HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 2004-06-28 ``,. SAKEOli City of Lake Oswego
PlanningCommission
,t4
1 Monday, June 28, 2004
N OREGO$ ' 6'00 p.m.
Work Session
Members:
Frank Groznik,Vice Chair City Hall Council Chamber
Mary Beth Coffey,Kenneth L. Sandblast, 380 A Avenue
Mark Stayer,Daniel Vizzini and Alison Webster Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Council Liaison: Jack Hoffman For Information: 503/635-0290
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
II. ROLL CALL
III. CITIZEN COMMENT—Regarding Issues Not On the Agenda(3 minute limit per individual)
IV. GENERAL PLANNING—WORK SESSION
• P 01-0002 Lake Grove Village Center Implementation Advisory Committee—Update
Staff coordinator is Susan Millhauser, Associate Planner.
• P 02-0007 Lakefront Zoning
Staff coordinator is Deborah Andreades, Associate Planner.
• P 04-0007 Variances and Adjustments
Staff coordinator is Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager.
V. OTHER BUSINESS
Findings, Conclusions and Order
LU 04-0002—Sloped Lots
VI. ADJOURNMENT
F� i:t3V
��.'_I
• �• fl . C:•:._:,;
{�y LARE OSN, Community Development
J1 fOO
� ��� ���,, Planning Division
I �
� �
� Memorandum
-...ORECAN .
To: Lake Oswego Planning Commission
From: Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager
Date: June 22, 2004
Subject: Planning Commission Work Session —June 28, 2004
P 04-0007 Variances and Adjustmen[s
Staff is proposing a ne�v type oF variance that is intended to allow variations to certain code
requirements when there is no harni to the surrounding neighborhood. 7'he process would allow
certain variances to go fonvard without an applicant meeting the current hardship test rcquired
for Class II variances. This new variance�aould allo��� greater code flexibility than what is
currently allowed under the Class I administrative variance process. The process is envisioned to
be similar to the Residential Infill Design Review process.
No materials were prepared in advance of the mailing date for Jime 28 meeting. We plan to
f��cilitate a discussion of key issues at the meeting.
� � A �
,
� `,���AREOSk,FC Community Development
, �
j � Planning Division
O
Memorandum
�tECAM
To: Lake Oswego Planning Commission
FI'om: Susan Millhauser, Associate Planner �
Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager
Date: June 24, 2004
SubjeCt: Planning Commission Work Session —June 28, 2004
Lake Grove Village Center Advisory Committee Check In —Tasks 2, 3, and 4
The Lake Grove Village Center Plan Implementation Advisory Committee has met 14 times
since the first Planning Commission check in on January 26, 2004. During Ihis time, the
Committee has been workiiig with staff on Tasks 2 and 3. Work on Task 4 still needs to be
completed. Each task is described below:
Task 2. Review existing zoning standards and determine appropriateness for achieving
LG"I'C Plan objectives and Guiding Principles.
Task 3. Define work on zoning and design standards based on issues iden[ified in
LGTC Plan report.
Task 4. Identify and prioritize implementation projects, including projects proposed in
the LGTC Plan report; identify potential funding sources; and develop an
overall timeframe for implementation. Coordinate with Lake Oswego
Redevelopment Agency (LORA) staff.
Although it was envisioned that Task 2 and Task 3 would be accomplished separately, in
acwality the Commit[ee has approached these two tasks simultaneously. In February, the
Committee identified "hot topics" as a way to organize ropics for discussion for work under Task
2 and 3. These "hot topics" (Attachment A) were compiled from the Village Center desired
characteristics included in the vision statement. Through a senes of working sessions,
Committee members have considered various options related to land use, site development,
urban design and transportation. These work sessions have fed into review and Committee
approval of related topics included in the consensus summary working draft (Attachment B) and
draft zoning map (Attachment C). Additionally, a sub-committee was formed ro look more
closely at architectural design standards and streetscape elements that reflect the village character
defined in the vision statement. This sub-committee will bring its findings to the Advisory
Committee for their review and approval. The sub-committee's work will be on-going through
the summer, with reviews by the advisory committee to be scheduled for August.
Lake Grovc Vill�ge Center Pian(P 01-000?)— Page 1 uf:
Ta�ks 2,3&4 Check In—Pl:umfne Commission PubGc;�teeting June 28.2D03
� � r .
The Committee has not yet started work on Task 4, project identification. A preliminary short
list of projects from the 2003 Lake Grove Town Center report is induded as Attachment D.
1'he Committee's work is on-going, with an additional meeting scheduled for J�ne 30, and
mcetings to be held in A�gust. A committee work plan is induded as Attachment E. A joint
Planning Commission, Development Review and TranspoRation Advisory Board work session
will be scheduled for September or October to present and get feedback on refined Task 4 work
and draft Task 5 products (draft Community Development Code, Comprehensive Plan, and
Transportation System Plan amendments).
Meeting notes from Committee meetings held through May 5 are included as Attachment F.
Written citizen correspondence received since the first Planning Commission check in is
included as Attachmen[ G.
Attachments:
A. Hot Topics, February 19, 2004
B. Consensus Summary, draft June 24, 2004
C. Zoning Map, draft June 24, 2004
D. Project List, June 2003
E. Work Plan, June 16, 2004
F. Meetings Notes —January 14, 2004; January 21, 2004; February 4, 2004; February 18,
2004; March 17, 2004; April 7, 2004; April 21, 2004; May 5, 2004
Written Citizen CommenL•
G 1. Petition submitted by Brenda Falson, May 25, 2004
G2. Letter from Joyce and Jay Hyde, May 27, 2004, and associated correspondence.
L:\Case Files\Planning Projec[Files�2001�P OI-0002 Lake Grove Town Cenler\Planning Commission\PC work session 06-28-
04\PC Memo LGTC check in 06-28-04 P 01-0002.Joc
LaAe Grove Village Cen[er Plan(P 01-0002)— Page 2 of 2
1'uks 2,3&4 Check In—Planning Commission Public Meetin@ June 28.2IX14
Lake Grove Town Center Implementation Advisory Committee
' "Hot Topics"
February 19, 2004
Village Character
• Scale and type of devetopment
• Architectural design
• Types of uses (Business Corridor/BF vs. Cross Streets)
• Gateways and Village Commons
• Streetscape theme
o Signage, street trees, lighting, etc.
• Natural resource protection and enhancement & stormwater management
Mixed Use
• Proximity of uses
• Connectivity between uses
• Housing
o Preservation of existing number of housing units on parcels zoned R-0
• Edges
Connectivity/Transition to Neighborhoods
F • Building orientation and scale on cross streets
• Sidewalks on cross streets
o Transition of sidewalks from urban to rural
• Off-streets pedestrian and bike connections
Parking
• Alley access
• Connections between parking lots (vehicular and pedestrian)
• On-street parking
• Parking lot connections
• Impacts on private property
• Public parking
Boones Ferry Road / Safety
• Mid-block crossing
• Continuous sidewalks
• Drive way consolidation
. Vehicular access
o Center turn lane (BFCP recommendations)
o Access spacing (BFCP recommendations) �
• Bike lanes
• Transit
ATTACHMENT A
Others? 1
z
, � a� Lake Grove Village Center
O� Implementation Advisory Committee
WOCkl�g Consensus Summary
June 24, 2004
Additions shown with underline.
Topic Direction Consensus?
Village Character:
1.Scale and type of a. Development more intense along Boones Ferry,with a. yes
development decreasing intensity as it lransitions to neighborhoods
b. No vehicle parking areas located between huilding and b. yes
street. (This does not preclude on-street parking where it is
feasible.)
c. Continuous sidewalks or pathways c. yes
d. Three stories okay if stepped back from street d. more
discussion
e. Buildinq scale—require minimum heiqht alonq Boones Ferry e. yes
to create enclosure and enhance pedestrian space
f. VaN buildinq heiqht alonq Boones FerN—tie maximum f. more
hei ht to lot area or the rovision ot mixed use discussion
2.Types of uses(Business a. Limit use by size: a. yes
CorridodBF vs.Cross - Site larger scale uses on Boones Ferry and smalier scale
Streets) uses on side streets;
- Prohibit big box retail(singie retail use larger than 35,000
sq.fl.)
b. Deveiop a community facility(recreation center,satellite b. yes
library, swim club)- identify public-private partnership
opportunities on 1 of 5 parcels identified
c. Allow some auto-oriented uses on 800nes Ferry and don't c. more
allow on side streets discussion
3.Architectural design a. Develop architectural design standards to promote village a. yes
concepl. Like the idea of design standards,but not sure
West Lake Grove Design District standards are appropriate
for entire Village Center—may be too resirictive(or small,
odd-shaped parcels but appropriate for larger parcels
b. Sub-committee to work on architectural design standards, b. yes
includin scale and character of develo ment
4. Gateways,Village a. Incorporate streetscape iheme into gateway project at a. yes
Commons, Public Spaces Boones Ferry at Kruse and Boones Ferry at RR iracks
(trolley access) b. more
b. Viila e commons- at the schooi? discussion
5.Streetscape-signage, a. Like idea of common identity a. yes
sireet trees, lighting,etc. b. Need to more fully develop theme using Darcey's sketches b. yes
(fir tree theme)as a starting point. involve community in
development-for example, hold a design contest.
c. Sub-committee to integrate with work on architectural c. yes
desi n standards
6. Natural resource protection a. Protect large firs, native trees a. yes
and enhancement& b. Enhance natural water features—explore possible project in b. yes
stormwater management Mercantile to daylight creek and create lake
c. Encourage use of sustainable site development practices c. yes
and reen streets techni ues
Lake Grove ViNage Center P/an ATTAC H M E N T B Pa9e � 3
WORKING DRAFT-Consensus Summary-June 24,2004
Topic Direction Consensus? .
