area pursuant to
LOC Article 50.16.
iii. Does not impact an Historic Landmark designated pursuant to LOC
Chapter 58.
iv. Does not change the nature of the use or occupancy classification to a use
that does not qualify as a permitted use in the zone or as an approved conditional use; or
v. Does not require special design review by the zone, design district, prior
development approval or Overall Development Plan and Schedule (ODPS) for the
development in which the subject property is located.
vi. Is not located on weak foundation soils as identified in LOC 50.42.030(1).
vii.Is not located in a "Known Potential Severe Landslide Area" as defined in
LOC 50.43.010.
viii. Is not located in the Greenway Management Overlay District, as
identified in LOC Article 50.15.
c. Exterior modification of a structure other than a detached single family
dwelling, duplex, zero lot line dwelling or structure accessory to such structures which:
i. Does not increase building footprint or height; or
CDC Update 2004-Additional Provisions Page 13
DRAFT July 29,2004
ii. Does not modify more than 25% of the facade or, if the property abuts
property zoned for residential use, does not modify any portion of the facade visible from
the residentially zoned property; and
iii. Complies with LOC 50.79.010 (2)(b)(i)through (viii).
d. Lot line adjustments which do not increase the allowable density on a site.
e. Resource enhancement projects in an RP or RC District.
f. Passive use recreational facilities within an RC or RP District if such a facility
would otherwise qualify as a ministerial development.
g. Construction or alteration of public transportation or utility facilities consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan and land use regulations and is not located in a delineated
RP Resource or buffer or RC protection area pursuant to LOC Article 50.16.
h. Building permits for structures approved pursuant to a prior approved major or
minor development.
i. Collocated Telecommunications Facilities.
j. Delineation of a resource boundary pursuant to LOC 50.16.035 (5).
k. Fill in quantities of 10 cubic yards or less when located within the Flood
Management Area and outside of the floodway boundary.
1. When located within the floodplain of Oswego Lake, fill in quantities greater
than 10 cubic yards, provided the fill is associated with development of a single family
dwelling, duplex, zero lot line dwelling, water dependent use, or related accessory
structure.
3. Ministerial decisions are made without notice or the opportunity for appeal.
The text proposed to be removed is not really a statement of what is a ministerial
development classification,but serves as a reminder that modifications to the buffer
under LOC 50.16.030(3)are minor developments. Staff was also ka king at the question
of whether it is necessary to list modifications of the lot dimensional standards(LOC
50.16.040)as a minor development,or rather to expand the reminders of what is a minor
development in the ministerial development classification. Staff recommends deleting
the reminder;if a house is a proposed for development in the RP District or buffer,then
regardless of whether it seeks modifications of the buffer under 50.16.030(3)or
modifications of the lot dimensional standards under LOC W.16.040,it is a minor
development under the"if not a ministerial development,then it must be a minor
development"provision of LOC 50.79.020(2)(b)(i).
Section XXXX
Section 50.20.035 Screening,Buffering and Landscape Installation
1. For land divisions, a minimum 6 foot Iandscape strip shall be provided as
separation between driveways that are within 10 feet of each other (as measured from the
closest edge of each driveway) and where a driveway is within 10 feet of an adjacent'
residential structure. Where land area is not sufficient to accommodate a 6 foot wide
landscaped buffer between the new driveway and an existing dwellin-gresidential structure,
the review authority may impose conditions of approval to include measures that will
provide effective buffering and screening. These measures may include landscaped
islands, fencing, and meandering driveways.
•
CDC Update 2004-Additional Provisions Page 14
DRAFT July 29,2004
The change of"dwelling"to"residential structure"in the second sentence is made to
• conform to use of"residential structure"in the first sentence. `"Dwelling„is one of the
types of residential structure,but is not the only type of residential structures,i.e.,garage.
The exception language of the second sentence would thus appear to be available only to
dwellings,but not non-dwelling residential structures, Current interpretation is that the
use of"dwelling"in the second sentence was not intended in its limiting definition,but
was intended to apply to all residential structures subject to the standard.
The reviewing authority shall require the landscape strip to be planted with trees
and shrubs in order to mitigate the visual impact of wide expanses of pavement, and to
provide a visual and noise buffer between the driveway and the affected dwellings)
located on adjacent parcels. Plant materials used for screening and buffering shall be of a
size to provide an effective screen within two years of planting. Trees shall be a minimum
2 inch caliper, and shrubs shall be a minimum of 5 gallon at time of planting.
Maintenance of the buffer is an ongoing obligation of the property owner.
2. For land divisions, existing mature vegetation and trees shall be integrated as
screening where practicable. The review authority may require dwelling and garage
placement or orientation in a manner that will minimize the removal of specific trees,
hedges, or other vegetation that would serve to screen the proposed structures from
existing and potential surrounding homes.
3. The rear and side yards of the lot where the new development occurs shall be
screened from adjacent property with a 6 foot tall fence, except where a 4 foot fence is
required by LOC 45.15.020 (1) of the Building Code, and except where the abutting
• property owner agrees in writing that a fence is not necessary along the common property
line. In addition, a landscaped buffer within the rear yard setback a minimum of 6 feet in
width shall be created along the rear property line and planted with a deciduous or
evergreen hedge, a minimum 4 feet in height at planting which shall grow to a height of 6
feet within two years and shall be maintained at a minimum of that height, except where
the abutting property owner agrees in writing that a landscaped buffer is not necessary.
The above requirements pertaining to the "rear yard" are not applicable where the rear
yard abuts Oswego Lake.
4. Tree removal mitigation: A minimum of one evergreen or deciduous tree, of a
species which will attain a minimum of 30 feet in height, shall be planted at a 1:1 ratio
where practicable in order to mitigate the removal of existing trees necessary for site
development. Deciduous trees at planting shall be a minimum of 2 inch caliper and
evergreen trees shall be a minimum of 8 feet tall.
Section XXXX
Section 50.08.040 Lot Coverage and Floor Area Ratio (FAR).
1. Except as set forth in LOC Article 50.30, lot coverage shall not exceed 35% for a
primary structure<_22 feet in height or 25% for a primary structure>22 feet in height.
2. Floor ratio areas shall not exceed the standards as shown in Table 50.08.040
below:
CDC Update 2004-Additional Provisions Page 15
DRAFT July 29, 2004
TABLE 50.08.040 •
Lot Size Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
(Square Feet) R-7.5 R-10 R-15
< 5,000 .6 .6 .6
> 5,001 <6,000 .55 .55 .55
>6,000<7,000 .5 .5 .5
>7,000< 8,000 .45 .45 .45
>- 8,000 <9,000 .4 4 .44
>9,000 < 10,000 .39 .4 .43
> 10,000 < 11,000 .38 .4 .42
> 11,000< 12,000 .37 .39 .41
> 12,000< 13,000 .36 .38 .4
> 13,000 < 14,000 .35 .37 .39
> 14,000 < 15,000 .34 .36 .38
> 15,000 < 16,000 .33 .35 .37
> 16,000< 17,000 .32 .34 .36
> 17,000< 18,000 .31 .33 .35
> 18,000 < 19,000 .30 .32 .34
> 19,000 <20,000 .29 .31 .33
>20,001 .28 .3 .32
3. In cluster developments, lot coverage requirements may be applied with reference •
to the project as a whole and not on a lot by lot basis.
4. The floor area of a garage area shall be exempt from lot coverage calculations:
a. Ground floor area of detached garage:
i. For lots less than or equal to 10,000 square feet in area : up to 200 square
feet_
ii. For lots greater than 10,000 square feet in area - up to 400 square feet-of
the ground floor area of a detached garage area may be exempt from lot coverage
•
•
280-squa eet.
b. Floor area of attached garage located at the rear of the primary structure or for
side-loading garages- up to 200 square feet.
There is currently an exception in lot coverage for garages,one of which is found in the
lot coverage section and the other found in the Garage,Appearance and Location section.
Staff recommends that the lot coverage exceptions be placed in one section,for ease of
use. Additionally,when placing them together,it is helpful to define when one section is
available-only for detached garages,regardless of orientation,and when the other
section is available....attached garages if rear-or side-loading. The additional use of the
"attached"in the second instance helps with the distinction.
