HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 2003-09-08 PM M 1
.
•s n ., rl n
•
•
•
1 .`
r� CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
!,X
yl' '7 r�'
tl
41
• S
J
4
t ♦F:
•
^w 11 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDAS
/ I. IYJ- •
•
•1 4
ro
SEPTEMBER 8, 2003
* a YY•,
! xt n
1 y
t 1 Y
YvA �
Y W 44 .. 1*•
Fc MI
14,
J 1.4
ITr :41 ,y Yj•rt
y
t!• rr 4ttt,
a. ;
1 ,•,4A.,'' M
�y
•
Y tkk(3 •
n Y , ,.'STY
y t _ Hn «
t" .\ 1 l d -I.'', '- 1 t '- n '. 4,. L i '^ rt • 4ti. 'y a"} ~ r/" '
N �, ' ',Wt.!: rr - I , A r ,�;; t •t Y 4 7 :off ,y ' 1 i'�
' s '�.we - �' ... M1.j .it K ' r • -fyi • t m? d+twv a+ '�
+
e r - +
•i
a J w City of Lake Oswego
p{LItKE Oj •
���,d��1• ���
a ` ; / � Planning Commission �`
t
kn ) Monday,September 8,2003 � '
,, L '` \-1 6:00 p.m.—Work Session
4« '
V,
,, Members: •
City Hall Council Chamber
James Johnson,Chair 380 A Avenue ''a ;
„' ,Ire Frank Groznik,Vice Chair Lake Oswego,OR 97034
I i Mary Beth Coffey,Kenneth I.,,Sandblast, •
M1 Mark Stayer,Daniel Vizzini and Alison Webster Por Information. 503/635.0290 ;''
M1 Council Liaison: Jack Hoffman AGENDA DLL « M' r j
MIMI
This meeting is in a handicapped accessible location. For any special accommodations,please '
+ . ,,"' contact Iris Treinen,503/697-6591,48 hours before the meeting. ''p
, A.
'' "'' I. CALL TO ORDER M1 "
, II, ROLL CALL
k III, CITIZEN COMMENT—Regarding Issues Not On the Agenda(3 minute limit per individual) b 4 .,
IV, APPROVAL OF MINUTES
August 11, 2003
„: )
,, .3'
V, GENERAL PLANNING—WORK SESSION '
Y' ,
• P 03-0006/Sloped Lots :;k
:;; Staff coordinator is Dennis Egner,Long Range Planning Manager, ,',
•, VI, OTHER BUSINESS .R
VII, ADJOURNMENT
,ly
,I,.. •„.. 4'
y.1 ry:*1
'W. ,d1l,,
, .r
,,..,,, „.
t .4 ,4 .,
.
, ,,,,
i k
w•,
a a:
,• , .+ Cw t A ,i' �..: %•,�, 1, tM11
a 4
+ 4
. +
A "
iy k
A -.. H�. ,.N ..x..J�J hW.4 F \. , { • hJ N : " C „ , w� p p + N, �'t " +.. ] j'' {�
#,..., l . .r 4, -NV ,•"... y 4,. ,d 4...,. '..{.., .•....,t,r.. .i• M1, 41— . ., .. r : ,
Gi.
tt d
•
d , ;, .
ei ,. Community Development
`
• y: , ' � ' ,
o A 1lf Department •
. ti 1 tI , r, j
`
t f �Fe i �.. £
y
f
�,, .�., , �
„ -" ', Memorandum 'µ ,.
yyA 4.M5 ..- -. Ay, A..• , -..,..�
missommus.
TO: Planning Commission
1t.' A.'�ti ".�,'
+.' 4' 1 it FROM: Dennis Lgner,AICP,Long Range Planning Manager
• t' w DATE: November 13.2003 •' J
SUBJECT: Development on Sloped Lots(P 03-0006) M+',. ., Work Session on November 24,2003 • ,t A, ».'
F
., A. Introduction .w '
• y ", . At the September 8th meeting,the Planning Commission discussed development on sloped lots, This . 4k.
discussion was in response to issues raised during the infill hearings and primarily focused on the height
of buildings on sloped lots. A work session has been scheduled for the November 24th meeting to give
ti staff direction so that we can begin to develop a firm proposal for review and hearing. Staff has invited t,'.
g" , neighborhood representatives and builders to the November 24tt'meeting. "" "
,E,1 B, Format " a
li w. M .q ,, /n
. The meeting is scheduled as a Commission work session but it is expected that those in attendance will ;'
e9ntribute to the discussion and provide information for Commission consideration, It is suggested that
. . ' the Commission follow a format similar to a public hearing but you may want to invite additional public
comment on each option or set of questions as the Commission proceeds through deliberation and
discussion.
A
'. ,
A
C. Background Summary `'"r'
A 4
'• During infill hearings the Commission received testimony that the down slope wall of a house should be
allowed to be taller so that the living area on a single floor can be maximized and the need for stairway's , .
r.• ,J' lessened. The development code currently limits height on sloped lots to 35 feet at all points along the R
slope. This standard requires homes to"step-down"the slope and reduces visual impact on down slope
i. i. : . „a' properties. A more detailed background explanation is provided in the September 8th staff report(dated
September 2,2003),which is attached to this tnetnorandum. Minutes of the September 8th discussion 1
y are also attached.
Y
..
D. Issues y'
There are two essential issues that need to be addressed regarding sloped tot development. These issues, pt fi.
Y floor area and appearance,are desc':bed below.
A , '.'...ti, W Floor area—The rimar•reason the issue of lot development is before the Commission �' y
primary slopedPlanning
" ' *;;„:A is because of concerns expressed about how the development code standards limit floor area on a single w".