Mixed Use:
7. Proxim' of uses a. Encoura e a varie of uses in close roximit to each other a. es
8. Connectivity between uses a. Provide safe and convenient pedestrian connections wiihin a. yes
the villa e center, includin across arkin lots
9. Housing a. Require housing in areas currently zoned R-0 to ensure a. yes
preservation ot existing number of housing units.
b. Use incentives to encourage housing in mixed use areas. b. yes
c. Housing above or behind ground floor retail/office uses c. yes
(except allow ground floor residential at edge of village
center boundary closest to neighborhood)
d. Encourage housing to create a good iransition of use d. yes
between development on Boones Ferry and neighborhoods
e. .Wizers site,other lar e arcels
10. District Edges/ a. Include the following additional parcels in Village Center
Boundaries boundary: a.i. more
i. Lake Grove Fire District building on Bryant, discussion
ii. Parcel on south side of Boones Ferry at south end of a.ii. more
village center discussion
iii. Three parcels at NW corner of Kruse Wy& Boones a.iii.yes
Ferry Rd.
iv. Parcels across Boones Ferry to the east. a.iv.more
b. Include ihe following areas with stipulations: discussion.
i Safeco parcel on Kruse Way, b.i. yes
ii. 11 parcels west of bus barns and east of Quarry—if b.ii. yes'
kept as R7.5 zoning and use is either residential or 'wa�uga w+:no
patk/OS, change�o use
iii. 4 parcels at NW comer of�uarry&Oakridge—to b.iii.yes'
remain low density residential(R•5). 'Waluga NA:wants
them designated as
c. Remove parcels south of Kruse Way and north of Galewood park ia„d
and west of the Keg(4250 Galewood)or Ameson Bldg c. more
(4350 Galewood) discussion
Connectivity/Transition to Neighborhoods:
11. Building orientation and a. Orient buildings to sireet.
scale on cross streets b. Buildings up to ihe sidewalk and larger in scale at Boones
Ferry with a stepping back in bulk, height, and front yard
a roachin villa e center ed e/bounda
12.Sidewalks on cross a. 10'sidewalks on side streets wrapping corner(rom Boones
streets-transition of Ferry
sidewalks from urban to rural b. Transition sidewalks on side streets from"urban"(curb and
gutter sidewalk)to pathways in neighborhoods
c. Encourage use of greenstreets techniques to create
transition
13. Off-streets pedestrian and a. Provide pedestrian and bicycle connections from adjacent
bike connections residential neighborhoods to village center where sireets
connections are not possible
b. Identify bicycle route around village center(e.g. signage,
bike route ma
Boones Ferry Road/Safety:
14. Crossings a. Like signalized mid-block crossing(s)of Boones Ferry
between Reese and B ant(also to serve as vehicle
Lake Grove Village Center Plan Pa e 2
WORKING DRAFT—Consensus Summary—June 24, 2004 9 4
• Topic Direction Consensus?
access)with consolidation of driveways over time (exact
location(s)T8D)
b. Realign Lanewood at Lake Grove Elem. and signalize
intersection
15. Continuous sidewalks a. Wide sidewalks(10'),when possible,when properties
redevelo
16. Drive way consolidation a. Require driveway consolidation as properties redevelop
17. Center median— a. Install a landscaped median and allow u-turns at a. ves-pendinp
landscaped median intersections to qrovide business access feasibili
tests
18. Vehicular access• access a. Boones Ferry Corridor Plan recommends 300 ft. access
spacing spacing. In consiricted areas (e.g.between Reese and
B ant ,allow(or closer access s acin ,maximum 150 feet.
19. Bike lanes a. Bike lanes on Boones Ferry—on sidewalk or in the street a. more
discussion
20.Transit a. Work with TriMet to increase transit service
b. Provide shelters at sto s
Parking:
21.Alley access a. Do not connect the alley all ihe way through to Reese.
Instead, provide vehicular access to rear parking lots and
shared access drives through a series of parking lot
connections irom end oi alley.
22. Parking l01 connections a. Encourage vehicular connections beiween parking lot, e.g.
through shared access agreemenfs,to provide access to
shared driveways
23. Shared parking a. Encourage sharing of parking lots ihrough shared parking
agreemenis
24.Connections between a. Provide safe and convenient pedestrian routes ihrough
parking lots (pedesfrian) parking lots(e.g. raised walkways,contrasting paving
material , bollards)
25.On-street parking a. Allow on-street parking on cross streets,where feasible
26. Public parking a. Identify two general areas for location of public parking lot or
parking shucWre:
i. North side of Boones Ferry?
ii. South side of Boones Ferry?
b. Site and develop public parking facilities as opportunities for
site ac uisition arise
27. Impacts on private a. Allow"counting"of off-site parking spaces(on street or in
property public parking facility)within speci(ied distance of business
b. Allow oif•site employee parking within a specified distance
of business.
c. Provide process ior considering reduction in site i
development standards.
d. Use incentives to encourage use ot sustainable
development practices,such as pervious paving material for
parking lots.
Lake Grove Village Center Plan Page 3 5
WORKING DRAFT—Consensus Summary—June 24,2004
s
i /. % � .
.
' � —_ ___. _
� � -
� i.'�� • � t�• —� — • �� .� �:
, ,� �-- !� i �
� �:,., �
� /�' �� _ '1 . � 7—� �
i -� 1 ��/ �'
I ,� � . , �
�,
, , _ - . , - .
' // � � 'Note: Need to reyisit. Per meeting,notes, keep
I
� � current zoning if community facility a �U. However,
-_- � � a closer look at the code shows that recreation
'• 1 facilitylindoor or:outdoor pool, athletic;fields are
,
� � NOT PERMITFED.
�s'" .
, � OC/R-3* �
� � I
� � � �
� � � . � � . � /
,
,
. '. � • � � . , � � I
, A � � � � � �.
�
� �';�C'/'E�� . A � T°sFy�ar �'
�� ����`� � �� ��� GC �� � ' �
\ , ' ♦
r " �c�ew�osr �C �•
kG w
�T � . � '�, R � ♦ i
pz. ' , I �P+ �F 4Y ��PRING�N I
� ` > � � � • � �
��_' r v� / � �
� � .
,--f' + � ���� ��j ���' /��� i � ,' _�
� I I ���� '���� � � �- � � ,
� � � '� - VMU - • � �
,-'`r I � ���,,,,,d��� � I r.
� ' „ ' - - • - - • �•�..
• , �_;
I � GC R-3 , •
�J �— � ' ;
HARVEY Wqy .
_r�— '
� i � � '� � I � �
, �- �-- ._ OC/R-3 �
� � -
� '
� . COLLINS WAY _ _ � � gYq COLLINS WAY �
I � I I � J
VMU 1
, _�� i � � ��
- �VMU �� � kE�CEDARWAy
_ -� � - � • _ � .• � � � � � • � OOUGL45 WAY ! . �
I � R-7.5 . � >i _ _ I
- - • + 3�
,w
' GC
� ��
� .
, � LANEWpOD ST
;— � eensievwAr PF �
�
� � �+�° VMU�
• � � � � � • � � � � � • . h�� � ��� I
� � n`' • � I
�t
� R-5 vMu VMU �' ' �
I �R_� � Y —5..1,�
� R-�� �
oa�c�ao
vMu VMU � � �
� J l
' ' R-0 iR,o VMU �- - • - = ��ao�EA�
� � � R-0 �c - �.
— . � . i. • • ��
I � ♦ � � � ' . � �
� 1 �I � .
1
-�` i GC , ' � • P�'� �, ATTACHMENT C
- . ._ FIF2�NO�ORO � I � . ,
. I Po . ..�..
� � '
� ♦�
p '� • I
o �
� ._ _ , _ _ , _ ; , � ' Lake Grove Village Center ;%��'"
3 � vMu ,�' Draft Zoning (Working Map) ' � I
, _
1 �� SQ�S VMU-Village Mixed Use - R-0-Residenfial High Densiry'
1 �`G' �
� � � PF � VMUlR-0-Village Mixed Usel R3-Residentiaf-3,375 sq.ft. arealunit
� � � � Residentlal High Density'
,' VM u • � � ' GC-General Commercial R•5-Residential-5,000 sq.ft. arealunit
♦ � �
� ♦ ' � - - -
� & OC-Office Cam us R 7.5 Residential 7 500 .ft.ar alunit
P , sq e
•, � ' ' a� OCIR-0-Office Campus/
� � ' • �m � PF-Public Functions
� � - \ � � Residential High Density'
� y/� ' OCIR-3-Offce Campusl j ' � ' Village Center Boundary(includes some
� % { ResidenGal-3,375 sq ft.area/unit � . � � areas proposedlrequiring more discussion)
/ 'R-0-Minimum area per unit determined by FAR
/
v
0 350 700 1050 1400 1750
F20f ,�����.i;ooa.scnvGryar�:�xa o,�wnn�
. Laka Grvve Town Cetier Pbn
Potemul Prqecb Lott Estimata and Priori�ation
FunSnB Aiery�r
-n 61MIMCmt�IR��'NS So� Wp. Lw % Cwmiwip
Sbx�xtlAum
t Bam¢sFmry
Cmkor MiVovemenu I14use m Mabanal"�9�BI lanermG 6II0,0�6]'A.ONI.
peEeePlanameriiiez.dMlmsaMiNenedanYnpvRmenu.' SppO.OW� 10.000.000 Wbk td3 tlt 015 bV
-lm�oo�nbesecYon
-Raei��OaYiagemeizem�
�&yaM1FtwoC nvmos
�AIBviHe Fbsemm
1.Ib9oJGoavgGhanRaaaeaM&yanl" TLO.OW� 250.OW REk &5 t5 iA tA
ly�aem nfq�rau�h�wt am�um
3.lviwaaOReaiA^e^I ]OOiaalkNl@SIW6061R1 80.000. 1MI.OW Pit 19' Nt' 7A' d0• mib�eY
� HaNvtEm.von 200[reMMI@M06CL0.1.A1 Bp.000. 1}O.Opp Fltic 5 1 ] 5 Sr�uMe.