It is also noted that there is a distinction between the two in terms of ground floor v.
second floor. •
CDC Update 2004-Additional Provisions Page 16
DRAFT July 29,2004
• For the detached garage,up to 200 feet of the ground floor is exempt from lot
11111 coverage calculations,regardless of orientation or placement of the garage. And an
additional 200 square feet of habitable areas in detached garages,whether on the
ground floor or upstairs,is exempt from lot coverage calculations.
• For the attached garage,only 200 square feet of garage—whether ground floor or
upstairs-is exempt from lot coverage IF the garage is at the rear of the residence or
is side-loading.
5. Habitable areas of detached accessory structures that would normally be counted
as floor area, shall be exempt from floor area calculations:
a. For lots less than or equal to 10,000 square feet in area — up to 200 square
feet.
b. For lots greater than 10,000 square feet in area - up to 400 square feetFor lots
•
detached accessory structures that would normally be counted as floor area, may be
6. FAR for uses other than single family dwellings and their accessory uses shall be
as follows:
a. The FAR for uses listed as conditional uses shall be established as part of the
conditional use process.
b. The FAR for other non-residential uses shall be no greater than 1:1.
• This change reformats the General Exception provisions currently found in LOC
50.22.105(5)for ease of reader and staff.
Section XX XX
Section 50.06.040 Lot Coverage [R-0—R-5 and WR zones]
1. Lot coverage shall not exceed the maximums set forth in Table 50.06.040, below:
TABLE 50.06.040
Maximum Lot Coverage
Zone Maximum
Dwelling Type Lot Coverage
R-0 40%
R-2
Single family detached 35%
Row house 55%
Duplex 55%
Other Structures 50%
R-3 50%
•
CDC Update 2004-Additional Provisions Page 17
DRAFT July 29,2004
R-5
Single family detached: •
_<22 feet in height 45%
> 22 feet in height 35%
Single family attached 50%
Other Structures 50%
WR 100%
2. The floor area of a garage area shall be exempt from lot coverage calculations:
a. Ground floor area of detached garage:
i. For lots less than or equal to 10,000 square feet in area up to 200 square
feet_
ii. For lots greater than 10,000 square feet in area - up to 400 square feet-ef
the ground floor area of a detached garage are
200 square feet.
b. Floor area of attached garage located at the rear of the primary structure or for
side-loading garages-up to 200 square feet.
There is currently an exception in lot coverage for garages,one of which is found in the
lot coverage section and the other found in the Garage Appearance and Location section.
Staff recommends that the lot coverage exceptions be placed in one section,for ease of
use. Additionally,when placing them together,it is helpful to define when one section is •
available-only for detached garages,regardless of orientation,and when the other
section is available-attached garages if rear-or side-loading. The additional use of the
"attached"in the second instance helps with the distinction.
It is also noted that there is.a distinction between the two in terms of ground floor v.
second floor.
• For the detached garage,up to 200 feet of the ground floor is exempt from lot
coverage calculations,regardless of orientation or placement of the garage. And an
additional 200 square feet of habitable areas in detached garages,whether on the
ground floor or upstairs,is exempt from lot coverage calculations.
• For the attached garage,only 200 square feet of garage-whether ground floor or
upstairs-is exempt from lot coverage IF the garage is at the rear of the residence or
is side-loading.
3. The ground floor area of a detached garage area shall be exempt from lot
coverage calculations:
a. b. For lots greater than 10,000 square feet in area -up to 400 square feet-of-the
ground floor area of a detached garage area may be exempt from lot coverage
.
ara
4. Habitable areas of detached accessory structures that would normally be counted
as floor area, shall be exempt from floor area calculations:
CDC Update 2004-Additional Provisions Page 18
DRAFT July 29,2004
a. For lots less than or equal to 10,000 square feet in area — up to 200 square
• feet.
b. For lots greater than 10,000 square feet in area - up to 400 square feetFor lots
e + a
a • •
domed-accessory structu ,
This change will incorporate the General Exception provisions currently found in LOC
50.22.105(5). The requirement for storm drainage has been removed because storm
drainage is required for every lot. LOC 50.40 and 50.41.
The automatic FAR exception was moved to the zone's Floor Area section,LOC
50.06 035.
Section X XXX
Section 50.17.020 Special Requirements
If common private open space or common buildings are included in the plan, a
homeowner's association or similar organization must be established to provide for
maintenance of the facilities or open space. The bylaws-articles of incorporation or other
evidence of incorporation of such organization shall be included in the application.
• The bylaws of a corporation establish the internal operating procedure and relationship of
the Board and its members. Planning doesn't need to see how the homeowner's
association has allocated the board functions,provided for member, elections,etc. What
the City needs to verify is that the homeowners association in fact exists. That can be
accomplished'',by a copy of the articles of incorporation(a much smaller document than
the bylaws),or even a printout from the Oregon Secretary of State,Corporation Division
evidencing the existence of the homeowner's association.
Section XXXX
Section 50.09.025 Setback Requirements; Buffers [Old Town Design District]
1. Except as otherwise provided in this section or LOC 50.22.010, 50.22.025, 50.22.030,
or 50.22.035,the required setback in the DD zone is 10 feet.
2. Structures shall be setback from a street right-of-way line a minimum of 10 feet, or
such greater distance required to accommodate off street parking. Exception: On lots
abutting Durham Street, front yard setbacks for new structures may be reduced to 3 feet
for up to 50% of the building facade along Durham Street. The remaining 50% of the
building may be between 5 feet and 10 feet from the front property line. The design of
new structures along Durham Street must be compatible with LOC Article 50.66 (Old
Town Neighborhood Design Standards).
3. The Development Review Commission may increase required setbacks as
necessary to achieve compliance with the Development Standards.
• 4. Where a lot zoned DD abuts a lot zone EC or RO-EC,
a
CDC Update 2004-Additional Provisions Page 19
DRAFT July 29,2004
•
yard in the abutting zone. On the lot zoned DD, a landscaped buffer a minimum of 5 feet
in width is required on the lot zoned DD in the setback area abutting the EC or RO-EC •
zone. The purpose of the landscaped area is to provide a vegetative screen. Plant material
used for screening and buffering shall be of a size that will achieve sufficient height within
three years of the date of planting to provide adequate screening.
LOC 50.09.025(4)currently basically requires a 25'setback on the DD lot when it abuts
an EC or 11-0/EC":lot. This would effectively result in a 2.5'setback on the EC site and a
25'setback on the DD site,for a total of 50'setback that is basically equivalent to the
width of a typical lot in the DD zone. Variances to this standard have been granted
routinely in the past,principally because of the extreme effect this code provision has on
the DD lot. Absent a circumstance unique to the property,not arising from the
application of a code provision,staff now believes that the applicant cannot show an
unnecessary hardship;the hardship is necessary when it arises from the mere application
of the code. Staff therefore submits that a code amendment is warranted. Staff believes
the required 25'setback on the EC lot and a standard 10'setback on the DI)lot would be
sufficient to provide adequate separation and buffer between the dissimilar uses. The 5-
foot landscape buffer required in LOC 50.09.025(4)to provide a vegetative screen is
retained.
Note:a typographical error is also corrected in this section:`Flan"to"Plane'.
5. a. When a new multi-family development or the expansion or reconstruction of
an existing multi-family development occurs in a DD zone subject to DRC review as
provided in LOC 50.79.020(2)(a)(ii) which abuts an existing less intensive residential use, •
the proposed multifamily structure shall be set back from the boundary of the less
intensive use by at least the amount of feet equal to the height of the multi-family
structure.
b. A setback of 15 feet will be required for new duplex development, or the
expansion or reconstruction of an existing duplex development in the DD zone subject to
DRC review as provided in LOC 50.79.020 (2)(a)(ii), when the proposed development:
(1) Is greater than 28 feet in height, and
(2) Abuts an existing, less intensive residential use.
c. Developments subject to subsection (5)(a) or (5)(b) of this section shall
provide a landscaped area at least five feet wide within the setback area abutting the less
intensive use. The purpose of the landscaped area is to provide a vegetative screen. Plant
material used for screening and buffering shall be of a size that will achieve sufficient
height within 3 years of the date of planting to provide adequate screening.