N utting,Commission Meeting 1 1'U(1 0003 '
November 24,200) `
. n ' „
y J r; 1 AA."f a;?� ', t" � , �' w. '' P >r y•.;R o ~�¶'. {� "" �„ ,� 1 '+ r
V I 1 N ' ' . !.,• ! X,
N`� I-. .R 11 •1.y.. (i 4, .. ._ ,. . _ty '. a .� W. i , +.'�-r'. I . •4,.-,
( a
y
v.":::''''',....'"."' floor on very steep lots. To meet height requirements as slopes increase,floor area on a single floor '�
a
must be reduced so that a house can step down the hillside and remain under the maximum 35 foot
• y',• , '' height limit. Attachment 2 of the September Planning Commission staff report provided examples of ' ; ; ; ,"i
r " how building depth must be reduced as slopes increase,
Appearance—The current standards regulating height on sloped lots were primarily intended to address
s " the appearance of development on steeply sloped lots from the down slope vantage point. By requiring
, homes to step down the hillside,the structures are less likely to loom over down slope neighbors. If ,'
».w,'?;, floor areas on steeply sloped lots are allowed to increase,there will be a resulting height increase and a �'
corresponding impact on down slope properties. Strategies are needed to mitigate these impacts should • '.,
» Nt` . ! the Planning Commission and Council choose to allow increased floor areas on steeply sloped lots, -.
o^ E. Options 't
The following options have been developed in response to the issues, These options need to he tested
and discussed with stakeholders and neighborhood leaders before developing final code language. '
Floor Area—Options to address floor area are described below, 44'
i ' 'F ■ Relaxed Height Requirements—The least complicated method to add floor area is to simply ;. ;I,
relax the height requirements on steeply sloped lots. Currently height is limited to no more than -
;, ;j; 35 feet at all points along a slope regardless of the slope of the lot, Sloped lots arc defined as
those where there is a 10 foot differential in height from the front of the house to the back of the
.1° ', house, The standard applies in the same manner regardless if the lot has a 15%slope or a 60% •,'''4.s
slope. Relaxing the height standards for steeply sloped lots provides added flexibility, Options ,ii,°
w include:
- ". • A sliding scale increase, For example,allow one foot of additional height fur every three per "` .,
,,.r cent of additional slope above 30%. Under this scenario,a 45%slope would allow a height L.
of 40 feet and 60%slope would allow a height of 45 feet, u:
• Height averaging, Rather than measure height continuously along the slope,require
:'•,7, structures to meet an average height requirement, In this case,portions of the building could
exceed 35 feet in height provided that other portions were less than 35 feet in height »
a ..¢
Key questions: ('
- What sliding scale height is appropriate? Should there be a maximum height limit?For .,tKy
example,45,1eect? ,; +0'.
4 ,„ " Is height averaging appropriate? y . -
x i'. , a
•
Advantages—Relatively simple approach.
rr Disadvantages—Requires new definitions and procedures for measuring slope. Freight
•' w„ averaging provides little predictability. :`
w ., r Guaranteed Minimum Floor Area—Under this approach each home on a sloped property
. { would be guaranteed a minimum floor area for a main floor, The minimum floor area would
override height limits up to a certain maximum height(e.g.50 feet), For example,the • "'
' guaranteed minimum floor area could be set at 20q%,of lot area,with a maximum floor area of
1,500 square feet on the main level. For an 8,000 square foot lot,the guaranteed minimum floe:
urea would be limited to 1,500 square feet rather than 20%of lot area(1,600 square feet).
• A
Manning C'onan•.sion Meeting " 1106.00O ' '
' ' MA,ember 24.200
0 _ '�'e �� �, � �,1i � !'. r' yy P ,'.
4, ;". 'S a A. k an I + ,
e � t J ry'~, �• y CC4 y w• " Nf. µ,. 'A i , y •, ,� ,iJ r 1 ��
�. " .. ..• `,'r -... A �,. A. fit.. r. .!. - i, .., a• a.r ...« ..�11..ye •a
v
..N .i }• ti •y
"r u :s-•
r
M .v
Key questions: ,'.' M..
- What is a reasonable minimum floor area to guarantee? 1,500 square feet? 1,000
square feet? +'
- - What maximum height limit should be established? Should it depend on slope?
} .i Advantages—Directly relates to main issue,
1. ,.. Disadvantages—Results in a very complicated set of standards, , .,:
e
■ Cantilevered Design-Another option for allowing additional floor area is to exempt the
cantilevered portion of a house from the height measurement requirement, This approach would a``
,' require the height to be measured only for the portion of the house that is not cantilevered, A 'f,.
" , variation of this approach would be to exempt a portion of the cantilever,e.g.height would be
: ''; measured at a point five feet back toward the main structure of the house when the cantilever "
extends more than five feet from the house.
w
a' ' cantilever Example Key questions: , + ..
- What portion of the cantilever should be
,,
rA
exempt? The entire cantilever?Five feet? I,''''
- Should a maximum height apply to any
s;. cantilever?50feet? ,. {•." "•".'
Advantages—Provides more floor area on main ' .•
"i floor and breaks up down slope walls, 35• • u •;
Disadvantages—Complicated measurements.
•i 1 ♦ 1Meeeue.1t1 •o
w'4 1 e(We bGCell
Appearance—Options addressing appearance should be
+ " ' coupled with any option to address floor area, Aesthetic standards can help to assure that upslope
e ,«
designs remain compatible with their down slope neighbors. Options are addressed below, ;°:,
n Enclosed,Screened,or Open Support Structure—Concern has been expressed regarding the `;` "
r appearance of the supporting structures below homes on steep lots, In some instances,homes
w,.
have been built on stilts leaving plumbing and bare gr.,und exposed to the down slope neighbors, ,
;;•` Standards could be established to require the supporting structure to be enclosed or visually w'`ir, :''
f.i r u , �•
screened from view. Open support .
strut.ttn•es typically provide less wall ,i�rK �)f+•' k y *,.y�..1 ,
\1!1• r � � �T :1 i ri
surface and more landscaping, ,'{y,7 ti u ,l� r ,1. t u,
T C'. 1 5,Y y l"1
Key questions: i 44 . ` a�' i, a «!�,t1" ,,, 4 111,'( i x, y:4 +a
.4y 1 h T i �; e y J ' r
Should the supporting iru,Q structure .,—„ •. l. 7 ,,4 •'.,`,+( kJ ,.
tl, - for homes on steeply S'Mped lots ,r• '' ,, `n,.+* ' `4 a�'� 1`FK«' •,�,
.4�, be enclosed 'mil'';44Ni ..j, " i ,4
., or screened? Are open Sttpport00." "$ i�'I v," y".Vt,�y ,;'4/0 r Nh 4t�i?,-
str•netnres(stilts)acceptable? a.: 6NCMr,• .. 1( .1 w .. k..