:.H5NeYA�3ob0a9vc' AOOMYbwI@{t06�5Mp 80.000. tID.000 itivrt U 0 0 iM
6 WSIbY'�eGmwblsewad 6WFeNbeil@f1pD15p1A� fip.pOp. 9p.ppp Rivrt U 0 0 Y!
ow,w�eae.�*ca�.rro�m
1 FNlWY'�y+'nb&mesFery ]SOMYbe�l�Stp61561A� I5.000. 112.5W PniNe 4 0 0 BIt Srsx
rorr� ssss.000� io.eizsoo
P�Matrhn Ynaor�mml�lo E�slmv lioadw�n
ADwglaaWaY 1,95pYyaIbN1�`���I 91,SW� t11,fi00 Pubic 1L8" OR" 0 PY" 'UrymeVmuv�FSW.'Ra�Wu
a wmvrtwa sso��l�sso-sw.n� zrsro� u.eao a�ms� w �� i� arz seo.o.be3.u�rxm�ueemw.
c m�neqerow emti.mer��ssasun� a.aoo. �e.eao vwc sa ai o on
o F..uama xoNemeeil9�m+rtl ts000 ts.aao ciefc w vt s9 oa
E Galt�oo6'dary SOOhwIkNI�55P96t111 35,000� /9.W0 ArvR 0 0 � 1
G HaYtiM1Oirve AOFWbN��f569W.R) 100W� 19A10 Riv! 0 0 0 1
G Meronlb pYre �.650 beel kN I@i50%1�I l2300. 159.�pp qirvat 0 0 D i
H Bed4ryVhY 160ieakNl�f56961f.) B.OW. 15.3fi0 Rmd& 0 4 0 1
�� 2rymiRatl 600Fetlknl�f5P96A.�1 MI.WO. S1.fi00 RMea 0 0 0 1
� waYgaaBowesFary 115foealkeil@t56961�1 8.)50� 16.N0 Pm�ap 0 0 0 t
N :atrGowAwue J10fneNkr�@154961R7 18.5�0� )1,680 Rnab 0 0 0 1
� �M.wasew iwi.asn�@ssasen.ni i.sao. i..wo �e o 0 o i
TOTAL 363250. 6BJ.6/0
rn�c nwix a xwx.ia9�+�rem�
MRw P�d�lai�M BiY�FanNW� rin�q.
M &telanefanWary 3,�OpNmllee11�5]OEMR7'a 98.pp0. 191.000 H&k 11a 1/0 tp 9I8
ry BAelvwarm0ryxn 1fiW4wdkeil�5]IFfiMR)1° IB.WO� %.OM PW4c UO Lt T10 NB
0 tlarnY��^� t��My�l1�E5P961111 5.000� 9.600 RMc M9 ON Wi W
? rv«MVCeLakeGmvePem. BWMeaIbe�l�i5G9N111) /O.OW. )fi.B00 PWic 916 LI 00 P9
0 SauV�uNlakeGrnaENm. 1E04e9Yei1�f56961111 9.000� f).280 N0k 60 1/t 1A YB
a m�,n�.�ymauenaY noi.arni@ssussnq ia.soo. :ssm auu� ero �rs irs m
5 Brwkrni' t�fiksalienl@t5a%hnl 1t.000� iAIL� PwE BN L9 11/ 0'I
� Sw.ulbNry@MsU�n51abn1 ZlOM1ka11�S5P%1R1 11,OOp. 11.IA Flfc 29 'J1 ]b LS
V vnsebGikwotl t)OMWIee11�S56%111) A.500. 1fi.3N Pm4e N It N 9
J C�blla�wl Xqke1M1�S56961.t1 10.W0- 19.MI RnaB A /! 10 Il
N'.akeGm.ebBmesFery �]Ufrealkxl@S:A�%i�) 11.5W. /11N Rmb N It ll !!
� �ar+vpeBmie�fery 1e0hwlbxl@f5o%Lq 19.000. 1B.1BD Rme 60 00 00 1A
r Siscelm&iEkTrai 1501realleell@356%LIII 1).500� J].6pp Rir�k 60 p0 W1 ]/f0
TOiAL )10.000. 111.930
OfM1erV�eMsh
4 ROqcWNWM-fwFd&aKSFai1'MrBeiP flvbBryaY�
20-60par<s1�S10WSPaceI W.00�- �20.000 P�Lic 113 III Y! &I
B PudicC+M1MbI.naNdBamesFenybeMeenProuwW&Y+���
so-ca��t�uaaosw�� w.aoo. izo,oaa wek. sn v� irz in
� Bufsbp9�an-Sfrevs�mBF SI).00Dpz�delb 65.00p 65,p00 P�ffic
� LakeGmeCamm�f 1,000.000- $OW,WO RLk 6B lfi 0.q 09
� GatenY bawn�I Niure aM Bmv.a Fml Z0.000 A.000 HEE 9R YZ 15 d1
� Feaw�eaiBoaresFeryaM&ya��.i A.000 A.OW RNc 62 O2 t5 N2 �ppa�M1bboe
i0�I1 1225.000 2N5.000
GMimTOfAI iSSI]50 U.56JAN .
imwweuc t.on.sa. v.nuw
ioritrarv�re: m.iu- ew.exo
m„
� [,�..�.�d�.v.-.a�.emmessaiHa,nm�a.m��4+�x..r..e+w�m
e Cmiea'Pb�MonM�olmabrYfs]man!ea6s[mY�NpmnlxMGalw�4[aYSTnvWkYm9�Wbwwli!✓WqYq.ItlYw�pe�llMrclJimlLyWM��P9Ea1�YMen.TM4m4e
� �,�mw..w��m�a..r..c��.ans�m•rn,em.xo.uaoo.mm
a c>q.mwne��wos�wqeireo.uqwm.�.o.eaemeu.
s co..�nava0.*.me�+.+rm�am�e.wu�wewm.uoctiwmmw:mmmpmea
6 Peui144WY9YfYn�mm�mJ�.
v,a�,.wmm�.�rw.ee�.
e a�me.wm�ava.e..wvr�
s ���,.nzaemw�r.�e�a^ae.R�.ww�n.=�rauwwv�m..msimncma��m>.o�oti+
i. .�.rm u.s...,aye..xz�n m rc.�^9,�a�..rma a.+n mwtivm w o�m
•. `+AN .ra'nuv��uM�S�t9imS4'�'+Y.'esIM1N�:imnd�aW�e9^�'��elif.�:aTmuvMT�nN'i "�4YK�tlIM]lI�M9+4nfo1�MNNimelY�aYRldALIMbmO6LL
Lake Grove Town Center Plan ATTAC HMENT D
June 30,2003 9
10
Lake Grove Village Center Advisory Committee
Work Plan
Updated June 16, 2004
When Item/Task Who
6I16/04 1. Work plan check-in AC&staff
2. Complete sub-area analysis(Tasks 2&3)
• Uses-All Areas
• Iniensity-Areas 1 -4
• Zoning Concepts
3. Complete consensus summary(Tasks 2&3):
• Revisit&finalize 1.d.;2.c.;4.b; 10.a,b,c
• Review&finalize Connectivity(fransitions to Neighborhoods(11•13);
Boones Ferry Road/Safety(14•20); Parking(21-27)
4. Pre are for 6/28/04 PC meetin asks 2 8 3
6/23/04 1. Work plan check-in AC&staff
2. Architectural sub-committee check-in(Task 3)
3. Review&discuss list of projects from Town Center Plan report;finalize short
list and map for 6/28/04 PC meeting(Task 4)
6/30/04 1. Work pian check-in AC&staff
2. 6/28/04 PC meeting recap
3. Continue work on projects(Task 4)
July-August 1. Draft/compile Plan producis(project list and map-Task 4;code and plan Stafl
language, updated maps&diagrams-Task 5)
TBD-Augusf AC review and comment on Task 4 and Task 5 products, including architectural AC&staff
design standards/guidelines
August Refine final Plan producis Statf
TBD-late AC review and comment on final Plan products AC&staff
Au ust
TBD- Joint Planning Commission/Development Review Commission/Transportaiion AC&staff
Septembei/ Advisory 8oard work session
October
Fall 2004 Planning Commission and City Council public hearings-Write Planning Staff
Commission and City Council siaff reports
Outstanding items not shown in the above table include:
1. Finalized vision statement, with a clear definition of mixed use (Task 1)
ATTACHMENT E
LiCase Fi1cs�F'ianning I'rojec[Files�2001�POL000Z lake Grove'I'own CeuterWdvisory ComrttilteeWC work plan
D4.doc
Lake Grove Village Center Plan Implementation—Advisory Committee Work Plan Page 1 11
June 16,2004 Update
12
Lake Grove Village Center Plan
Implementation Advisory Committee
Meeting Notes
January 14, 2004, 4 to 6 p.m.