6. Front lot lines on corner lots may face either street. The City Manager shall
determine the front lot line after taking into consideration the orientation of structures on
the site and nearby lots, the ability to meet setbacks without variances, and physical site or
solar access limitations. Street access should be to local streets.
7. Setbacks required by this section may be reduced pursuant to the
provisions of LOC 57.06.090 without the need to receive a variance pursuant to this Code.
I
CDC Update 2004-Additional Provisions Page 20
DRAFT July 29,2004
Revised Provisions— Sensitive Lands
[The following section has revisions based on the previous Planning Commission work
session.]
Section XKXX
Section 50.16.015 Applicability
1. This Article applies to all lands designated as RP or RC on the Sensitive Lands
Map and Atlas.
2. Sensitive Lands Development Review Required.
a. Development that would result in any land disturbance, change of use, or
external addition or expansion of any structure within the RP or RC District, or within 35
feet of the RP District boundary as shown on maps in the Sensitive Lands Atlas shall be
subject to the standards and criteria identified in LOC 50.16.030.
This change is proposed to address changes in uses of structures that are believed to have
a negative impact on the functions and values of the resource. By increasing human
activities within a structure or adjacent to the structure resulting from change of use,the
Natural Resources Coordinator believes that it presents a higher incidence of negative
impacts upon the resource. If the intent of the Sensitive Lands Article is to regulate the
use made of accessory structures within the buffer area,a Code amendment is necessary,
This change would reverse the effect of the interpretation made by the Planning Director
•
under the Rudd application that the addition of a roof over an existing decking/boat
dock area within the RP District and buffer was permissible. For example:by
constructing a boat dock within a stream corridor,there is greater degradation of the
stream and its habitat. By turning an abandoned boat dock into a party deck,there is
more human activity in the resource area and negative impacts on the habitat and wildlife
transit corridors.
b. Land divisions, lot line adjustments,mitigation proposals, and adjustments of a
District Boundary shall be subject to the standards and criteria identified in LOC
50.16.030.
This amendment would make it clear that this applies to lot line adjustments,in addition
to lot divisions. Note that lot line adjustments is referred to in subsection 3a,but not in
the applicability section of 2b:
c. To the degree that any requirement of LOC Article 50.16 conflicts with a
requirement of the underlying zone, Article 50.16 shall prevail.
3. Exception: The provisions in LOC Article 50.16 shall not apply to:
a. A resource located within the boundaries of a partition, subdivision, Planned
Development, or lot line adjustment, approved prior to August 21, 1997 if:
i. The resource was identified and protected pursuant to regulations in effect
at the time of approval; and
ii. The proposed development is in compliance with the conditions protecting
• the resource imposed at the time of approval. Any modification of the prior approved
partition, subdivision,or planned development that would impact or modify any protection
CDC Update 2004 -Additional Provisions Page 21
DRAFT July 29,2004
measures imposed at the time of original approval shall be subject to the standards and
criteria of this Article. •
b. Resource restoration required as a result of violation of this Article or
pursuant to settlement of a potential enforcement action by the City Manager, subject to
City Manager approval of the restoration plan and procedures, and compliance with the
Construction Standards set forth in LOC 50.16.095.
4. Wetlands, stream corridors, and tree groves that are not contained within a RP or
RC District shall not be subject to the regulations of this Article. However, an application
for development that impacts a stream corridor or wetland may still be subject to state or
federal wetland or stream regulations. Notice of such applications will be sent to the
Division of State Lands (DSL) or the Army Corp. of Engineers.
5. In addition to the notification required for the particular development by LOC
50.80 - 50.82, the City shall notify the Oregon Division of State Lands and the Army
Corp. of Engineers upon receipt of a complete application for development, change or
intensification of use within an RP District that impacts a wetland or stream corridor.
6. Mitigation Required for Violation. If development occurs in violation of this
Article, the violator shall not only be subject to any and all enforcement and penalties that
can be brought or imposed for violation of this Code, he or she shall be responsible for
mitigating any damage caused by the violation to a protected resource pursuant to LOC
50.16.100 to 50.16.110.
•
CDC Update 2004-Additional Provisions Page 22
DRAFT July 29,2004
Revised Provisions — Collocation of Telecommunication Facilities
[The following section has revisions based on the previous Planning Commission work
session.]
LOC 50.30.015 Specific Standards for Telecommunication Facilities
1. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish design and siting standards for
telecommunication facilities that:
a. Reduce visual impacts of towers and ancillary facilities through careful
design, siting,and vegetative screening;
b. Avoid damage to adjacent properties from tower failure and falling ice,
through engineering and careful siting of tower structures;
c. Maximize use of any new transmission tower and any existing suitable
structures to reduce the need for additional towers; and
d. Allow transmission towers in residential areas only when necessary to meet
functional requirements of the telecommunications industry.
2. Applicability. These standards shall apply to new telecommunication facilities and
collocated telecommunication facilities and not pre-existing towers or pre-existing
antennae.
3. Approval Criteria for Collocated Facilities.
a. Site Size. No minimum lot size shall apply when a telecommunications
facility is collocated on an existing building or structure. Telecommunications facilities
• collocated on existing towers or reconstructed existing towers shall not decrease the
setback of the existing tower. For the purposes of this section, an increase in tower
circumference to accommodate collocated facilities shall not be deemed to decrease
setbacks.
b. Suitable Facilities for Collocation: Collocation shall occur in the following
order of suitable facilities:
i. Previously approved telecommunication tower;
ii. Existing non-conforming telecommunication tower;
iii. Existing buildings suitable for collocation; or
iv. utility (electric, cable, telephone, etc.) and light poles.
The applicant shall show that there are no reasonably feasible telecommunication facilities
in a higher classifications suitable for collocation within the necessary service area to be
approved for a collocated telecommunication facilities lesser classification subject to
compliance with the following:
A. No increase in the height of the existing telecommunication support
structure is proposed;
C. The proposed collocated antenna is no more than 20 feet higher than
the existing tower and antennas
D. The collocation improvements must satisfy the standards for the
underlying zone;
E. The collocation may not involve the removal of any previously
• approved landscaping/buffering;
CDC Update 2004-Additional Provisions Page 23
DRAFT July 29,2004
vi. Towers or attachments may be placed on existing structures such as athletic
field light poles,utility poles,utility towers and tall buildings provided that the addition of
the antenna equipment will not interfere with the normal operation of utilities or existing
transmission facilities and the collocated facility complies with the height limit in
subsection (3)(c) of this section.
Existing structures may be replaced or structurally enhanced when
necessary to permit collocation as long as the setback of the reconstructed structure is not
decreased as described in subsection (3)(a) of this section and as long as the height of the
reconstructed facility complies with height limit contained in subsection (3)(c) of this
section as applied to the existing structure prior to replacement or reconstruction.
This amendment would result in transmission towers or facilities that are
destroyed and rebuilt on place(which are usually taller, wider,etc.)as a new
transmission tower or facility,so that the review would be the same for"removed
and replaced"towers as for new towers,
c. Height Limit: Collocated facilities are exempt from the height limits of the
underlying zone, but shall be no more than 10 feet taller than the existing structure in a
residential zone, a mixed residential/commercial zone, or Public Functions Zone, or no
more than 20 feet taller than the existing structure in a commercial or industrial zone.
Exceptions:
A collocated facility shall be no taller than the existing facility where the
height of the existing facility has previously been increased in excess of the height limit of •
the underlying zone as a result of approval of a prior collocation application pursuant to
this section.
d. Visual Impact:
i. All ancillary facilities shall be screened, hidden or disguised.
ii. Antennae shall be screened, hidden or disguised, or shall be painted or
colored to blend into the structure or surroundings.
e. A proposed collocated facility that does not comply with subsection (3) of this
section shall be processed as a new facility.