- Is it adequate to simply require Lake Oswego,OR
the underside of structure to
• • present a finished appearance? W"y:;
.. 1 - If screening is desired, what ripe of landscaped screening Is appropriate?
- ("litotes Oh stilts are permitted, should ground cover be required?
i • Advanta —Enclosures present a finished appearance. Open structures can he less imposing
and provide greater opportunities for landscaping.
�
4
M
Planning Commission Meeting 3 1't16.0003 t
�,t,,,,� November 24,'003 . .,
n
( Is
"AA1l8'2l .
h tl• 1. ('' I,. fi '.7 -'1 �. j' ♦• ' f t •i �
A r , "* 1 i. w ""� I ....4 n °, _ F' 4 '' ,;• .. °t . .,,,•
r w ', A "
".4
' 1.
e.
Disadvantuges—Enclosures result in higher walls with more surface area exposed to down slope e. ,'
neighbors. Open structures sometimes are used as storage. „-
L., • d,
Break-up Wall Planes—Building walls and enclosed support structures often create imposing
` facades when viewed from a down slope property or public right-of-way, To create variety and
I n Y ll.
,�•a °` visual interest,these wall planes should be broken-up into smaller surfaces. This can be
accomplished through the use of glazing,changes in materials,decks and porches.cantilevers, " •`"-"
and physical displacement of the wall plane. The new infill standards include side yard wall a
ael plane standards that require wall surfaces to be no greater than 500 square feet in the 12-5 and R- "
4" ' 6 zones and no greater than 750 square feet in the R-7,5,R-10,and R-15 zones. W R
V , ).le
Key questions; ,tee,,,' d xF r"�µ'`N A',
- Should wall plane standards be developed for a�`"W j' w ; �w tp ' fli7 .
1
•a exposed wall planes our steeply sloped lots; -lyd`r' °1 ,,. q",', ,- x x
Should landscaped screening be an }e^ I$,, n a;.,,� ' 14.:-.4 4
- 1 g
te,.A rtf V''(:'rr P y '1$ .' 6 'Ott'':`.x,1 t =
„;; acceptable substitute for physical 5'"`x'' I�r r„Ts, a fi'. IL., � y ; ��' .rtfil,
displacement of a wall plane? t ,4+ . 1 4 , <'' 1'•Y .
- Should landscaped screening he required? �' , 1 " 'r
MS p. IS,"., 4 +�� •f• P �r 4
a ,i, "' r'" Advantages--Will help to reduce the impact of i MY�S;` uii 47 I ,
a slo a development on down slope properties. ^
p p pp p A `r"
DISadvantaues—Clear and objective standards
•
governing wall planes and screening are difficult to ''. ..•l .'r: '- ,,.- ..,i „r tr@'t, „,: ^ fu
'a'+ ",: administer. Lake Oswego,OR .
4 ,
Y ^ Exemptions Based on Visibility,Setback,or Scale—When structures are not visible from d
1 •" other properties or from public ways or if a structure is viewed from a distance,it may he i
a appropriate to provide exemptions from the standards governing height and appearance. Some ,
of the steeply sloped lots in Lake Oswego are located in forested areas and are not visible from k t,,a
other properties, These may be candidates for exemptions. In addition,some lakefront "
properties are viewed from across the lake and the scale is such that added height may not have a
a . . '4.,, down slope impact. Exemptions may be appropriate in these cases. Given the wide range of
variables that ma' be encountered,it is suggested that the exemption process be a discretionary
process rather thtui an administrative process addressed by clew and objective standards,
a,
r..
Key questions; 's ' "i
Should an exemption process he established? :,
". . - Should the process be subject to administrative review or follow a discretiouar r review
process?
Advantanes—Allows properties that have little or no impact on other properties to he exempt " "
irom the standards. ',
'i �" ' • Disadvantages—May :viewed as un alternative to a variance. ,
w-
F. Other Issues—Height at the Street
` '"r' The height standards used in the City of Seattle offers a suggestion for how we might change our current
height requirements on steeply sloped lots. Currently.we allow buildings to he 35 feet in height on any
portion of a steeply sloped lot. Seattle applies a cap on height where the property meets the street, ® �"�,
j.. I
k
,r
Planning Commission Meeting 'I P Oti-0003 `°`•
N ovember 24,200 • ' o'
7 �4,'e,
Yµ i b .1 A a,' r J}` IY Y ♦ G ' ``' , F f 4 t f
°
r • r,
N • r; Following this example,it may be apprrpriate to limit the height at the street level so that homes on a
sloped lots do not exceed the heights of their surrounding neighbors along the street,
t` Key question; "
- Should a lower height limit be appliedLo4.111001:1•000,4A:m.0104,112111.1.
r '
where homes meet the street?30 feet
u+eIL Gwrr
ti",; rather than 35 feet. "�'°p //! °a;m°„,� r )!uwaJ "'1 r• s Advantages—Encourages more compatibility„7 with surrounding properties, �- _Disadvantaces—Similar to the effect of the '"
front setback plane, u� H5 ylGicur i4o 'G. RecammeodatiouaR,wG KStaff recommends that the Planning Commission •,..'"'• ' determine whether the options outlined above should*4tia�'• r4 N, be pursued, The key questions listed with each option ,
provide a framework for discussion, After direction is City of Seattle ,tsr .t,;'
provided,staff will develop draft standards and
' ' " procedures for Planning Commission review in January, ,
j H V1
.,1
• , •
o
n
'
.s+
,
1 Planning,lhtufli ssloa titeei lg 5 I'(It,•nuuy
Not ember wa,.UUJ '
1250
,
,, ' ' ' :1 r11J - 4."' i1 a 1 .y "•', " ( v,. ry .. *'
Td
.4 , � •
,i y°'---`�s":�00 Community Development
r �I, Department `�'{
1 f., 91J/1/
� .„ ' Memorandum
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Nadine Smith,Consulting Planner
4 Dennis Egner,AICP,Long Range Planning Manager
n DATE: September 2,2003 4-
W ., 6 t
'^ SUBJECT: Development on Sloped Lots(P 03-0006) 1
N _ A Introduction t
During the public hearing process on moll standards,a request was made that the down slope wall of a
house be allowed to be taller so that the living area on a single floor can be maximized and the need for W „
*; stairways lessened,Issues that may result from this type of code change include:the aesthetics of how ' ' "
housing is placed on sloped lots in terms of unsightly open structured support systems,massing of 1 e:.' . '
• „ El) building and retaining walls,and the appearance of the buildings from both the up and down slope sides, :,
This memo provides background information and a range of alternative approaches for Planning
n" Commission consideration, Staff is requesting that the Commission provide general direction so that we w•;y `
can return to the Commission in October with a proposal. '.. '
Background .,
". : ,o",'' '11te issue of building heights for sloped lots was discussed during Planning Commission and City ,,
Council meetings on the new Mill standards, The issue not only includes building height but also the ` .N"4.0-'
-...: appearance of houses placed on sloped lots and how the r`;.