Lake Grove Elementary School, 15777 Boones Ferry Road
Members In AHendance: Ken Sandblast, Chair,Lang Bates, Darcey Eaton,Julia Glisson, llonna Jordan,
Carolyn Krebs, Jack Lundeen, Chuck O'Leary, George Psihogios, Cheryl Uchida
Alternates In Attendance: Barbara Zeller
Staff In AttendanCe: Dennis Egner, Susan Millhauser
Guests In Attendance: Elaine Johnson,Michael Buck
I. Welcome/Public Comment
Ken Sandblast called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone. There was no public comment.
II. Approve Meeting Notes
The committee approved the November 19 and December 3, 2003 meeting notes. There were no changes
from the draftS.
III. Process Overview
Ken noted that in preparation for the January 26�'Planning Comtrtission meeting check-in, staff will
compile work from this meeting, and nex[meeting if we decide to add a mee[ing[o make up for the
Ianuary 7 meeting tha[ was snowed ouL Denny Egner added tha[[he committee should be thinking about
how they wan[ [o present the draft vision statement. Perhaps some commit[ee members can help with the
presentation. Ken added that we would probably Finalize the vision statement after the Planning
Commission meeting.
Carolyn observed that the vision statement is a lot more detailed than she thought it would be. She
wondered if we could make updates as we go through the process. Ken replied that he would like to
finalize it within a few meetings after the Planning Commission to guide the committee's work. He
agreed, though, tha[ [here may be small changes after that He added that the committee needs to
remember that the vision is also based on the work of the public in the first phase of the town center
project, with the commi[[ee focusing on clarifying mixed use and character.
IV. Task 1 —20 Year Vision for Lake Grove Town Center
Current Zonina Standards and Mixed Use
Denny noted that he wanted ro briefly review current zoning standards in relation to mixed use. Elaine
Johnson noted that it would make sense to get an overall vision for the village out£irst and then look at
existing standards and make recommendations. Donna 7ordan and Ken Sandblast a�'eed. Denny quick]y
sununarized [ha[ the town center is mos[ly zoned General Commercial (GC), [he most permissive
commercial zone in Ihe City. He added [hat we will implement the vision through a mix if regulations,
incentives, and public/private partnerships. Zoning and design standards are tools to get to the vision. He
added[ha[ currendy [he GC zone allows buildings up [0 65 feet, approximately three s[ories, in certain
areas, which is more than one to two stories. For example, [he Avery Building on Boones Ferry and the
Mercantile Medical building,from some sides,aze three stories.
ATTACHMENTF 13
Feedback on December 8,2003 Draft Vision Statement and Others Submitted
Elaine gave an overview of the vision sta[ement submi[ted by Wilma McNulty who was unable to be in
attendance, and read her draft aloud. She noted that Wilma had taken the draft vision statement and
elaborated on areas she thought the group had expressed to be more explicit, and tied them to the guiding
principles. She added tha[Wilma wanted to emphasize preservation of[he village feel, open spaces,
natural areas, and waterways in the village center. Elaine asked for comments.
Commi[tee members went around the room and shared feedback on Wilma's draf[ and the December 8
draft vision sta[ements, summarized briefly as follows.
Julia Glisson noted that Wilma's vision statement had a interesting and dreamy feel and flavor, but added
[haf we need to be careful abou[ being too limiting. Julia added, [ha[ as a long-[ime Lake Grove resident,
she remembers past development of tacky buildings surrounded by unpaved parking lots. On the
December 8 draft vision statement, Iulia had gotten general feedback from members of the Lake Grove
Neighborhood Association (LGNA). She briefly summarized Ihe responses she had gotten [o ques[ions
she had sent to neighbors about the vision. In general, tree preservation was a priority for her neighbors
who responded. Most who responded felt Iha[residential should no[ be required in mixed use
development, and that we should let the market [ake care of i[. In terms of uses, [hey did not want to see
any "adult" uses. Most did not object to three story buildings. Most did not like the idea of a
neighborhood parking pass program, and did not want to have a pedes[rian access from Sunse[ ro the alley
as [hey see [he alley as a buffer. Many were concemed abou[ high speeds on Boones Ferry Road and
safety.
Cheryl Uchida observed that it was not clear what was meant by a variety of housing opportunities (line
6). Jack Lundeen noted that business owners he polled do not want residential to be required as a part of
mixed use. Chuck O'Leary added [hat there is a feeling in the business community that in the West Lake
Grove Design Dis[ric[ [here is an uns[a[ed City policy tha[if no housing is shown as part of a new
development and staff thinks there should be housing, [he project won't go through. Denny said that an
interesting question about mixed use is vertica] versus horizontal mixed use. He continued, in downtown
the code says if you add housing it must be above the ground floor use. Julia observed that along
Lanewood she can't see how you coald have housing above and at the back of the IoL Cheryl provided
some suggestions regarding parking and bus shelters (page 3)and [raffic volumes on neighborhood streets
(page 4). Jack said he felt we were going back in [ime, that the business community was feeling a lit[le
hemmed ia Ken expressed that [his language may be too specific for a vision statement.
Carolyn said that she liked Wilma's vision statement,and agreed there needed to be a greater emphasis on
natural resources in Lake Grove. She has heard from her cons[ituents that they want [o see protection of
natural resources. Carolyn [hought it would be helpful as well to have a map that shows the town center
and the surrounding east end neigliborhoods it serves. Susan agreed to prepare a map to go along with the
vision s[atement, for the commi[tee's review. Donna wondered iP we could roll the characteristics (bullet
points) into the narrative Ianguage of the vision statement.
Jack shared [he compilation of a survey developed by Sid Smither and completed by the business
community (business and property owners) and noted that generally they want the status quo. He added
that some responses are still coming in and Sid will bring the completed summary to the committee. Jack
noted that Sid's survey captures in more detail what he has heard from business owners— leave us alone,
we are doing okay as we are.
Chuck O'Leary observed [hat while Wilma's vision has everyone enchanted and romanced, there are
several Ihings we cadt do. For example, three lanes on Boones Ferry and a farmer's market on the Kruse
Farm property. Regarding the December 8 draft vision, he would like to see the word eclectic put back
in. He added that, under parking (page 3), we should encourage maximization of current parking areas.
14
Lake Grove Village Cenfer Plan Page 2
Advisory Committee Meeting Notes—January 14,2004
Donna noted that she Iikes W ilma's 40's—50's feel, with low profile buildings. Lang noted that 40's and
50's development in small towns often included three- and fourvslory buildings. He added lhat there are
good examples [hroughout Oregon, including downtown McMinnville.
Darcey shared that her focus is on Lake Grove school and the area around it. She added that the vision
dces a good job with the big picture. She added she liked how Wilma captured [he village feel.
However, she wanted to clarify, in regard[o Wilma's vision, that it is not a good idea to mix public and
civic uses with an elementary school. Also, she observed tha[ 15 mph speeds on Boones Ferry,as
described in Wilma's vision,do not take in to account that it is a major transportation corridor. Chuck ,
responded [hat he likes the idea of creating an open public space on the Boones Ferry side of the school
only if the bus barn gces away and a secure play area for srodents can be relocared behind the school. He
added that it would need to work for the school.
Ken observed that the vision needs to be more dear and concise. Jack opined that he liked the general
paragraphs followed by more specific bullet points. Ken said he has heard there needs to be more
emphasis on namral resources,connectivity,diverse archi[ecture, and a mix of small businesses. Donna
suggested that the bullet points be incorporated into the narrative. Denny observed that the character
needs to be better described. Susan agreed that some of the language was kind of generic and a starting
point, and was hoping for this type of feedback from the committee. Denny thought language about
preservation and enhancement of natural resources could be moved up in the 5rst paragraph. Lang asked,
what is this place? He added, that the language needs to be more specific. Darcey wondered if the
narrative coutd be more descrip[ive like Wilma's, but more concise with specifics. Donna volunteered ro
incorporate some of Wilma's descriptive language with the December 8 draft vision, pulling additional
points from the bullets in to the narrative. She added she would email to the committee. Susan thanked :i
Donna for taking this on and agreed to update the December 8 draft based on today's meeting and ,
forward [o Donna for her use. a
IV. Other Business/Committee Member Reporls �
�
None. �
V. Ne�Meeting
The committee agreed to add a meeting on January 21". At the next meeting, we will spend some time
discussing the presentation before the Planning Commission.
VI. Public Comment
None.
VII. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at approximately 6:15 p.m.
L�VCue Files�Plannfng Project Filcs�2001�P 01-0002 LaF:e Grove ToHn Center�Advisoq�Comminee�Advisory Comntittee
Meeting NotesWC meeling notes OLIJ-OS Final.doc
15
Lake Grove Village Center Plan Page 3
Advisory Committee Meeting Nofes—January 14,2004 �.
16
Lake Grove Village Center Plan
Implementation Advisory Committee
Meeting Notes
January 21, 2004, 4 to 6 p.m.
Lake Grove Elementary School, 15777 Boones Ferry Road
Members In Attendance: Ken Sandblast, Chair,Lang Bates, Darcey Eaton, Julia Glisson, Donna Jordan,
Vic Keeler, Carolyn Krebs, Jack Lundeen, Chuck O'L.eary, Wilma McNulty, Sid Smither, Cheryl Uchida
Alternates In Attendance: Adelle Jenike
Staff In Attendance: Dennis Egner, Susan Millhauser
Guests In Attendance: Liz Hartman, Michael Buck
I. Welcome
Ken Sandblast called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone. He noted that we would spend the
first hour of the meeting on the draft vision statement, [hen preparation for the January 26`"Planning
Commission (PC) meeting. Then we would move on to discuss existing zoning issues, if time allowed.