4. Approval Criteria for New Facilities.
a. Site Size. A new facility shall be sited on a parcel of a size and shape that
complies with the following criteria:
i. Setbacks: The tower footprint shall be set back at least two-thirds the
tower height from any property line. This setback may be reduced if the applicant can
demonstrate that:
A. The shape or configuration of the parcel prevents compliance with the
setback standard or that a reduction in setback is necessary to take advantage of screening
opportunities (such as tall trees, tree groves,buildings, or other tall elements)not available
within the required setback area;
B. The reduction in setback is the minimum required to best camouflage
the facility;
C. Adequate clearance between the facility and property line can be
provided to accommodate landscaping and fencing; and •
CDC Update 2004-Additional Provisions Page 24
DRAFT July 29,2004
D. The reduction in setback will not cause a greater visual impact to
IPadjacent uses.
ii. The tower pad shall be sited in a location that permits additional expansion
to accommodate future collocated ancillary facilities. The tower shall be located centrally
on this pad. This standard shall not apply to antennae attached to existing structures or
towers located on rooftops.
iii. A licensed structural engineer's analysis shall be submitted to demonstrate
that the potential impact of tower failure and ice falling from the tower will be
accommodated on site.
iv. Separation from pre-existing towers. New towers shall be separated from
existing towers by at least the following distances, measured in a straight line from the
base of the proposed new tower to the base of any pre-existing tower:
Monopole Monopole
Lattice Guyed > 80 feet < 80 feet
in height in height
Lattice 5,000 5,000 1,500 750
Guyed 5,000 5,000 1,500 750
Monopole
>80 feet 1,500 1,500 1,500 750
• in height
Monopole
< 80 feet 750 750 750 750
in height
b. Collocation to be Explored; Accommodated.
i. Before an application for a new transmission tower is accepted, applicants
shall demonstrate that they have exhausted all practicable collocation options within the
proposed service area pursuant to subsections (5)(a) and (d) including placement of
antennae on existing tall structures and placing multiple antennae or attachments on a
single tower. To demonstrate that all practicable collocation options have been exhausted,
the applicant shall demonstrate that:
A. No existing towers or support structures, or approved but not yet
constructed towers or support structures, are located within the geographic area required
to meet the applicant's engineering requirements;
B. Existing towers or support structures are not of sufficient height to
meet the applicant's engineering requirements.,
C. Existing towers or support structures do not have sufficient
structural strength to support the applicant's proposed antenna and related equipment;
•
CDC Update 2004-Additional Provisions Page 25
DRAFT July 29, 2004
D. The applicant's proposed antenna would cause electromagnetic
interference with the antenna on the existing tower or support structure, or the existing •
antenna would cause interference with the applicant's proposed antenna; or
E. There are other limiting factors that render existing towers and
support structures unsuitable.
County requirement for collocation is:
835.07 COLLOCATION
No new tower will be permitted under the provisions of Subsections 835.05(A)(1)or
835.06 unless the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Planning Director or
Hearings Officer,as applicable,that no existing tower or support structure can
accommodate the applicant's proposed antenna. All proposals for new wireless
telecommunication facilities must be accompanied by a statement from a qualified
person,as determined by the Planning.Director or Hearings Officer,that the necessary
service cannot be provided by collocation for one or more of the following reasons:
A. No existing towers or support structures,or approved but not yet constructed
towers or support structures,are located within the geographic area required to meet the
applicant's engineering requirements;
B. Existing towers or support structures are not of sufficient height to meet the
applicant's engineering requirements;
C. Existing towers or support structures do not have sufficient structural strength to
support the applicant's proposed antenna and related equipment;
D. The applicant's proposed antenna would cause electromagnetic interference with
the antenna on the existing tower or support structure,or the existing antenna would
•
cause interference with the applicant's proposed antenna;or
E. The applicant demonstrates that there are other limiting factors that render
existing towers and support structures unsuitable.
ii. New towers shall be constructed so as to accommodate future collocation,
based on expected demand for transmission towers in the service area. Towers shall be
designed so as to accommodate a minimum expansion of three two-way antennae for
every 40 vertical feet of tower.
iii. Multiple Attachments on Utility Towers. In conformance with the
Telecommunication Act of 1996, Section 703, a utility shall provide any
telecommunications carrier with nondiscriminatory access to any pole, duct, conduit, or
right of way owned or controlled by it, unless there is insufficient capacity or access
cannot be granted for reasons of safety, reliability, and generally applicable engineering
purposes.
c. Height. New telecommunication facilities shall not exceed the height limits of
the underlying zone, unless the applicant demonstrates that:
i. There is a service area need for the proposed facility at the proposed
location;
ii. The increase in height above the maximum allowed height for the zone is
the minimum increase necessary to eliminate service shadows;
iii. That providing coverage with telecommunications facilities which comply
with the height requirements of the zone would result an unacceptable proliferation of
such facilities. For the purposes of this subsection, "unacceptable proliferation" means an •
CDC Update 2004-Additional Provisions Page 26
DRAFT July 29,2004
increase in the number of transmission towers by a factor of four in order to achieve the
• same level of adequate service. An increase in the number of transmission towers shall
not include facilities or towers that would qualify as collocated facilities;
iv. The negative visual impacts on adjacent properties can be minimized by
screening or disguising the facility.
The applicant may be required to pay for an independent Radio Frequency
Engineer or similar consultant to verify the need for this request.
d. Visual Impact. The applicant shall demonstrate that telecommunications
facilities will have the least practicable visual impact on the environment, considering
technical, engineering, economic, and other pertinent factors.
i. The height and mass of the telecommunications facilities shall not exceed
that essential for its intended use and public safety, as demonstrated in a report prepared
by a licensed structural engineer.
ii. Telecommunications facilities 200 feet or less in height shall be
camouflaged to ensure the facility is visually subordinate to surrounding objects and
colors.
iii. Towers more than 200 feet in height shall be painted in accordance with
the Oregon State Aeronautics Division and Federal Aviation Administration. Applicants
shall attempt to seek a waiver from OSAD and FAA marking requirements. When a
waiver has been granted, towers shall be painted and/or camouflaged in accordance with
subsection ii, above.
e. Accessory Uses. Accessory uses shall include only building facilities that are
necessary for transmission function and associated satellite ground stations, and shall not
• include broadcast studios (except for emergency broadcast), offices, vehicle storage areas,
nor other similar uses not necessary for the transmission or relay function. No unenclosed
storage of materials is allowed.
f. Lighting. No lighting shall be permitted on transmission towers except that
required by the Oregon State Aeronautics Division or Federal Aviation Administration.
This standard shall not prevent shared use or replacement of an existing light pole. For
collocation on existing or replaced light poles, the transmission tower shall have no net
increase to the spread,intensity, or direction of the existing light source.
g. Fences and Landscaping.
i. The tower(s) and ancillary facilities shall be enclosed by a 6 foot fence
meeting the requirements of LOC Article 45.15.
ii. Landscaping shall be placed outside of fences and shall consist of fast
growing vegetation placed densely so as to form a solid hedge with a minimum planted
height of 6 feet.
iii. For new towers, landscaping and fencing shall be compatible with other
nearby landscaping and fencing.
iv. Where antennae or towers and ancillary facilities are to be located on •
existing buildings or structures and are secure from public access,landscaping and fencing
requirements may be waived.
h. Signs. One non-illuminated sign,not to exceed 2 square feet, shall be provided
at the main entrance to the facility stating a contact name and phone number for
emergency purposes. Signs shall not be placed on towers and antennae.
5. Supplemental Application Requirements.
CDC Update 2004-Additional Provisions Page 27
DRAFT July 29, 2004
a. Collocated Facilities: In addition to standard required application material, the
applicant shall submit the following information in conjunction with an application for a •
collocated facility:
i. Documentation demonstrating that the collocated facility will comply with
non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation (NIER) emissions standards adopted by the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
ii. Documentation addressing the specific criteria for compliance contained in
subsection (3)of this section.
b. New Facilities: In addition to standard required application material, the
applicant for a new facility shall submit the following information in conjunction with an
application for a new facility:
i. A site reconnaissance study containing, at a minimum:
A. A vicinity map depicting the proposed extent of the service area.
B. A graphic simulation showing the appearance of the proposed tower
and accessory structures from five points within the impacted vicinity. Such points are to
be mutually agreed upon by the City Manager and applicant.