"' ,; requirements impact what can occur on a lot, Be(ause of re
n
1` �` ,,fit"„ the complexities,the issue was remanded to the Planning
!1� i t1! " +;0"Irv,
,e ill'tt a i1 t't'' Commission by the City Council
Kit e, ' r iM tl. ,, NIP, 1 br,-''fj A
'1 a " ` ,N ,1"i + �."" '�.s.,, { Building height and sloped lots are defined in the
, , ".' '',• t4 • +1 --/ 4 c+• Definition section of the Community Development Code
'q ' 1 j * ..r '' 't (LOC 50.02,005), The definitions state:
`` t '�It ` 01 ,4.144 14+� " Height or Puild/ The vertical cl&Stallele above a "
1 r. 0 n�` `} ' .,*lit,4 ZAP:` { 40; 't?
xi.,,�.s ty` , ,, + nk •2u %1.0� ,1+1'' reference poi11t measured to the coping ofa flat
u 21._ !"25;'I"TIAt 4Jti.(Fj� 17,' : ..ully' ,�i`0,, � ''1''' roof or to the decklineiofatnamardrooforfor " •
the highest point of the gable of pitched or
Mountain Park,Olt
hipped roof' e » '„
Planning Commission Meeting I P O6-0O03 a
September 8,.O03 ",t o '
_'� AAA'
,/q/y11 /rr,,yFy, ! 44 1 4, tl! ' . i4! k l ^ 1� sw N ' e� "•
•
•
� ' a ��" y#' t �" 4 2,* ;12 a 4 ; �. nl ,..''
t v
U•N 7 nh 1 �_r M.:'. { �IJ I } ,.1 1,.C
J: • The reference points are determined as follows;
.r
" .,'' a. If construction of structure results In artificial elevation of the ground surface: the
elevation o any round surface at the exterior wall ofthe building
g prior to construction. ' ,y
b. If construction of structure does not alter or results in artificial lowering of the ground
surface: the elevation of any ground surface at the exterior wall of the building after construction. See : ...'
{4, Appendix.50.02-A,
f
"" *'I. Lot,Sloped. A lot where the highest nattily!!or unaltered ground surface at the exterior wall qt.('
4 i .? building ar proposed building is more than ten,feel above the lowest natural or unaltered ground '
ro surface at the time of building permit application. For the purposes of determining building height,
naur'al or unaltered ground surface shall mean; The elevation of the existing ground,surface or the
existing ground surface resulting from a prior approved planned development at the time of building `'
permit application
Actual building heights are set as part of the development standards within each zone. Building heights
' for single-family residential zones are included in the following t.ible.
. , ,% ; pi
Maximum Building Height-Detached Single-Family
Zone Flat Lots Sloped Lots a''
" 4.,,'' R-5 28 feet 35 feet
+" _ R-6 28 feet 35 feet
R-7.5 28 feet 35 feet
R-10 30 feet 35 feet
i'` R-15 35 feet 35 feet ,
I Attached development may average 40 feet with no one building over 50 feet, ,, °1
' 'fhe diagrams included on this page help illustrate how height is measured, a ";:+
q
,bnrildt,sn.ut•,t p'
As depicted on the attached map ;*hbq.m.m..1W ndhllnnl,.lght Rehm.hum (Attachment.'),slopes exist
*t'� throughout Lake Oswego and offer
opportunity for residential .r'
captures development that views. a
:1::::1PLAnTF LW
ctiavnTen(ROW) p
tilim L Flow residential develo.ments occur
t,wi tceiunomb •�t-"N-►F'- 9unrAcc nrsourro p
Oft sloped properties will continue to , ,..'.t
be an issue. The intent of this
discussion is to provide an approach
.-1Z:71
to development on slopes that l
l+�TUMI GROUND addresses design and allows `
" ' eunt^ce flexibility in building location
ctontC tor cO.M.?RCO OROUto •
uNALIVICU&MOUND. 9unrAec without impacting the surrounding '
911RMCC area.
" X-i"t-(--$ p4---+eUtLINO llcaNT
y" Runner.r011n
' t.
."o,,.e, Oa.I.1
r u'`: °~ Alternative Approaches
Pollowing are options that could address the identified issues: S '' .r,
• Relaxed Height Limits
Planning t"ununwsinn Meeting I z
1 w P 06.000. ( . 1
September>;,2003
AA OP); I11 4
•
. to Y ,i 1 k r, t" 4:'A . 4t $ " i d
':di rt, 6'? {;; 'e .a .. . .4. *.'t . ' ... i' L. '. .. e" . d. �» . ,r;,. " ... ._i a.,
♦ ,
• Change in Height Measurement Methodology ,`
O Minimum Guaranteed Floor Area
a • Cantilevered Design
•" ,1. • Aesthetics K �t
; ; Relaxed Height Limits. The height limit on sloped lots in Lake Oswego is 35 feet regardless of how
steep a lot is, On steeper lots,the height standard forces buildings to step down the slope,which limits
' ii #•'',-: how much floor area can be provided on a single floor, If height standards were relaxed on very steep ,
lots,additional flexibility could be provided, For example,a 40 foot height allowance may he
appropriate on slopes greater than 30%(30 foot change over 100 feet). Attachment 2 illustrates
't ^' •
different examples of how height limits work at different slopes. " 7'';
In Seattle,the Cl,"development code allows a
maximum of five feet of additional height for ' "
N 'µ Mi mmoNcp,..umir -:•
Oxwart won pwy0 sloped lots at a rate of one foot per every six w`•' `
A� d , ":" percent of slope. To apply this concept in Lake ' . N
+attotriCknh�oua o �Limn. Oswegpo we would need to establish a base line '
�rN
slope at which it would be applied.