II. Public Comment
Mike Buck wondered what it is ihat would make people walk to the town center. He added [hat if we did
all of the things in the vision statement, what would be left of the commercial properties. He suggested
that the vision sta[ement may be too bucolic,and [here should be more emphasis on economics. He also
thought that the vision should have encouraging rather directive language, providing more Flexibility. He
also added there should be more emphasis on bringing the neighborhoal and town center together.
III. Task 1 —20 Year Vision for Lake Grove Town Center
Review of and Feedback on Draft Vision Statement
Ken shared that at the last meeting we reviewed the draft vision statement and heard Elaine Johnson's
presentation on Wilma's vision. He added that Wilma's vision added more specific, descriptive language
to the more generic vision based on town center concepts. Donna Jordan had agreed to combine the two
into the latest draft distributed to the committee. Ken reiterated that the vision provides the basis to guide
fumre detailed work.
Coaunittee members shared their comments around the table, as follows.
Darcey Eaton wondered what coordinated fashion means in terms of public uses. She also wondered
where mixed use went. Carolyn added that [he PC is expecting the committee to clearly define mixed use
and would like them to allow use to postpone presentation of the visioa She added that she is okay with
the vision statement but would not feel comfortable trying to define mixed use. Denny Egner replied that
he thought the vision almost gets there. Ken suggested that Carolyn had made a point that we need to
identify for the PC—that we still need[o define mixed use.
Jack observed Ihat the vision s[atement seems to have forgotten tha[businesses run down [he cen[er of Ihe
town center. He suggested that language be added [o emphasize there is a lively community of local
businesses surtounded by neighbors who use those businesses. Lang Bates agreed that economic viability
also needed to be addressed. Jack suggested language such as,each decision made has considered the
economic impact on local businesses.
17
Sid Smither shared the some results from the business community survey. He noted that business of the
business owners who responded to the survey are against bike lanes on Boones Ferry. They dodt see
how Ihey will increase business and dod[ see people using them. However, they do like the center turn
lanes. Carolyn wondered if a center turn lane on Boones Ferry will add lo safery. She [hought to
committee should discuss this topic as she was unsure of increased safety due to sheer number of
driveways. Sid said a center turn lane would reduce rear end collisions on Boones Ferry. Ken noted that
during the first phase of the town center project, there was consensus to improve pedestrian safety across
Boones Ferry Road. Sid observed that Lake Grove town center is a commercial area, not a village.
Jack said we are also considering the residential neighbors. Julia Glisson observed Ihat term`billage"fils
the area better than town. Denny noted that the town center effort is connecting the town center and
residential areas, but that we are not including low density neighborhoods so as not to encroach on
residential areas. Jack continued that the vision is intended to catch the uniqueness of the area—that i[ is
not a cookie cutter town center. Ken noted tha[ town center is a regulatory term and [hat [he word village
captures [he area and the connec[ion between [he commercial and residential areas. Julia sugges[ed we
should call it the Lake Grove Village Centec Ken agreed that we could call it whatever we want, and
could define in the ordinance that village center equals town center.
Sid shared that business and commercial property owners had concerns about shared parl:ing and access
agreemen[s, particularly in terms of liability. Carolyn replied that she feels like she has to move her car[o
go to various businesses. Chuck O'L.eary opined that is two adjacent parcels are being developed, it
makes sense to share parking and access, leading[o more and bet[er parking. Ken agreed, and noted that
we s[ill need to work out the details.
Chuck no[ed [hat there is a perception among commercial property owners [hat[he rear alley access from
Reese dces no[ work so well, that it is hard [o ge[ o�[on[o Reese Road. Julia agreed. She added that
there is not enough space to do everything we want to do in the town cenrer. Denny noted that the
concept was to use the alley in conjunction with consolidated driveways and a signal at a mid-block
crossing.
Sid asked what � neighborhood bike loop is? Witma clarified the she developed a map and concept last
year showing a gooci bike route around the town center. She added that she would like ro see this route
signed. The statement was clarified. Susan Millhauser observed that the committees recommendations
would need to coordinate with the Transportation Sys[em Plan and City policies regarding bike routes and
signage. Sid said he liked the idea of signs.
Chuck suggested that listing limits on new development be taken out (2°d paragraph). He suggested
adding library as one of the examples under public uses (2°d paragraph). He suggested including language
about incentives in relation to sustainability, and asked for more emphasis on public art.
Cheryl Uchida asked how business owners measure economic viability and vibrancy? What about
constant tum over? Some responses suggested vacancy rate, rental rates, reinvestment inro the business,
and number of people that use the business as measures of viability and vibrancy.
Someone asked why we would want to discourage drive-thrus. Julia said they are not so good for
pedestrians. Lang added that drive-[hrus tend to a[tract more of the same kind of business. Denny noted
that building design with a drive-through becomes more complex and makes it harder for the building ro
related ro the street,plus they add more asphalt. He added that there is a difference with a video or library
drop box. Staff will check if drive-thrus and adult businesses are currently allowed in the GC zone. Julia
noted that the Lake Grove NA plan recommended no more drive-thrus.
Cheryl noted that the strip mall is not defined. Vic asked if[he loca[ion of the alley ways had been put on
paper. Denny replied that during the first phase, several locations were identified. He showed the land
use concept map and explained the reasoning. Vic added that Tualatin has done a good job developing
18
Lake Grove Village Center Plan Page 2
Advisory Committee Meeting Notes—January 21,2004
parki�g close to their city center,and asked if the city was considering buying any houses that came up
for sale. Denny replied that the plan calls for two public parking lo[s in the plan.
Wilma wondered if we need to address solar access. Ken noted that it is already covered under the
current code. Wilma suggested tha[ we should be talking [o Equity Office abou[preserving the parcel at
the northwest corner of Kruse Way and Carman Drive. She shared a newspaper article about granny flats
and wondered if we should be addressing them Susan noted Ihat they are already allowed in [he City in
single-family residential zones, and would not be particularly relevant in the town center.
Carolyn stated she likes the vision overall, but was not sure about bus shelters. Lang repeated his concern
that economic viability be addressed more specifically. Confusing and redundant language were
identified for clarification and clean up.
Preparation for January 26 Planninq Commission Meeting
Ken summarized that we need to point out to the PC[ha[[he comtnittee s[ill needs [o clarify mixed use.
He added that we should explain why we are changing the name to village center—that the committee
feels the term better captures the overatl area and the connections between the commercial core and
surrounding neighborhoods. He also added that we may want to discuss boundary expansion.
Denny asked how the coaunittee wanted to present the vision to the PC. Several cortunittee members
agreed to get together and coordinate a presentation of the draft vision statement, representing various
stakeholder groups.
IV. Other Business/Committee Member Reports
None.
V. Next Meeting
None.
VI. Public Comment
Adelle Jenike noted that the we may want to take out reference to strip malls as limiting them may
discourage business from locating in the area. She asked what was village style. Carolyn replied that the
committee had agreed that strip mall development should be discouraged. Ken suggested it be lefr for
now, but[hat he was sensitive to Adelle's comment.
John Hurlburt inquired if we cant to include the Lake Grove Fire District building on Reese Road in the
village center? Ken replied that we need to further discuss the boundary.
VII. Adjournment
The meeting adjoumed at approximately 6:15 p.m.
L:\Case Piles�Planning Project Files�Z001V'01-0002 Lake Grove Town Center�.4dvisoq�CommitteeWdviwry Committee
Meeting Notes�,4C meeting notes 01-21-04 Pinal.doc
19
Lake Grove Village Center Plan Page 3
Advisory Committee Meeting Notes—January 21.2004
20
Lake Grove Village Center Plan
Implementation Advisory Committee
Meeting Notes
February 4, 2004, 4 to 6 p.m.
Lake Grove Elementary School, 15777 Boones Ferry Road
Members In AtlendanCe: Ken Sandblast, Chair,Lang Bates, Darcey Eaton, Julia Glisson, llonna Jordan,
Vic Keeler, Carolyn Krebs,Jack Lundeen, Chuck O'Leary. Wilma !vlcNulty. Sid Smither, Cheryl Uchida
Altemates In AttendanCe: Barbara Zeller, Adelle Jenike
Staft IIl AqendanCe: Dennis Egner, Susan Millhauser
Guests In Attendance: Michael Buck
I. Welcome
Ken Sandblast called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone.
II. Public Comment
There was no public comment.
III. Task 1 —20 Vear Vision for Lake Grove Town Center
Planninq Commission Feedback from January 26�"Meetinp
Ken thanked those committee members who made the presentation as well as those who attended the
meeting. Wilma McNulty observed that is should be easy to rectify in the vision Dan Vizzini's comment
that Ihe village center serves more that just [he surrounding neighborhoods and that the town center
contains mixed uses and housing. She added that she liked Frank Groznik's comment that comrnittee
, members are identifying and working toward common goals. Dennis Egner opined that he dcesn't think
we are outside Metro town center parameters. Jack Lundeen noted that the question as to what Metro
expects from a town cen[er hasn't been answered. Jack reminded that the committee had come [o
consensus[ha[we will let[he marke[ make decisions on mixed use. Denny observed [hat is we use urban
renewal, we can use incentives and a renewal-driven program to encourage mixed use projects. Jack
added that individual property owners could make decisions and negotiate. Denny added tha[ we have
housing and employment targets for town centers. Susan distributed a handout that broke down estimated
capacity for additional housing units and employment in the town center. Denny added that staff wwld
do some research to further clarify Metro mandates. He added that there is an overall target density of 40
persons per acre for town cen[ers.