C. An inventory within the applicant's proposed service area depicting the
height and location of non-habitable structures,including poles,towers, and appurtenances
that could accommodate collocation of the proposed antennae.
ii. Recognizing that technology in this field is changing rapidly, a
demonstration that an alternative technology that does not require the use of new towers,
such as a cable microcell network using multiple low-powered transmitters/receivers
attached to a wireline system, or any other less visually obtrusive method, is unsuitable.
For the purposes of this subsection, a "less visually obtrusive method" means a reasonably •
practicable alternative technology that will better accomplish the purposes of this section
as set forth in subsection (1). Costs of alternative technology that exceed new tower or
antenna development shall not be presumed to render the technology unsuitable.
iii. Al andscape plan drawn to scale showingProPose landscaping, including
type, spacing, size and irrigation methods.
iv. Evidence demonstrating collocation has been explored and is impractical
on existing structures, existing transmission towers, and existing tower facility sites for
reasons of safety, available space, or failing to meet service coverage area needs.
v. A report containing the following information:
A. A description of the proposed tower and reasons for the tower design
and height.
B. Documentation to establish the proposed tower has sufficient structural
integrity for the proposed uses at the proposed location in conformance with minimum
safety requirements as required by the State Structural Specialty Code, latest adopted
edition.
C. Ice hazards and mitigation methods which will be employed, including
increased setbacks, and/or deicing equipment.
D. The general capacity of the tower in terms of the number and type of
antennae it is designed to accommodate.
E. Documentation demonstrating compliance with non-ionizing
electromagnetic radiation (NIER) emissions standards adopted by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC). •
CDC Update 2004-Additional Provisions Page 28
DRAFT July 29, 2004
F. A signed agreement stating that the applicant will allow collocation
with other users, provided all safety and structural requirements are met. This letter shall
also state that any future owners or operators will allow collocation on the tower. This
agreement is not necessary if the applicant does not own the facility or structure; however,
a consent to allow the owner to grant access to other users for the same structure or facility
shall be required.
G. A soils report if the property contains weak foundation soils or has
landslide potential.
H. Identification of any other antenna sites owned or operated by the
applicant in the City.
6. Abandoned Facilities. A telecommunication facility that is unused for a period of
six consecutive months or longer is hereby declared abandoned. Abandoned facilities
shall be removed by the property owner no later than 90 days from date of abandonment.
Failure to remove an abandoned facility is declared a public nuisance and is subject to the
penalties established by LOC Article 34.04. Upon written application, prior to the
expiration of the six month period, the City Manager shall, in writing, grant a six month
extension for reuse of the facility. Additional extensions beyond the first six month
extension may be granted by the City Manager subject to any conditions required to bring
the project or facility into compliance with current law(s) and make compatible with
surrounding development.
•
•
CDC Update 2004-Additional Provisions Page 29
DRAFT July 29,2004
Residential Infill Design Review
The following sections have not been included in the CDC Update document. They still •
need to be combined with RID section in original.
Section XXXX
Section 50.72.005 Purpose
The purpose of this Article is to:
1. Provide an alternative process for the review of building permits for construction
or alteration ofsingle—family—detached—outright permitted residential dwellings and
accessory structures in residential zones
sty where the clear and objective development standards of the code conflict with
or prevent development that may otherwise be compatible with the character of the
neighborhood and surrounding residential development.
2. Ensure that new development is consistent with the character of development
envisioned for neighborhoods in Lake Oswego.
3. Ensure that new development is compatible with existing, surrounding residential
development.
This amendment would expand the use of the RID Review from single family residences
(detached or attached),to any outright permitted residential dwelling or, its accessory
structures. Staff believes the RID Review process can be applied to all forms of
residences,includes attached dwellings,duplexes and multi-family dwellings,to assure
compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.
ID
Section XXXX
Section 50.79.020 Minor Development Classification
1. A Minor Development is a development which requires a permit from the City that
requires a more discretionary level of review than a ministerial decision. "Minor
Development" is intended to include decisions defined as "limited land use decisions"
pursuant to ORS 197.015 (12).
2. "Minor Development" includes:
o. Single family attached Outright permitted residential dwellings when
processed through the Residential Infill Design Review process (LOC Article 50.72).
3. Minor developments are initially decided by the City Manager subject to notice,
the opportunity to request a hearing, and appeal as provided by LOC Article 50.81.
Residential Infill applicability is governed by LOC 50.72.010,and it makes reference to
50.79.020(2)(o). So,to change the applicability of RID Review,the change must be
made to 50.79.020(2)(o). .
This amendment would expand the use of the RID Review from single family residences
(detached or attached),to any outright permitted residential dwelling or its accessory
structures. Staff believes the RID Review process can be applied to all forms of
residences, includes attached dwellings,duplexes and multi-family dwellings,to assure
compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. RITE Review should not,however,be
available to conditional use residential dwellings,because the neighborhood •
compatibility requirement is addressed through the conditional use standards.
CDC Update 2004-Additional Provisions Page 30
DRAFT July 29,2004
• Note: currently there is a conflict between the purpose statement—"single family
attached dwellings—and the applicability reference—single family attached dwellings.
Section XXXX
Section 50.72.020 Authorization and Criteria
1. In considering an application for residential infill design review, the City Manager
shall apply the building height, lot coverage, floor area ratio, yard setback, front setback
plane, side yard setback elevation requirements, garage appearance and location and
accessory structure requirements of the underlying zone, including such requirements
created or modified by a planned development overlay.
2. The City Manager may grant exceptions to the applicable requirements listed in
subsection (1) above, if the applicant demonstrates that the proposed single
€an}ilyresidential dwelling or accessory structure design results in development that is
equal to or better than development that would meet the clear and objective standards
listed in subsection (1) above, for the applicable zone. In making this determination, the
City Manager shall consider the following:
a. Residential Dwelling or Accessory StructureHeose Size.
i. Intent. Compatible infill is ensured through a mix of standards addressing
lot dimensions and maximum allowable floor areas. These standards are intended to
reflect the size of building(s) that can be reasonably located and shaped to suit the scale
and character of a neighborhood. The Code establishes that maximum allowable floor
area and its location on a lot through the following standards:
1 • Floor area ratio
• Lot coverage
• Yard Setbacks
• Building height
• Accessory structures
ii. Criteria. The City Manager may permit a residential dwelling or
accessory structureho se design to exceed or vary from the standards listed in subsection
(2)(a)(i) above when a more compatible, positive relationship between the size of a
proposed residential dwelling or accessory structurehease and the scale and character of a
neighborhood can be demonstrated in other ways. The City Manager will evaluate that
relationship by considering the degree to which a proposed design offers features that
diminish the perceived scale and improve the perceived character of greater size. That
review will include consideration of:
1. Distance and visibility from street and adjoining properties;
2. Topography;
3. Building number(more smaller versus one larger,for example);
4. Building form(s),massing and orientation; and
5. Landscaping.
b. Relationship to the Street.
i. Intent. Compatible infill is development that makes a positive
contribution to the scale and character of a neighborhood's streetscape. While this scale
and character will vary from neighborhood to neighborhood and from street to street, a
. positive contribution is typically one that enhances the safety and experience of a
CDC Update 2004-Additional Provisions Page 31
DRAFT July 29,2004
pedestrian using the street. The Code establishes the relationship of a building's location •
and form relative to the street through the following standards:
• Front yard setback
• Front setback plane
• Garage door openings
ii. Criteria. The City Manager may permit a residential dwelling or
accessory structure house-design to exceed or vary from the standards listed in subsection
(2)(b)(i) above when a more compatible, positive relationship between a proposed design
and the scale and character of the street can be demonstrated in other ways. The City
Manager will evaluate that relationship by considering the degree to which a proposed
design offers features that enhance the perceived scale and character of the street from a
pedestrian's perspective. That review will include consideration of:
1. Distance and visibility from street;
2. Prevailing patterns of front yard setback, building alignment and spacing
(rhythm);
3. Topography;
4. Preservation of existing trees and features of perceived value to the street;
5. Perceived building form, proportion, massing and orientation relative to
the street;
6. Porch and/or entry location and treatment relative to the street;
7. Garage distance and visibility from the street;
8. Perceived size and scale of garage doors from the street;
9. Perceived area and scale of driveways and parking areas from the street;
10. Fencing or screens; and •
11. landscaping.