1µ. 'I '� �C
„�, '°' If the goal is to allow more main floor square
" r l� footage,the Seattle example does not provide much .'
additional square footage. An interesting feature of ♦ ;'..
''' `"°`"°'s the Seattle code is that it caps the upslope height at
' 30 feet while allowing a taller down slope height.
M 4 i6� Y
� Y
N
City of Seattle
I4 Change in Height Measurement Methodology. Additional height could be achieved by measuring Y " ,
» height differently on sloped lots, Prior to adoption of our current methodology,the Lake Oswego code
" + , allowed a l0-foot exception on sloped lots;i.e.,height was measured from a point 10 feet above grade =`µ
` on the downhill side of Ito
' Y}.t 3[� .ai*'0s xfi Y ''.k as 4y, l'" nf, '�2�" ;A: 4YV » t
ti sloped lots. The t 12y4 Af4orige; ' ♦ '1 �'r'$' b {,1f fn#++44.. a »ymethodology was a. ,f Y� •, , ' a, • • •.,
changed to encourage i�4 � .';;a 1'1, , 'h 4
homes to step down the ` , i x ' .r 4.. ,, F , .
` hillside. r` ,; t'* ,. ' ..,,.., a,�� � .r,, iF�-, g . '
In Tillamook County, 3 '4'i u, r r" ':. ", c i
height is averaged from �:� y .,` u . , y ..u;"
the grade to the highest , ' Y 't" '-"'.,' ',. "
portion of the roof with o N ' x ,,`,. ,e m ni " ! ' A
tile average a ,„0.141Y*¢ .., ,..•.� , "t,, Y
height not to exceed 35 •4i, I,t rho " •' ' . „`
feet. Down slope heights ` ' g M ' "'�' `'
. " of over 40 feet are rt 4. + .h ' • . ,, _.I "y,' ,,1q. ', + �,.. ' ,"PAi''; ` L '.d
' common, ' : , I'
Oceanside,OR "
Planning Cnnnntsilon Meeting i P ot•aou3 ;'' .-
• September 8,200'
� a s
AA°(3zl ' A." 4, r,. ,. i iR t
K^ ' IR • + N v dN 1
"� `
9 r t j c K
The Oceanside photographs show what sort of housing this methodology produces. `
The minimum lot size for new lots in Oceanside is 7,500 sq.ft,on flat lots and 10,000 on sloped lots. ;
M1 r n ° However,many of the houses pictured are built on pre-existing lots that range from 1,800 sq.ft.to 7,50( "' N "
sq,ft.,resulting in a densely developed hillside, All of the houses comply with the 35-foot average • ..
height provision, There is also a provision that houses cannot occupy over 50%of the lot, As is H u'a
'N l r}i �, w;�: r evidenced by the photos,using an average
�., ;;,ps, height allows for a variety of options for
t ' g 1,1,4.e Ox placement of buildings on sites.With these
a 'i qi�„i^ 11:.----.,; ` ' standards,houses generally do not step down the ,•
�e , i,, ' t i slope.
! /
•
1 ` 11, 114 t 'k '! The home on the left represents what a 35 feet of Ipi�Lat fi ' , • � p
,.•- c •J "' 1C'l 1..* ti , ' , height looks like on a flat lot, "
i..YWr Mu.'1t FF i i ti , M
.4144 IA
. ,r,r.:
k 'rt,t'i'{1 ,1•i;r11►! Arai • Thaw homes comply with the 35-foot average
Y _ i t' ,, 1 ; •1 7k." ,�1 • +fib. height provision. ,M 4` 'it
fit, > t7 n
'' w 4 a ,t
+ t ..,'l.;40ii. .t. ,h y t [ 1 t !f r - L, r,
+ + •'t,'k.�yf'�rfP�. r ° '+i' ► f 1 L ''4 .i L ' Although the average height of these structln'es
r. t'IVN`,40'.1t.L y ; •A, 4.L,,' : ..rl;(.,.t + .- M; is 35 feet(no height variances have been ,
« granted),portions of the structures settle out to "
Oceanside,OR as tall as 47 feet,
e
i. .4 ,1 „xwa1 No further regulations in Tillamook County address the appearance of single-family homes on sloped • v {''
+ : ' ' lots,and the resulting hillside development in Oceanside is more driven by available views than by , ,•,'
development standards, This standard has produced a wide variety of designs for hillside development r . r
in Oceanside,
4'' ,' i •yr+'+.,„76-e.:•;ity r `.�(.: .!oh!Fvl. nwv;• ± ry
" r tit yr ; ,� n-' 1.c t r * '.+,A,kla r
4 M' Aw d+,lit w �. -t..t�nr �v �} ,,, 4n .4
f e :...v+ ), Jj ,4,
w,. a,-.1.,Ar' ,1j.'n4 '•�k4 i' a d ,e ...,�r ! 1 1 ,r 4 5- �i�•"'' to ! '! t!irir "3
> t �x1 t n} ! 41V)r t r w
ry V ' 1 A,"...It"'
t/y"'i1 !. ., 4 z Ji , ' y,l t ,1 V t,.� ry; .'�r1.^" „ w
n ; 4, ,1•,v ,I. t' Ww.+w .ALI.. I '1 .1 Y `' ' +` `� { :.' 1 : J Y4. "r
o , Y p 1,..41,.Msxt'2 '.4 PI' t ry, s n 1 1 p �� +{{rr t +M .
A i k 1 V!�� � � V-d?•, ,. , Ag� , V
4 r�r� ! . ,I. YO q. a . a u n, q
,, eR„i, ''° 3 • ,t M, 'i 4 v ',y , " S, i y . a, Y 9'
w al '.i, V r:.1J'�♦ty 1 I.aY �,t't 1. } > ..
as' 1 V .ti.�'r'YA rliii,e''f.11, t P. 5,,..t'�i' .�Y�l.Yll , �ii`� , ",:,.,r t1 t!i !- i,J •a,• n , 7 ..
y..
N Oceanside,OR Oceanside,OR ,
•,. I d
9 a i 4''
i iMl V ,
e -. , .
. . ...
., .., . •, Planning Commission Meeting 4 t'06-000 t
September 8,2003 N
r
.AA;(n2) • , ,. - '
e , , , ,.� ,. r 1 .
.. ° �n , ..