Wilma asked for a refresher on the Boones Ferry Corridor Plan recommendation. Could the committee
make additional recommendations regarding three versus five lanes? Denny reiterated that last year staff
checked in with[he City Council on the topic of[he Cortidor Plan recommendation and that Council
essentially said [he recommendation for a five-lane corridor stands. Wilma asked if Metro liked i[.
Denny said that in terms of receiving funding, no, the plan did not rank welL Carolyn asked if the
Council check-in happened prior to getting negative feedback from Metro. Denny stated yes, but
emphasized that the issues and assumptions on Boones Ferry haven't changed, such as projected increases
in traffic, safety issues and the need for a center tum lane, keeping traffic out of the neighborhoods, etc.
Julia Glisson shared that she believes not expanding Boones Ferry will funnel trafGc into the surrounding
neighborhoods. Donna Jordan said she saw the need for five lanes in places,but didn't necessarily see the
need for one long tum-lane down the middle of Boones Ferry. Perhaps[here were other possibilities such
as a two-lane traffic circle at Albertsods. Denny noted that a recommendation for two more crossings of 21
Boones Ferry came out of the town cen[er plan. Carolyn added thxt she has concerns about pedestrians
crossing so many driveways.
IV. Task 2—Review Existing Zoning Standards and Determine Appropriateness
Overview of Communitv Deve�ooment Code
Denny and Susan gave an overview of the regulatory framework and land use decision process we are
working within. Two handouts were given out, one a diagram of the regulatory framework and the other
of the Iand use review and decision making process. Susan noted that the handou[s and Power Point
presentation would be posted on the project web site.
"Hop Topics"
Another handout was distributed. Susan explained that [his handout tried to identify particular points of
inierest for committee discussion. Ken added that we will cover one hot ropic in detail at subsequent
meetings as we look at current regulations in relation to the vision. Ken asked that the committee review
the hot topics sheet and identify topics we may have missed. Wilma pointed out natural resource
enhancement and pro[ection. Carolyn wondered if the committee would have more time to digest this.
Ken noted that packets would be available that highlighted code requirements in summary form. Jack
noted that committee members needed time for cons[ituent feedback. Carolyn asked if key City staff
could attend meetings on specific topics, such as Tom Tushner and Boones Ferty Road.
Regarding edges and boundaries,Denny summarized the Planning Commission discussion about the town
center boundaries and additional sites at the edges that might be appropriate to bring into the town center.
For example, they had discussed the properties at the northwest comer of Boones Ferry and Kruse Way.,
which is currently zoned Office Campus(OC) and has an overall limit on the amoun[of retaiL Carolyn
asked if the property owners are interested and Denny confirmed that they aze and that they had
approached the Planning Commission. Sid asked if it would be included in an urban renewal area and
Denny confirmed that it would. Jack noted that it makes sense to have all commercial development
happen under the same plan. Mike noted that he had heard that the property owners do not want mixed
use. He added that development there would impact Boones Ferry and the signal at Kruse Way which
would need further study. Chuck suggested that the site could be included in the town cen[er but keep the
current limitations.
IV. Other BusinesslCommittee Member Reporls
None.
V. Next Meeting
Ken noted that at the next meeting we would review/revisit the hot topics, get a briefing on Metro
requirements, and start discussing village charactec He asked committee members to review the
handouts of code sections for the Wes[Lake Grove and Downtown Design Districts.
VI. Public Comment
None.
VII. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at approximately 6:10 p.m.
L:\Case Files�Planning Project Files�2001�P O1-0002 Lake Grove Town CenterWdvisory CommitteeWdvisory Commi[[ee
Meeling NotesWC meeting notes 02-04-04 Final.doc
22
Lake Grove Village Center Plan Page 2
Advisory Committee Mseting Notes—Fe6ruary 4,2004
Lake Grove Village Center Plan
Implementation Advisory Committee
Meeting Notes
February 18, 2004, 4 to 6 p.m.
Lake Grove Elementary School, 15777 Boones Ferry Road
Members In Attendance: Ken Sandblast, Chair, Lang Bates,Darcey Eaton, Julia Glisson, Donna Jordan,
Vic Keeler, Carolyn Krebs, Jack Lundeen, Chuck O'Leary, Wilma McNulty, Sid Smither, Cheryl Uchida
Altemates In Attendance: Barbara Zeller,Adelle Jenike, John Hurlburt
Staff In Attendance: Dennis Egner, Susan Millhauser
Guests In Atlendance: Michael Buck, Cathy Shroyer
I. Welcome
Ken Sandblast called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone.
II. Public Comment
g Barbara Zeller observed that with infill development there can be issues with surface water and standing
water. Carolyn Krebs opined this issue would fit under natural resource protection and enhancement.
Mike Buck raised a melhodology question, that is we need to louk at the ho[ [opics cumulatively ro see
costs, values, and impacts to propeRy.
Kathy Shroyer,Lake Grove Neighborhood Association chair, commented that Lake Forest neighbors are
:
concemed about scale,they do not want to see three-story buildings on Boones Ferry.
III. Task 2—Review Existing Zoning Standards and Determine Appropriateness
"Hop Topics"
Committee members made suggestions for the hot topics list, including adding of srorm water
management and architecmral design. Donna Jordan asked what about vee protection and limiting big
box retail. Denny Egner added that the committee could identify special areas with trees for additional
protection. Denny shared information about the City's various tree protection programs, including the
sensitive lands overlay, tree code, and heritage tree program. Kegarding signage, Wilma McNulty
wondered if[hat include private signs. She shared wha[ she had heard abou[ pole signs having to be taken
down. Jack Lundeen replied[hat the pole sign removal is due to changes to [he sign code several years
ago.
Metro Reauirements and Exaectations
Denny gave a briefing on Metro[argets. Susan Millhauser passed oul a sheet that summarizes targets for
jobs and housing uni[s. Denny explained tha[the numbers shown came from the City's reporting to
Metro(or the period from 1994 [0 2017 for compliance with[he Urban Growth Management Functiona!
Plan. The City did an analysis of capacity for future development based on vacant and redevelopable
properties. He noted that the capacity shown is for both town centers, and an assumption was made that
20 to 35% of new housing would occur in Lake Grove town center with the rest occurring in the
downtown town center. Denny added that Metro has a general recommendation that town centers can
accommodate 40 persons per acre,but dces no[ specify a split be[ween jobs and housing. Someone asked
what the density in the rown center is wrrendy. Susan will bring information about this to the next
23
mee[ing. Denny added that these number were targets that we Uad to show we have [he capacity to reach.
and that we needed to be in "substantial compliance".
Villaqe Character
Susan passed out a ma[rix tha[ listed various code sections. The commit[ee discussed Chapter 50.45
[3uilding Design, of the Communiry Development Code. Denny also noted there are the other code
sections that could helpful in this process which were distributed before the meeting included the West
Lake Grove Design Distric[ (WLGDD)and Down[own Design Distric[s. He also noted that a
Comprehensive Plan policy limits retail development in town cen[ers [o 35,000 square feet or less.
Regarding 50.45.010, Donna observed that design should reflect village character, Wilma added tha[ we
need to be taking picmre of things we like. Julia Glisson added that we could develop a handbook to
show examples of the type of desired development Carolyn wondered how we come up with standards
but no[ be too restrictive. Lang noted that the WLGDD standards are very prescrip[ive. Kathy Shroyer
opined that developers will pick the path of least resistance and will develop the same type of building.
Lang no[ed that if you focus on the past, you wod t get anything innovative and that the future is about
sustainability. Carolyn suggested that we could leam from the WLGDD, and inquired if we could form a
sub-commi[[ee[o bring design ideas back to the larger commi[tee?
Denny then brought up the topic of scale. He asked if there are uses that the committee wants to limit,
such as autooriented uses. Donna wondered if we focus on improvements so people can drive ro the
village center, park their cuds, and then do their thing. Jack observed that we could group uses as
consumptives versus services. Chuck O'L.eary added that we need ro be careful of wanting certain types
of placed to go away, such as gas stations. Carolyn wondered if we could make certain uses conditional
uses. Denny replied yes, that there is a middle ground. Julie added that we need to maintain a
convenience oriented mix of businesses to keep people in the district. I[ was agreed [hat staff would
provide the list of uses and the committee would review. Denny asked to folks keep in mind uses on
Boones Ferry versus uses on the cross streets.
lliscussion about gateways followed. Donna asked if the potential inclusion of the property at the
northwest comer of Boones Ferry and Kruse Way changed where a gateway might go. Wilma suggested
that we do not use the word district, and that signs should show a unique Lake Grove Village Center
symbol. I[was agreed tha[ a gateway would be appropriate a[ Boones Ferry and Kruse Way. At[he south
end, it feels like you are entering the village cenrer as you cross the railroad tracks and head up the hill.
This area would be good for a gateway as well. Signs that say"welcome to Lake Grove Village Center"
would be nice. How a theme fit in with a Lake Grove village sveetscape standard was discussed.
IV. Other Business/Committee Member Reports
Susan passed out an article from Planning Commission magazine about controlling strip development.
V. Ne�Meeting
No discussion.
VI. Pu61ic Comment
Mike Buck sta[ed[hat he prefers [he existing general commercial s[andards over the WLGDD s[andards.
Kathy Shroyer commented that the Lake Forest NA board is concemed about scale and [hat [hey are
against any new development that is three stories or taller.
VII. Adjournment
The meeting adjoumed at approxima[ely 6:10 p.m.