c. Relationship to the Neighbors.
i. Intent. Compatible infill does not diminish the scale, character or privacy of
neighboring heusesresidences. While the scale, character and privacy of one building
relative to another will vary from street to street, and from lot to lot, a positive
contribution is typically one that adjusts the location and perceived scale, character and
views from or to a new residential dwelling or accessory structurehouse to avoid visual
conflict with neighbors. The Code establishes the relationship of a building's location
and form relative to its neighbors through the following standards:
• Side yard setback
• Side wall elevation
ii. Criteria. The City Manager may permit a residential dwelling or accessory
structureheuse design to exceed or vary from the standards listed in subsection (2)(c)(i)
above when a more compatible, positive relationship between a residential dwelling or
accessory structurehouse and the scale, character and privacy of its neighbors can be
demonstrated in other ways. The City Manager will evaluate that relationship by
considering the degree to which a proposed design offers features that enhance perceived
scale, character and privacy relative to adjoining properties. That review will include
consideration of:
1. Distance and visibility from adjoining properties;
2. Preservation of existing trees and features of perceived value to adjoining
properties; •
CDC Update 2004-Additional Provisions Page 32
DRAFT July 29, 2004
• 3. Topography;
4. Perceived building height, form, proportion, massing and orientation relative
to adjoining properties;
5. Treatment of elevations exposed to adjoining properties;
6. Perceived sight lines to and from windows, decks and outdoor living spaces;
7. Fencing or screening; and
8. Landscaping.
3. When applying the criteria for compatibility of residential dwelling or accessory
structurehouse size, relationship to the street, and relationship to neighbors as set forth in
subsection (2) above, the City Manager shall consider the pattern and character of
development of all lots within 200 feet of the subject site. The City Manager shall also
consider any neighborhood design objectives or guidelines for residential development
that have been adopted by the local neighborhood association.
This amendment would expand the use of the R Review from single family residences
(detached or attached),to any outright permitted residential dwelling or its accessory
structures:
"his Am ndment angel the amendment to LO 5017.010(3)also makes it clear that RID
Review can be used to modify the e r quire is as established by a Overlay,
without requiring 1'l modification.,This is different than for variances to tone
requirements established tt ugh the pp:overlay het, use the s of`the R, Review
is to result in a dwelling or accessory suture that is�l"to ar better th'would be
• permitted
isunder thle PD�e require ts;a variance would be to authorize development
whic not a ua to the development permitted under the Ply re u ire ents,but
rather reduces the" zone requirements in order to allowreasonable development.
Section XXXX
Section 50.68.017 Variances Not Allowable
1. No variance shall be granted that will permit a use not permitted in the applicable
zoning district or that will increase the allowable residential density in any zone.
2. No variance to
a zone requirement for which an exception was granted pursuant to
LOC 50..17.015(2) shall be granted to a lot within a planned development where any
, , an exception to the zone requirement was modified-granted
from the underlying zone requirements by the planned development overlay approval.
With the addition of front yard setback planes side yard setback plies,and other new
zone requirements,the limited listing in this section is outmoded. By tying the reference
to exceptions under LOC 50.17.015(2),no variances shall be.granted for which the pp
Overby moth ed the specific requirement,as that now.exists or as may be
amended.
Section XXXX
Section 50.17.010 Procedures
1. The establishment of a PD Overlay for projects containing more than one phase
• shall occur in conjunction with the approval by the Planning Commission of an Overall
Development Plan and Schedule (ODPS)pursuant to the provisions of LOC Article 50.71.
CDC Update 2004-Additional Provisions Page 33
DRAFT July 29,2004
The ODPS shall contain a section which identifies the zone requirements to be applied in
the PD Overlay. These requirements may be adopted by referring in the Final Order to •
existing provisions of this chapter or by creating special zoning standards pursuant to the
Planned Development Overlay section. (LOC 50.17.005 to 50.17.025).
2. A request for a PD overlay for a project that will contain only one phase may be
considered by the Development Review Commission. No ODPS shall be required,but the
requirements of subsection (1) of this section for the adoption of zone requirements in the
Final Order shall be complied with.
3. Following approval of a PD Overlay:
a. If any modifications were made from the underlying zone requirements for lot
area, dimensions, setback, residential FAR, garage appearance and location,front building
plane, side yard elevation or lot coverage for any lots within the planned development,
then any subsequent request for modification to these standards by variance shall be
processed as a modification to the development permit granting the Planned Development
Overlay, pursuant to LOC 50.86.025; further exceptions to the modified underlying zone
requirements are permissible through the Residential Infill Design Review process (LOC
50.72) without modification of the Planned Development Overlay.
This Amendment and the amendment to LOC 50.72.020 makes it clear that RID Review
can be used to modify the zone requirements as established by a PD Overlay,without
requiring a PI)modification. This is different than for variances to zone requirements
established through the PD Overlay because the purpose of the MD Reviewi is to result in
a dwelling or accessory
structure that is equal.to or better than would be Permitted under
the PD zone requirements;a variance would be to authorize development which is not •
equal to the development Permitted under the PD zonerequirements'butratherreduces
the zone requirements in order to allow reasonable development.
b. If no modifications were made from the underlying zone requirements for lot
area, dimensions, setbacks, residential FAR, garage appearance and location, front
building plane, side yard elevation or lot coverage for any lots within the planned
development, then any subsequent request for modification to these requirements of the
underlying zone shall be processed as a variance, pursuant to LOC Article 50.68 or, for
qualified residential developments, processed according to the provisions of LOC Article
50.72.
c. For PD applications filed prior to August 14, 2003, the following standards do
not apply:
i. The FAR standards of LOC 50.08.040;
ii. The FAR standards of LOC 50.06.035;
iii. The height exception standards of LOC 50.06.055; LOC 50.07.030; and
LOC 50.08.035;
• iv. The front setback plane and side yard plane requirements of LOC
50.06.060; LOC 50.07.040; and LOC 50.08.045.
v. The garage appearance and location standards of LOC 50.06.065; LOC
50.07.045 (2)(a.); and LOC 50.08.055.
•
CDC Update 2004-Additional Provisions Page 34
DRAFT July 29,2004
i Exhibit A- Appendix 50.07-B
STREET
PORCH
re-47 At
/' .
a — ---11111.-; -*-5
I 1
ALLEY
ri„-- ,
• * _ 1
FRONT i i r..a'. 5' «,
BUILDING i5' f 1 ,j
LINE
• •k .:. ,. � ,.4uPO :- _.... .._ww.fire+Mxwwvv?.€mni. .• —s�—._.
PORCH RCH 1 ,
I } 1 I ___.„
STREET
*Side yard setback depends on
height of accessory structure (garage):
less than or equal to 18 feet-->5 feet
greater than 18 feet>5-15 feet
L:\Case Files\2004\LU 04-0004 2004 Community Development Code Updates\Ordinance and code\Code
Changes 2004-additional provisions only 07-29-04 .doc
•
CDC Update 2004-Additional Provisions Page 35
DRAFT July 29,2004
,i,o,,....swF Community Development
•
,",„
`yr Department
T5k_.duh`.x
Memorandum
OREGO$
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Debra Andreades, AICP,Associate Planner
DATE: August 2, 2004
SUBJECT: Lakefront Zoning Approach/Visioning Workshop
Background
On June 28, 2004,the Planning Commission held a work session regarding lakefront zoning. During the work
session,the Commission discussed issues and concepts as well as the public involvement process.