•!� rt r Y 1 ,�.N .r „
t " i x 1 .r t , w
• dwr 'I M•. t .".' :I:" ' ',. '4 , .". ._ n.R ti t•.'.. .. '';.` '•;"`.•.Y't i .. .,... - . '' .:t r�
h` r"'
1• `•
Minimum Guaranteed Floor Area. A key concern expressed at the infill hearings was that the City's
current height measurement methodology severely restricted the amount of living area that could be
' t a'° provided on a single floor on steeply sloped lots, One solution could be to create an exception to height
�� r standards to guarantee a minimum amount of living area on a main floor, A minimum guaranteed floor ti
area exception would only be granted when the floor has direct same level access to a garage or vehicle • .1
parking area and where all ftont and side yard setbacks are fully utilized, ' A'' „_,
The critical question is how much floor area should be guaranteed, Many of the homes on steeply '8' ^ '
sloped lots are highly desirable given views and access to natural areas and amenities. These lots are a"
often expensive. Recent building trends indicate that if a lot is expensive,there is a tendency to build a " ,,
large house that maximizes buildable area on the lot(see examples along Lakeview Blvd.), The recent . 7
infill study found that in 2001,the average new single-family dwelling in Lake Oswego was 4,700 sq.ft, :ri°. •q.;
This compares with a national average of 2,500 sq.ft,
-,m. Attachment 2 offers examples of how development can respond to different slopes, In the R-7.5 zone, y
t lot coverage is limited to 25%and FAR is limited to.4t1, For an 8,000 sq,ft,lot,maximum lot °'
�; 5
coverage is 2,000 sq,ft.and maximum FAR is 3,200 sq.ft. In the examples on Attachment 2,the .0
. proposed homes can be up to 65 feet long on 120-foot deep lots and still satisfy setback requirements, If ; 't
U '. . homes were 30 feet wide,they would have almost 2,000 sq,ft,of floor area on the main floor,
"d maximizing the lot coverage requirement.
'' Given these averages and the overall objectives to encourage compatibility among neighbors,it is
suggested that if the Conunission is interested in pursuing the concept of minimum guaranteed floor 11
�
',--. •' area,the minimum guaranteed floor area be tied to lot size and be no greater than 20%of the lot area, r •
' }„ Staff believes that this is a starting point for discussion and that this concept will require further study. µ
The Commission may want to establish an absolute maximum height that would be allowed if the r
minimum guaranteed floor area standard is implemented(e.g.50-foot maximum height).
Cantilevered Design, Another option for allowing additional floor area is to exempt the cantilevered
portion of a house from the height measurement requirement. This approach would require the height to '4,` "
be measured only for the portion of the house that is not cantilevered, A variation of this approach
A • ,. u'` would be to exempt a portion of the cantilever,e.g.height would be measured at a point five back
toward the main structure of the house when the cantilever extends more than five feet from the house.
♦ M•
Aesthetics, With many of the concepts discussed above,down slope aesthetics would be a major
r"•':. concern, If the Commission chooses to explore any of the methods described,it may also want to
consider additional aesthetic standards to assure that upslope designs remain compatible with their down
slope neighbors,
,•l
r� ;, As illustrated in the photographs,down slope aesthetics
p, ` L ; '*, ,I', can be a problem, The structural support system of
M ';s! ' I'd s,.,, , ,r ^� houses built into steep slopes can be unattractive and a . '-,.4
y k 'g' a place for garbage to collect. 0'+
(a" , o,�., "4 1� t r: Clear and objective standards should be developed to
4 • N,yf ' ° minimize the impact of these structures, Possible *'
,,;•,, :`, .44 a'4.;. :w H ' . 'K n• standards include a limitation on the amount of exposed ;
a , 1r , w
r" • 1 , Xt�,{t'. �e a "..,!�. structure allowed on an elevation and requiring vegetative
1r'{--,.,,�„. ";1.-r :,:",•1' ',,, Y'..:• buffering. For example,require the support structure to
Luke Oswego,Olt be at least 8011'1,enclosed or be screened by vegetation that 4
!Planning Comtnlssion Meeting $ P 06.0003
^ September B.2003
' ."°a. ` j
P ."
a,. `I tPi _ i il i 4
,, M 4'a _ ", , . i 4 e a µ • *,*'• A:.+, `. S r ,
t R t WO,t r v 1 '� ',_. �
�. '� I..t .... � . , .. t. '. . • .... R....°1 Y �•n '. �'M W � '�,J XI"• n
• 44'
..
provides 80%opacity at the property line when viewed from abutting property. Opacity requirements • •- . , ..
' should be achieved within four years of planting, i ,
Y G t
vi,,,;v, , °� : F„s-,, . ^, Another potential aesthetic concern associated with the down �"
y: '�' S],,, 41 1 4r ,1 •P, it'''.+'''N',••.' slope appearance occurs when the support structure is'� ' =r 1, !• r }; et enclosed, The resulting wall can be massive and , * u
• , � •'',t,y �,�;4;� .r�r • „ ;�• v v"li'7; unattractive, Standards should be developed that provide a
jt .. m ., • 4. ,,;,, ,, menu of ways to improve the appearance of this facade such !1
44 i` a,',7 '.' "li-t '''i' r, r' as limiting the area of an exposed wall plane,utilizing decks .y ' 41.
.'�t-r' ''fi r i".':1 r�J v '� 1' "4 } - orporches to break upthe appearance,or requiring 1
� 1 a r x 1;
�. �,,`f,�; ,� tit PP
'w ., •ti' $,,1tN„•J "'0 ,, ,•a • i , , vegetative bufferinn, Side yard wall planes will be governed
•�' ti++W-,`•41 ,1 t •a, .1 t'.'q ' 4 ' by the side yard elevation requirements of the infill �' t4'
,, .o` N S:R < ordinance(750 sq,ft,maximum wall plane in the R 7,5
' 1 ', ,� • i'�r,101r zone), No similar wall plane requirement exists for rear �y '
,:+,n � , walls. ,.
Lnke Oswego,OP.