L:\Case Files�Planning Project Files�2001�P O1-0002 Lake Grove Town CenterWdvisory CommitteeWdvisory Cortunittee
Meeting NotesWC meeting notes 02-I8-04 Final.doc ,14
Lake Grove ViNags Center Plan Page 2
Advisory Committee Meeting Notes—February 18,2004
Lake Grove Village Center Plan
Implementation Advisory Committee
Meeting Notes
March 17, 2004, 4 to 6 p.m.
Lake Grove Elementary School, 15777 Boones Ferry Road
Members In Atiendance: Ken Sandblast, Chair, Lang Bates, Darcey Eaton, Julia Glisson, Jack Lundeen,
Vic Keeler Carolyn Krebs, Wilma McNulty,Chuck O'Leary,Sid Smither, Cheryl Uchida
Altemates In Attendance: Jeff Novak, Barbara Zeller
Staft In AtlendanCe: Dennis Egner, Susan Millhauser
Guests In Attendance: Frank Groznik, Michael Buck, Matt Finnigan, Mich Conklin, Tom Tushner, City
of Lake Oswego
I. Welcome/Public Comment
Dennis Egner called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone. There was no public comment.
11. Meeting Notes
There were no commenls on the March 10, 2004 meeting no[es.
III. Task 2—Review Existing Zoning Standards and Determine Appropriateness
Boones Ferry Road/Safetv
Denny introduced Tom Tushner, Lake Oswego Assistant City Engineer, who was the project manager on
the Boones Ferry Road Corridor Study. Tom gave some background on the Corridor Plan and described
the purpose. Hc then introduced three members of the Corridor Plan Project Advisory Committee (PAC)
who were in a[tendance: Ma[[ Finnigan, Mike Buck, and Jeff Novak. He added Ihat the PAC had 10
members who guided the eight-month long study. The goal of the PAC was to balance current and future
transportation needs with those of businesses on Boones Ferry Road. Tom noted that the City's
Transportation System Plan (TSP) shows Boones Ferry Road as a five-lane facility classified as a major
ar[erial. He added that [he City has applied for funding from Metro for engineering and righ[-of-way
acquisition, but tha[currendy there is no funding allocated for the Cortidor Plan. However, the City
recently applied for funding through Congresswoman Darlene Hooley's office. Matt Finnigan noted that
the PAC did not know about Metro's boulevard fu�ding criteria when they started their work and that the
PAC focus also included consideration of economic impacts on and viability of Boones Ferry businesses.
Tom then gave a brief overview of the plan elemen[s. The plan focused on the portion of Boones Ferry
Road located between the curbs, with the understanding that the[own center planning process would look
behind the curbs. The plan recommended a five-lane cross section,with a center lum lane in some places,
medians in others, and on-s[reet stripped bike lanes. Additionally,the plan made recommendations on:
intersection treatments, realignment of Lanewood Ave., signal synchronization for 25 mph speeds,
undergrounding of u[ili[ies, s[ree[ light standards, sidewalk wid[hs,and transit service, as well as doing
some conceptual site specific smdies related to access and parl:ing.
Tom then opened it up ro questions from comrtrittee members. The following is a brief summary of the
questions and responses:
Q. Any idea how the Bridgeport Village development might affect the Boones Ferry corridor?
(Wilma)
25
A. During the Corridor swdy, the consultant assumed a similar density of devzlopmen[ on [hat site
for the transportation modeling, so it was accounted foc Additionally, the City hired an independent
consultan[ to review the results of the [ransportation study done for the Bridgeport developmen[.
(Tom)
Q. What was the process to arrive at five lanes? (Denny)
A. The PAC examined several altematives, inc►uding a no build option which is the current
configuration (four lanes with dedicated lefbtum lane at signalized intersections),three lanes with on-
street parking, and [he five lane section. They found that the three-lane seclion would not be able to
accommodate projected traffic volumes. Currently, the volume is more than 20,000 ADT(average
daily traffic), with 30,000+ ADT projected for the year 2020. Tom added that a telling example to
think about is what happens on Boones Ferry when a lane is closed for utiliry repairs as that would be
the scenario with three lanes. (Tom)
Q. Did the study look at altemate routes [for traffic projected for Boones Ferry Road]? (Frank)
A. No, as i[ was beyond the scope of[he study. To do so would have required opening up the
Transporta[ion System Plan (TSP) to look at neighborhood streets such as Quarry and Upper. (Tom)
Q. What are the traffic counts on A Avenue?
A. On A Avenue at 5'�,the count is 20,000-22,000 ADT. State Stree[ has some sections that are
higher, up to 30,000 ADT. Current traffic counts are on the City web site. A Ave. is comparable to
Boones Ferry. (Tom)
Q. However, A Avenue has full medians and o�-street parking and does not have bike lanes. (Lang)
A. Yes, and it also has a wider rightof-way(82')with a grid system so there are more options for
left tums. Plus there are tum pockets every other block or so and people generally avoid left mrns
where there is no[ a turn pocket. The State Transportation Planning Rule (TPR)says that bicycle
ways are required along arterials and major collectors. A Avenue is shown on the City's TSP as
needing bike facilities. (Tom)
Q. Is it true [hat an altemative bike route is acceptable? (Cuolyn)
A. I believe that since Boones Ferry is designated as a regional bike route, it is preferred that the
bike way be on Ihe arteriaL (Tom) The PAC did look a[ off-facility options and was unable to find a
reasonable alternative. (Matt) Some issues were logical termini, narrow neighborhood streets, and
site distance issues. Also, it didn't make sense to pull cyclists off the most direct route when a
parallel route was not available. (Tom) In downtown, A Avenue has parallel routes. (Mike) Also,
regional bike routes are intended to connect town centers and regional centers to each other,
providing access to town center businesses. (Tom)
Matt noted that the Corridor is the worst in the city in terms of accidents. Mike added that the PAC also
had concems about bike Ianes,driveways, and access points. Tom noted [hat the sidewalk width
recommended in the Corridor Plan recognized that the town center process would likely recommend
wider sidewalks.
Q. Was there PAC discussion of the posted 30 mph speed limit? (7ulia)
A. The City went ro the state speed control board and they said no change. (Tom)
Q. How do you get people to slow down? (Jack)
A. One tool is ro synchronize the traffic signals. Downtown Portland is a good example. (Tom)
Q. Are signals pedestrian actuated? (Frank)
A. Yes, all of the signals in the City are,though some need to be updated. The timing could also be
set to have a regular pedestrian cycle. (Tom)
26
Lake Grove Village Center Plan Page 2
Advisory Committee Meefing Notes-March 17, 2004
Iack observed that we need to make sure that everything 5ts— bike lanes, sidewalks, slree[ trees, etc.
Q. llid the PAC look at medians as well as a dedica[ed lef[mrn lane? (Carolyn)
A. Currently there are tum lanes a[ [he intersections. Consolidated access (the Corridor Plan
recommends 300-foot access spacing) would allow for more landscaped medians rather than a
con[inuous left-turn lane. (Tom)
Q. Could we propose a raised median with four lanes in particular places in the corridor? (Carolyn)
A. Yes, however it is a challenge with the existing spacing of sigualized intersections and the need to
provide room to taper the lane into a left tum lane at the intersections. (Tom) The PAC did look at
how they could keep the road to two lanes each way, and there were a few areas but it didn'[ buy a lot
of space. Plus, one needs [o look at storage for cars waiting[o turn left (Jef�
Lang noted that you cadt have a freeway ru�ning through a town centec A grid system is needed to
relieve pressure from Boones Ferry. llenny replied that an earlier town center[ransportation concept map
showed additional street connections between Lanewood and Reese, but that an additional signal was too
tight with existing signals in terms of spacing. Also, Denny noted that such a street fronting a
commons/public park would be very expensive to build with no private development to pay for it. Plus,
there were other s[reets proposed, intended to crea[e a s[ronger street density. Frank added [ha[pedestrian
connections Crom the neighborhoods were also shown, and neighbors circulated a petition saying they did
not want such a connection to their neighborhood. Carolyn asked about the alley at the rear of properties
fronting Boones Ferry between Reese and Bryant. Denny replied that an alley was looked at and there
were concerns that a straight alley all the way through would encourage cut-through traffic, as well as
_ opposition from adjacent neighbors. Jack noted that showing connections between parking lots east of
McDonalds was a good compromise.
Q. Do we know the percentage of local versus [hrough traffic on Boones Ferry? (Wilma) Wilma
_ added [hat she is in favor of on-street parking on Boones Ferry.
A. It is hard to define cut-through traffic. (Tom) A study was done and it showed that about half of
the traffic originated or ended in the corridor. (Jef� This is a high number of local trips for an arterial
—50% of the trips either starting or stopping there. (Tom)
Q. I recendy saw narrow bike lanes on Scholls Ferry Road. (Sid)
A. Five feet is the standard width. (Tom)
Q. How will the Corridor Plan be implemented? Is$2.5 million [applied for in the last MTII' round]
the to[al amount needed? If not, how will Ihe remainder be funded? (Julia)
A. $2.5 million is not the total. The estimate is $8 million, including rightof-way acquisition,
undergrounding of utilities, engineering, and construction. However, we wodt really know the total
figure until the engineering is done. (Tom)
Tom added that the Lanewoai intersection realignment and signal would be a good first project to
pursue funding for as it would provide improved access to the school and a signalized pedestrian
crossing. Currently that intersec[ion operates a level of service(LOS)F. Denny added that
improvements along Ihe Wizer's frontage mighl be a good project as well.