This report provides an update on the proposed planning process and public involvement activities.
• Planning Process/Public Involvement
At the June 28th meeting, the Commission reviewed the proposed list of members for the Lakefront Zoning
Advisory Committee (LZAC). Since the June 28th meeting staff has been in contact with the Lake Corporation
representatives (Bob Barman and Linda Kerl)who were involved in the first phase. Mr.Barman has requested
that the Lake Corporation be given two positions on the proposed Lakefront Zoning Advisory Committee. The
following list reflects this addition.
LZAC Membership
The following members are proposed:
• One Planning Commissioner(chair).
• Two members of the Lake Oswego Corporation Board.
• One member representing each neighborhood association abutting the lake
- Evergreen
- Lakewood
- Palisades
- Blue Heron
- McVey/South Shore
- Country Club/North Shore
- Bryant
• One member representing easement holders.
• One member representing the building/real estate industry.
Charge Statement
• The LZAC shall be charged with the following tasks:
• Develop a vision statement describing the character of development desired around the lake.
• Verify issues and concepts.
City Council 1 August 2,2004
Lakefront Zoning(P 02-0007)
• Test concepts.
• Review code language and make recommendations to the Planning Commission.
• Check-in periodically with the Planning Commission to assure that LZAC work is consistent with
•
Commission expectations.
Questions to be Addressed by the LZAC
• Do the code concepts address the identified problems in an adequate manner?
• Should concepts be applied equally to all lakefront properties? Should the same standards apply to
Lakewood neighborhood properties that apply to Lakeview Boulevard properties?
• If different standards apply in different areas,how should the standards differ? How should we define
characteristics of each different area?
Visioning Workshop:
At the June 28`h meeting, the Planning Commission recommended that the first task of the LZAC should be a
visioning exercise to identify the character of development desired around the Lake. This will entail addressing
community values and desires of those in the study area. An example of questions to be asked:
• What is the character of development that is appropriate on lots abutting the lake?
• Should there be a common vision for the whole lake or according to sub-areas?
• What level of natural resource protection is appropriate around the lake?
• In what ways can the lake function as a community wide asset?
Planning Process
• 1st LZAC Meeting: Staff to present regulatory framework
Committee to lay groundwork: set goals for community meeting/agree on
tasks/schedule for process [October] •
• Community Wide Meeting: Visioning,hosted by LZAC, facilitated by staff [October]
• 2"d LZAC Meeti Discuss input from Community Meeting and develop collective vision for future
development on the lake-define common interests-refine vision [November]
• Staff to work on test cases and potential regulations [November-December]
• 3rd LZAC Meeting: Staff presentation/Committee evaluation of alternatives [January]
• Staff synthesizes alternatives and tests new scenarios [February]
• 4th LZAC Meeting: Problem solving tempered by vision/Alternatives [March]
• Staff refine alternatives and suggest code language [March]
• Check in with Planning Commission [April]
• 5th LZAC Meeting: Staff presents code language to LZAC [April]
• 6th LZAC Meeting: Refine Code language [May]
• Final Community Meeting to check in?OR Public Meeting at City Council to present results [May]
Next Steps
On August 9th, staff requests that the Commission define any other objectives for the visioning process. The next
step is to initiate the process for Council appointments of a Committee.
•
City Council 2 August 2, 2004
Lakefront Zoning(P 02-0007)
w
of usis
(----
0Yf�o Community Development
'` �, Department
C y.
miaow
` ; , Memorandum
TO: Lake Oswego Planning Commission
FROM: Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager
SUBJECT: P 04-0007 -August 9, 2004 Work Session on Variances and
Adjustments
DATE: July 30, 2004
Staff will be e-mailing a report on variances later in the week. Deputy City Attorney Evan Boone
is working with the development review staff to refine a proposal for Planning Commission
discussion. They are scheduled to meet and address this topic mid-week.
II
Report Attach
ed
A Proposal to Expand the Applicability and
• Revise the Criteria for Class 1 Variances
(P 04-0007)
August 3, 2004
Overview
Present:
The current Class 1 variance was revised in 2000 (LU 99-0059)to eliminate the
necessity of showing a hardship for variances to the Code requirements that
would have"little or no effect"on adjacent neighbors and no impact on natural
resources/traffic. The applicability of Class 1 is limited to very small incursions
into the setbacks or small changes from the code requirements, i.e., less than 20%
of the yard setbacks.
In the past 3+ years, a Class 1 variance has been granted if there is no showing of
a material injury on surrounding property and no impact on natural resources/
traffic. Absent a showing of some material impact on surrounding properties,
which is generally shown by the presence of neighbor objections or comments to
the variance request,no design requirements are needed as a condition of
• approval to mitigate any adverse impacts.
The Problem:
Class 1 —no hardship—variances are available in only limited instances. Staff
has found that the applicability of a Class 1 variance should be expanded. The
motivation to examine the re-examine the criteria and applicability of Class 1
variances arises from small expansions to existing structures.
Although a small expansion was thought not to be harmful to the neighbors and
the neighborhood, an applicant may fail to qualify for a current Class 1 variance
because:
• The amount of variance exceeded the limited applicability; and
• The applicant failed to qualify for a Class 2 variance because the applicant
was not been denied reasonable use of the property(no hardship to the
applicant).
The initial thought is to expand the applicability of Class 1 variances. However,
in expanding the applicability of Class 1,there is a greater potential that, at least
in some instances, the development will have an impact on more than just the
properties located within 300 feet, or that even in the absence of specific
comments from neighbors, the development proposal will be inconsistent with the
• overall neighborhood development pattern or general purposes of the zone
requirements. As the magnitude of the variance increases,then so too does the
Planning Commission 1 P 04-0007
Work Session—August 9, 2004
necessity to address the impact of the development upon a larger concept of
neighborhood. •
An existing alternative to Class 1 variance,but still without the necessity of the
applicant to show a hardship, is the Residential Infill Design Review(RID
Review) standards. RID Review is generally applicable to new construction or
major reconstruction because it requires that the design of the resulting
development be"equal or greater"than could be constructed in accordance with
the code. Typically, small additions to existing construction would not meet the
"equal or greater"test for RID Review.
The Proposal:
Expand the applicability of Class 1,but change the criteria so that the affect of a
development proposal could be examined based upon the impact to the
neighborhood and streetscape(which I refer to as Class 1+ for purposes of
discussion,and to distinguish from current Class 1 applicability and criteria).
The proposal borrows from the concepts underlying the RID Review standards,
but adopts a"no harm"test,rather than RID's "equal or better".
The ability to impose design solutions currently exists for Class 1 and Class 2
variances, through the use of conditions of approval to mitigate the impact of the
variance. Under Class 1 applicability,no design conditions have been imposed on •
those applications during the past 3+years because the applicability of Class 1 is
limited to"little or no effect"to adjacent properties. By expanding the
applicability of Class 1,to Class 1+,the potential necessity to impose design/
landscaping solutions to mitigate the impact will be increased. But that does not
mean that a design/landscaping condition of approval need be imposed in every
Class 1+variance approval.
Staff may adopt an administrative guideline to the effect that in cases that are
within the current Class 1 variance applicability, there is most likely not a harm
under the three new criteria(because those variances currently have"little or no
effect"on neighboring property and thus are not likely to result in a harm on the
neighbors, greater neighborhood, or the streetscape that requires a design/
landscape solution.
But when a Class 1+variance is sought for development that is greater than the
current Class 1 variance applicability limits, the administrative guideline could •
suggest that a closer eye must be given as to whether or not design/landscaping
solutions are necessary for the development not to create harm on neighbors,the
neighborhood, or the streetscape. This does not mean that in every case where the
Class 1+variance is greater than the current Class 1 variance applicability a
design/landscape solution is necessary. In some cases,there may be no harm on
the neighbors, the neighborhood, or streetscape and hence no design/ landscape •
Planning Commission 2 P 04-0007
Work Session—August 9, 2004
solution is required. In other case, a design/landscape solution may be necessary
• in order for the variance request to meet the"no harm" standard under the Class
1+variance criteria. The guideline merely suggests that a closer examination of
impact be given.