Summary—Points for Commission Discussion
: 1, Relaxed Height Limits—Determine whether clear and objective standards should he developed "y
Id : to allow increased heights on steep lots, °
i •
4 : 2. Change in Height Measurement Methodology—Consider redefining the way height is measured ;N
�' lots, Possibilities include an average heiht rather than a tnaximum height, `
on slopedusing height 3, Minimum Guaranteed Floor Area — Consider providing a minimum guaranteed floor area on
sloped lots. Define the minimum area by tying it to lot size and include an absolute maximum
height, tA" . a
4, Cantilevered Design—Consider exempting cantilevers as a way Uf providing additional floor ,'."• M`4 s u'
area,while minimizing down slope impact, rit
lit 5, Aesthetics—Develop clear and objective standards to lessen the impact of exposed structures on
`,,.'' downhill properties, Concepts/examples include: ` ._
° , . • Require the support structure to be enclosed or fully vegetated and screened,
• For enclosed support structures,limit the square footage of building planes,
A 6 Utilize decks and porches to break ttp wall planes,
a Require vegetation along the exposed structure. "
to ' e,
., a
`y
>x
4 u
R PIt,ning Contmisslon Meeting R 1'uu-0003
; September 8,2003 ,'
•
Y • ; Vi.. J 1 Y4., R .i
1 AA On 4‘ ' I 'N 4 °
' < ' :'n Y" ` ° ', 1. ," w4. M {, .° A. ,,S R t 4r4' r F. ," yr= `. -'. ` ,.
p '1 1 •'1 „� 4 M a ,, aJ t ,,.�" ,:_. t a , ti+ tir, „ 1 I...
F• •
t` ,
4 L�•fy" .. ram` �-*--1
p d $ $ $ X. $ o ag a yf :,.r' mow'! �c e— } ° t.
1 �•xhti \ • �x v ✓ 4 3'g ■ a i 5 .. n 1 ii II 5 I I - .."' 1 Y(' 48 , ',.
+" -=.F 4, 3`..•. 1 d . , 3 ,, , d 9 a et a a iY` i B i �, ✓ _ ,.' a)
1 h,a x 1 .1 ti ai Y 71 R� SR2 k} N 9 { ✓ u. ( (11
F , ',, t"y'"ti`w`Y ` wb}��}"!A•• : Y. n .1R 1 k1 O R eg i i� � 8 • .1.4:�,K�ti,, 4. t .' .fi'✓� I _. r :
,• .e' ~ iI ®� a t' a i t d ; i u k E e fat f 14 ' 4,rF' V t r,i
w, xf'+� .a• v. i j ti_- 1�pr1• 'f 1 Yj'p i ;" .
r w '1 p k A, r,,} rtGt,� +r �r�S < "t -r x I���
0.
ti- r3 t .rS ,<°.'^„t`11�1 ^ y '�tti'r Ir YjA' Ir^y* . ''fai f ,t J{, '.'Y 'A r CFI' ) }
_•t1 1 �i it yt ^*Y,e•wa .,4 yr� Y took' Q'tt•,-'e. xnr,.*1t_ ,'� '� 4, •�i Y II
...,',., ,".•vi,74,••,
nw ey,}.w✓ . *R ,fry ,.nv� fy 7KK" J{ "/1.7T I, p .. 1 thwv J° 4 y.•,'4, A
':1 1 p � ,,� " tlIr,,}t d� to �{I +• 4.‘,..' xA,.. AC `' 1 r.
/� S 1 .krz•d ,f i rK. 1,,,;{ is ..i , 1. 11. .t vs !
t - • n r� K i.,,,fr _r 9M ,4 • T •wl ', ii 4`,r ,i``4,,.11 a p ! mot �' t 't r'+ r y
~ 400 'Ilre 'I't.:!.'1r . s' ,},,t p x" i,VLi4;iz'�of ir' 1la51 I'� ..!----r
Nr ! $1'..','rr 1,I 7ivil ,+,'?ie 4 .1'4� '+b hf' . r ,J t -s,ry 11 +, /
?,.., ' ' ' ,.• , jylr tA,.,,, F, 1'+ i ynw QA,1:4 ,. y,,t,•J,T: i' f I •1
+t.. �I..,•
, "e T's� � y. . d}'rl% hd,t5�if ,.,,,,,,,,„,„,,,..„, ,,„.v.f ,44,...,
�., 1
ffff -. . ,
rc , r �JA�t„.. ,, ',,, rr.,,,,,,,,,,,,„,,,,,. . i.k T"J' / T
,.. , .
yth, .1'41 1 I, t L,,r r t'r, t{ 1 4yr,Vry, r, ler,.'+ ��,`of '�""' Iai, I T V X w
p''4r, t1,,, *;! J 1 ' *rG` Ikv ! a 4.,i It ')Islt �;Y,,, 4•
^� 1 a„M+ I,r'�yy9" r a' ✓ N`}1r °r Flf• ; 7 �•�} v"�,�tiy ii py ggg y"•
v °Y 1 16� .Yr,rt ^1'P{ } {��a -y�� 'I ', ti u IM 9� g v.
MM �} yb➢ i.. 4,1 r ;' M�,t,ii,' r�`y �� ,1 h 1„x �j,t+ 'f ��.1 1+.,�! ^�iy'!r'W,• i 3
1 a t 'op' fil t p, ,y rr, . J'+Iy .rN it • a a i y i'kytre `w-.. n,
.• , J yr 1. ;I.. Z ! t t r , y t,}h�,1 3 O L
';a ,�. { S, ? •• ° t . -(7�. v'?, "'`• t1�}�ik , lTq 1l. „di.:�fi•; ill E q'•"
N r+•. r` 1 ! N - .mG} ,. ., ,. f 1'T 1,>�,fr I!,-,yl� n,✓ '4,,A„r 1 Ar,I,N J y l ',.4
tt 4 y a
kA '+�+r �l' � Y"! 1 'r !1 4° S!'t S r r ,1
f �'`,.,...✓.o p .,F
• t 4 tr r •�' rJl'..Sei 1 v� J"h r � U 1 �: ' " ,ardi',y'r , ` ,r �1 �. 7
0; `, - "t ,fir, ,.,y 1�wi .m 4 X ♦ AF Zr+14 r i r i -1• • 'Nr• "
I '' n•!rJ 'tt', +`� 1' Ar .j'} s..0, 11,4t,, ,TI t 1,4;m f ,;, 1'1' tla! 'kC q,,1 1 ,
• A N :tl T ^y"� 1 f+ N t•1 51y,V.'nI i 'x„ ,Y°, tq V
.'' f .t J, i' ' ,/++ i. "4 }1 V. +'')z.I '4'' , J a +1 alb r P .,"°. O
w v z ,Y�II hr)4-r,'R x', ''..,. ) « 1 k 1 4.;NV NA1.1 t' r A ''' T " ,� .1 .,1 �, '*
J Nl. 11� a c Its e �?ly. 4.�'X;at$T '.. 1Y ; ' oe.Fd.1 '�r:- , [ ,'r ,'Yr•µ„� 1 .