Staff's threshold for a"design/landscaping" analysis does not preclude
neighbors from showing that a development proposal that what would now be a
Class 1 variance does, in fact,have harm,just as they can now show that
mitigation is required for a Class 1 variance.
Summary:
Because the applicability of Class 1 variances is being expanded to situations that
would require design/landscape solutions to mitigate the impact of a variance,
the criteria of what constitutes a negative impact needs to be more clearly stated,
to assist applicants and neighbors in deciding whether a design/landscape
solution should be considered in the application. Staff may, through a statement
of administrative guideline, indicate those types of Class 1+variances that
generally would not have a negative impact to the neighborhood, to guide both
applicants and staff in review of variance applications—specifically, the current
Class 1 variances have,through application,not been found to require a design/
landscape mitigation.
.
Planning Commission 3 P 04-0007
Work Session—August 9, 2004
•
LOC 50.68.010 Variance Standards
1. The reviewing authority may grant a variance from the requirements of this Code, except as
expressly prohibited,if it is established that:
a. Class 1 (Minor)Variance Standards.
i. The granting of the variance will not result in a incompatible, negative
relationship between the proposed development and:
A. The scale and character of the neighborhood;
Tiiiai4Aijit- har test + t e`housse *A s. u'
B. The scale and character of the street, such that the safetyor experience of a
s eet, pe
pedestrian using the street abutting the development is diminished; and
C. The scale,character and privacy to properties within 300 feet of the property.
•aa
tes
above.
a
•
k e:
ii. The proposed development will not adversely affect existing physical and natural
systems such as traffic, drainage, Oswego Lake, hillsides, designated sensitive lands, historic
resources, or parks, and the potential for abutting properties to use solar energy devices any more
than would occur if the development were located as specified by the requirements of the zone.
b. Class 2 Variance.
i. Class 2 Variance Standards.
(1) The request is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship;and,
(2) Development consistent with the request will not be injurious to the
neighborhood in which the property is located or to property established to be affected by the
request; and,
Planning Commission 4 P 04-0007
Work Session—August 9, 2004
(3) The request is the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of the
• property; and,
(4) The request is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
ii. Class 2 Variance Factors and Considerations.
In evaluating whether a particular request is to be granted, the granting authority
shall consider the following,together with any other relevant facts or circumstances:
(1) Relevant factors to be considered in determining whether a hardship exists
include:
(A)Physical circumstances related to the piece of property involved.
(B) Whether a reasonable use similar to like properties can be made of the
property without the variance.
(C) Whether the hardship was created by the person requesting the variance.
(D)The economic impact upon the person requesting the variance if the
request is denied.
(2) Relevant factors to be considered in determining whether development
, consistent with the request is injurious include:
(A)An analysis of the physical impacts such development will have, such as
visual,noise,traffic and the increased potential for drainage,erosion and landslide hazards.
(B) The perceptions of residents and owners of property in the neighborhood
concerning the incremental impacts occurring as a result of the proposed variance.
2. A determination of whether the standards set forth in subsection 1(b)(i) are satisfied
necessarily involves the balancing of competing and conflicting interests.The considerations listed
in subsection 1(b)(ii) (1) and (2) are not standards and are not intended to be an exclusive list of
considerations. The considerations are to be used as a guide in the granting authority's
deliberations.
_3,Pfier-ver-iaiwes-atiews€1-iti-the4leighberheed-shal4-fiet-be-eensidefed-by-the-rev.iewing
.(Repeal proposed in CDC Update 2004)
LOC 50.68.015 Classification of Variances
A variance which would allow development not in conformance with the requirements of the
development standards may be granted.
1. Class 1 ( variances are small changes from the Code requirements and—w iach
that generally have little or no significant effect impact on the neighborhood, streetscape, or
neighbors .
Class 1 (minor)variances include:
•
Planning Commission 5 P 04-0007
Work Session-August 9, 2004
•Standard to be Varied Current Class 1 applicability Recommended for inclusion
as Class 1+
Yard Setbacks, when Less than 20% Less than 50%
residential single family
dwelling and accessory
structures that don't comply
with LOC 50.14.005(a-c).
Yard Setbacks, non-single <2 feet for side or front yard No Change
family dwelling <5 feet for rear yard
Oswego Lake Setback Probably treated as 20% - 100%
technically should be Class 2
Building Height None(Class 2) Class 2, except for building
height changes when changing
from a flat to a pitched roof
Front Yard Setback Plane Class 2 No change(Class 2)
Side Yard Setback Plane Class 2 Less than or equal to 25%
Lot Width or Depth <5 feet No change
Lot Coverage, single family < 15% Less than or equal to 25%
and accessory, small platted
lots
FAR, single family and < 15% Less than or equal to 25% 411
accessory,small platted lots
Fence Requirements, including All No change
fence height •
Private Street or Driveway All No change
Grade
Construction of a dormer that All No change
does not exceed the height of
the roof ridge in which the
dormer is being constructed in
an existing single family
detached dwelling that is non-
conforming relative to lot
coverage or setbacks
Distance of driveway from All No change
intersections(LOC 50.58.015).
Street frontage(LOC All No change
50.57.015).
Driveway width for Flag Lots All No change
(LOC 50.20.020).
Changes to below standards would be made to conform to table above.
•
Planning Commission 6 P 04-0007
Work Session—August 9, 2004
• a. Variance from yard setback requirements for a single-family dwelling, or its
associated accessory structure that does not comply with the three criteria set forth in LOC
50.14.005 (5)(a)-(c),of 20%,or less.
b. Variance from yard setback requirements for a structure other than those described in
subsection(1)(a)of this section of two feet or less in side or front yards or five feet or less in rear
yards.
c. Variances from minimum lot width or depth of 5 feet or less.
d. Variances in lot coverage or floor area ratio(FAR) on platted lots which were platted
with an area less than the current zoning requirement for single-family residential dwellings and
accessory structures of up to and including 15%of the maximum allowed lot coverage or FAR.
e. Variations from maximum fence height restrictions.
f. Variation to the maximum grade of a private street or driveway.
g. Variances for construction of a dormer that does not exceed the height of the roof
ridge in which the dormer is being constructed in an existing single family detached dwelling that
is non-conforming relative to lot coverage or setbacks.
h. Variances to distance of driveway from intersections(LOC 50.58.015).
i. Variances to street frontage(LOC 50.57.015).
j. Variances to driveway width for Flag Lots(LOC 50.20.020).
2. Class 2 variances which are significant changes from the Code requirements awl-that are
likely to have significant impact on the neighborhood, streetscape, or neighbors.sreate-iifipaet on
Class 2 variances include:
a. Variances from setback requirements for a single-family dwelling, or its associated
accessory structure that does not comply with the three criteria set forth in LOC 50.14.005 (5)(a)-
• (c),of more than 20%.
b. Variances from the minimum lot width or depth of more than 5 feet.
c. Variances from setback requirements for structures other than those described in
subsection(1)(a)of this section of more than 2 feet in side and front yards and more than 5 feet in
rear yards.
d. Variances from the lot coverage or floor area ratio (FAR) for other than a single-
family residential dwelling or its associated accessory structures.
e. Variances to building height.
f. Variances to any other requirement of this Code except as classified as a Class 1
(minor)variance above,and applicable to a development.
3. The City Manager shall decide the classification of any variance application.
4. For Class 1 (minor) variances, the City Manager shall have the authority to require an
applicant to fulfill the requirements of LOC 50.77.025 at his/her discretion.This authority is solely
at the discretion of the City Manager and is not subject to appeal.
•
Planning Commission 7 P 04-0007
Work Session—August 9, 2004
OF►AKEOs Community Development
• Ly O
A
,% ► Department
i, .„,07/
Memorandum
\OREGO$
TO: Lake Oswego Planning Commission
FROM: Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager
SUBJECT: P 04-0008 - August 9, 2004 Work Session on Partitions and Flag Lots
DATE: July 30, 2004
The work session has been canceled. We will reschedule it for a future meeting.
III
•