Y 1 - Y , , C.SIC d,�• 6�7'� a a i,v y r,t, t, tl i I{t 1..„,•Ili 1!Y,
{ ��q t a y aka, 1 ` �y, O
' .IL« , ""'.`",d... • • 4�.' N) «r.I• I.F !r ,Vnylf.I, 1 Y•�+� fi —.3.\4 t'S.` e, l .. ![11,` • a`II}`1, r^ Ir «
mot' -Je rJ .4,. r .*4. • f j.�.„0,-0l ,b. T�i}� ' 1 "lt, h I. .y,�d ;� Q
N ...W... -«.r v V.
I r t •,,A„:,c I 1, ? rf.,p. 4 ' Y d '•r 4 1,�,K i No* ! t ',,'1 h' r f ?' }" aY %1 v"1MS 1 .4 n,y t, 1 y 1 + .'1e ti r' , I ' i1T1 ti" S -' , !f
........L. ».1 �� Y 40P t"? N+ [[��� A .141 t ,, ppyy Lro 14.' I'r`` . .. 71 p r +
8 w I A' '�" ,:tNt' t I`r•U k 1 N 7'� ! 'Nr%,i L +1, Jfr I 44 r S t., v ',r S +n r Ir
fY f t`(f n•' qd° i. 4,r�i .i• ,f7 !`r fx«f1, j' ++la' Cy fib. •
= � k A'rit' 1 ^., ' Fda N: fa y' 1 w .,$ J l li, µ `}�r f l 4,, k,,,4,\
fi )[� lVII Vfpp7�. v Y. -�Vv p , Ivy .M '. � � 1 • �.1 • 1u ':.Mt \„ '
a, +l.w.. r. `,, ,,�$ „,,, C,,,t t r tE1 w 1 } •.td y ? r 1- .• 1't,M a. ,
.+ ` x•y 41"` 'P •,`J { f1 .: ' tt�,�47 ,� . :e �' } '•^ ��dNNd 1v�1`y 7tS "k +� r} :� r ;' •h ,'" .. '-A 1 - r,. '.S ,' ,{' • :�,ti: r.'N 1.1 { . Z7 14. '� r�; 'c rr1 1 • tik • M, x +r� x,:rv.
'•e„I., f' � '+.",1'ae +,,t„wily .F..�,4 etl. d • y,'!,T 1° o r 4. Ili` &!".,,,�a t'• Sp _ p4�,x�1 7 _
} 4 'ti ,, i,1 } A t ,r•l ,,•4 • '�F'. S'a 'ci V«,'W. 'C+1•, , �} a, dry. � �.0+�, 4n etoili YuoN'..a, 1
rk w••.1 t r, fd ' i }k }r.^�, XI „, rl 1 ,4r4,J ,
}N ;�,'pT 1 'h t rl
y•• kr, - ! ,t n ',. •ir�ti 6 k r 1JU
>i . Y r 7" ( , , �T 'k r `••+. "'iJ.; Mrs}:�� V i r � I}r 1 '+I ,x`n'� �+'J''r'+ 11 • ,�. t ja.-; , �,PY X ,+ �*?N'' 1$4 F 1
4 , {,1• 'i,1°0,.4 -+ }i .`I e `Ci,zir i •••1�t r1,, M.Ml�r, ry• `; E x'� S " ' i v, iit, ,r, ..0 ne y f .r., }• r 1.1.ttL. is I k:l t j ', •,,
« *,: fv•lar s r: 0-1,,.}s,+. 'it •..k , t, W v to Y tt V, Jtf f t�•�, 1'g.,tcfp.`}a i� a t ,�
t1 �•++x tr , �i -• = k �'u ,, e r H(, fK ,i / i �•i •/e`I k k
' .g { i r , {, p.' I t„+ Z. J etjy'� IIYS-."6K`V'� .Ctt,1. ,/{�tl; ,c{ �I,., �y ( 11.,.
4
,ar•,a. llt 4,44: r ry'��1 ll,' G t !3.J ..:1 r` .1Y.,, ryl rr h + fi '?F'! n 4;0•1+''.."vv.11' f' r 1 '•,4
^it +K'L"1 Lief...1; 1•ey k*, rp dI ,' f."'0,I •° t4,4 I G., . ,t f S .^'a,,,, " 1 S
1. C�IYJJattit�.Aacit7n' 11 s,yhu• ;4,,t 10 .1 , . 11•"JA7ti d,I,gP ::
.. attpe .k�Y ! WNW '"'r"° ..,
1' .f
1 F AA'(��) 1r t °« t * Ip+ M « a N 41: N a° a� 1 ' a
y� ate'..: S t • 1 N 1 , u 1 GN r d ,«•+ S M A
r• `'. .s
• ' w Attachment 2 - Slope Examples
r / t
-
-0 lot 6s. --ily, - ..
: 35' 10' 65' _I10' - 35'10 - . "30°i°s\OP
10e
10' -• _15%s1Ope
f
't5‘ i� —r 120'lot depth 1----. —t 120'lot depth
30'rear yard 25'front yard 30'rear yard 25'front yard
.'-''• c setback setback setback setback
, is ; .
.. .10T4-1 55' 1110'i - 10 •. - _.
10' i 10 40
.n. F ,35' 10'• .+ICS /Ole S\Op 10' S0'' ,,OQ •
a5 , 10 • boalo
'' 35' 10 , '
a' 120'lot depth I
• ti. a'....."' 30'reryard 25'front yard
i 1.1
setback setback r4
' --- 1 120'lot depth
, •`' 30'rear yatd 25'frontyard '
• 0 60 120 setback setback
Feet
t• i'
`'tn 6ep1.2,1000,6puatyol like OieOu
• ,
,4
R N
, I
wr,
emu; •W
•
'i
uN• r .
}
.I