Q. Could a property owner retain convol over the sidewalk and have that uea count towards lot size
requirements? (Ken)
A. The City would request an easement. (Tom) The corridor plan recommended 5-foot sidewalks,
with 3-foot tree wells/planter strip. Wider sidewalks of at least 8 to 10 fee[are preferred. (Denny)
The right-of-way could end at the curb but an easement would still be needed for public signs,
utilities,etc. (Tom) On 122nd Avenue in Clackamas County they have created sidewalk easements
ralher[han requiring the dedication of right-of-way. (Lang)
27
� Lake Grove Village Center Plan Page 3
Advisory Committee Meeting Notes—March 17,2004
Ken noted tha[ the Boones Ferry corridor has to move traffic. He added that the Comtnittee's challenge is
to draw [ogether the pieces, with opportunities such as shared access and reduced rear yard setbacks to
reduce impacts on adjacent properties. Ken con[inued, [he Commi[[ee has a chance to solve problems
with the rown center plan.
Q. Did[he corridor plan look at traffic circles?(L,ang)
A. Roundabouts are challenging with multiple access points and they have to be wider at
intersections. Tho�gh they do allow for four lanes at the approach. (Tom) They can be intimidating
for pedestrians. (Julia) They are very efficient a[ low traffic volumes, though work less well with
uneven traffic flows. (Tom)
Q. Could a roundabout work at the"alley" and Bryant Road? Do you have any other ideas?
(Carolyn)
A. No, the alley intersection is too dose to the intersection of Bryant Road with Boones Ferry Road.
Limiting left tums with raised medians would elimina[e the need for a center tum lane. (Tom)
Current Densities in the Town Center
Susan shared that the business license research showed there [o be 1,736 employees in the village center.
She noted that the numbers may be a bit low as several employers, such as L.ake Grove elementary, the
post office, and others did not come up with employees. She shared that, based on the land use inventory
conducted in the fall of 2002, there are 163 dwelling units in the village center. She added that using an
average of 2.4 persons per dwelling unit plus the employment figure, the current total is approximately 24
people per acre. Susan continued that based on the Ciry's development assumptions included in the
Metro Functional Compliance report and assumptions about how much development would occur
downtown versus in Lake Grove and in the Wes[ Lake Grove Design District, we could reach
approximately 38 people per acre. Susan will summarize this information in a memo for lhe Committee.
Chuck noted that there are at least 40 more employees that he knows of as insurance industry businesses
are exempt from having to get a business license. Jack added that he could work with high school
smdents to conduct a survey of village center businesses to get a better count of employees. Julia added
that they could add questions to leam about employee pattems, the market in the area, etc. Jack added
that some monetary compensation for the students would be appropriate. Denny agreed to inquire where
the funding might come from.
Mixed Use and Connectivitv/Transitions to Neiqhborhoods
Committee members gathered around a map of the village center to discuss potential boundary
expansions. At the south end, two pazcels are being considered for inclusion in the village center—the
old Lake Grove fre hall and the parcel southwest of the southem edge of the current boundary. Julia
noted that she has heard concerns about a road connection through the parcel south of Wizer's. Denny
noted that inclusion of the southem parcel closed the gap between the village center and the West Lake
Grove Design Dis[rict. He added that this connection was envisioned as an alley to provide street
frontage for new residential development at the rear of the Wizer's parcel. At the north end, Committee
members generally like the idea of including the pazcel at the northwest comer of Boones Ferry and
Kruse Way. What about the Safeco property? Seems like there is a lot of redevelopment potential. Is the
road between Safeco and the Equity building a pubic or private street? Susan replied that it looked to be a
private street as no right-of-way was shown on the tax lot base on the map. She added that she would
double-check this. The property at the comer of Kruse Way and Carman llrive was discussed. Denny
no[ed that there are issues with access to this property. Properties ro the west of Lake Grove School were
discussed next. Jeff noted [hat [he Waluga neighborhood is concerned abou[ Ihe town center creeping in
and taking over[he neighborhood. They do not want [o lose single-family residential developmen[.
ChucA explained [hat at the last mee[ing, this area was discussed for inclusion as park or open space land
in order to provide more flexibility for relocating the school's playing fields [o[he rear of lhe building,
providing space for a commons a[the Boones Ferry side of the building. Jeff thought i[ migh[ be okay
with the neighborhood to use [his area as open space. Denny added tha[ the density could be fixed at
28
Lake Grove Village Cenfer Pfan Page 4
Advisory Committee Meefing Notes—March 17, 2004
single-family (current zoning). The inclusion of the residentially zonecl property at the northwest corner
of Quarry and Oakridge was discussed next. Including [his parcel would allow the proposed residen[ial
development units [o be counted and for a consistent street trea[ment to ex[end on the north side oF
Oakridge(south side of Oakridge is in the village center). It was noted that if an urban renewal district
was formed and in place prior to this site being developed, lhe lax increment could help fund village
center projects. Jeff added that the Waluga N.A. would like some kind of reassurance that if it agrees to
expand the village center boundary, it won't expand more in the fuwre.
IV. Other Business/Committee Member Reports
Nonc.
V. Next Meeting
The nex[ meeting will be on April 7, 2004, with the [opic of parking and continued map work.
V�. Public Comment
None.
VII. Adjournment
The meeting adjoumed at approximately 6:15 p.m.
L:\Cue Files�Planning Pmjecl FilesL001�P OL0002 Lake Grove Toum CenterWdvisory Commi[teeWdvisory Conmv[tez
Meeling NotesWC meefing notes 03-17-04 Final.doc
29
Lake Grove Village Center Plan Page 5
Advisory Committee Meeting Notes—March 17,2004
30
Lake Grove Village Center Plan
Implementation Advisory Committee
Meeting Notes
April 7, 2004, 4 to 6 p.m.
Lake Grove Elementary School, 15777 Boones Ferry Road
Membe�s In AttendanCe: Ken Sandblast, Chair, Darcey Eaton,Julia Glisson,Donna Jordan, Vic Keeler
Carolyn Krebs,Wifma McNulty, Chuck O'Leary, Sid Smither, Cheryl Uchida
Alternates In Attendance: Jeff Novak, Barbara Zeller
Staff In Attendance: Dennis Egner, Susan Millhauser
GUeSts In AHefldanCe: Frank Groznik, Michael Buck, Bob S[agburg, Brenda Falson, Dienne Irwin-Green,
Scot Siegel, Jay Clark �
I. Weicome/Public Comment
Dennis Egner called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone, followed by public comment. Dienne
Green, Sunse[Dr., staled[ha[ she and many of her neighbors on Sunse[ Dr. do not want the old fire
station on Bryant Rd. turned into a commercial use. They don't want this property included in the plan
area. She added the they are worMng on having the fire house recognized as a historical resource. She
continued that she and her neighbors are worried about parking and noise, and believe the current use for
meetings is good. She also noted that she is concemed about the old growth trees being taken down if the
site is commereialized. �
II. Meeting Notes
Meeting notes were not available, to be reviewed at the next meeting.
III. Process/Nexi Meetings
Ken Sandblast provided an update on upcoming meetings, and noted that we need to be working on
produc[s in preparation for the Planning Commission check-ia He added, at our next meeting, we would
continue to work with village center maps [o[alk about zoning and related [opics, and [oday would draw
to a close the discussions on mixed use and village character.
Carolyn Krebs requested that [he June 9 advisory comrnittee meeting be moved the June 2 instead. It was
agreed ro change the meeting date.
IV. Task 2—Review Existing 2oning Standards and Determine Appropriateness
Summary of Committee Consensus
A working draft consensus sutmnary document(dated April 6, 2004) was passed out. Ken noted that this
working draft was staff s attempt to capwre potential areas of consensus,based on past meeting
discussions, for review and discussion by [he committee. Carolyn no[ed that she would like to postpone
this discussion un[il afrer the comrni[tee has a chance to review [his information. She added [hat [he
inclusion of 3-s[ory buildings jumped ou[ at her. Ken replied Iha[ as we dodt have[he luxury of time, her
would prefer ro go over the consensus summary for about 15 minutes to introduce it and answer
questions. Carolyn added that she diddt think we had discussed sidewalk widths, Boones Ferry Road, or
na[ural resource protection. Ken agreed and noted[hat the hope was [o spur discussions. Wiltna
McNulty opined that we can reserve the right to come back to them. Susan Millhauser added that the
31
[opics column in the consensus summary came from[he hot [opics list that the committee had reviewed
and discussed several times. Donna Jordan said she saw some items where [here seems to be agreement.
On another topic, Donna asked if staff was aware of any other proposals for clear cutting like what just
happened at Boones Ferry and Madrona. Denny replied [ha[ Iha[property is in the county. He added that
a proposal may be submitted for the northwest comer of Quarry and Oakridge. The City's tree code does
offer protec[ion, especially in setbacks,open space and landscaping areas. Wilma asked it[he are any tree
groves in Lake Grove? Denny didn't think so. Susan added that she would check. Iulia Glisson inquired
if there are steps the committee can take beyond the existing sensitive lands overlay and tree code. Denny
responded that the committee could identify and call out significant trees in the village center. He added
that tree preservation needs to be balanced with private property rights. Julia added that the trees at the
fire hall may need additional protection if there is a new use, such as community center, that would
require more parking. Denny replied that the existing level of tree protection covers a portion of the site.
Members of the committee would need to follow up and document[hese types of trees, marking up an
aerial pho[o.
Review and discussion of the consensus summary sheet followed, summarized below.
Villaee Character, I. Scale and Type of Development
l.a. -Development more intense along Boones Ferry,with decreasing in[ensity as it transitions to the
neighborhoods. Committee consensus was yes.
l.b. -Bring buildings up to the street. After discussion, this was combined with l.c. and changed to: No
vehicle parking areas located between building and street. Committee consensus was yes.
l.c. -Parking in the rear or at side was combined with l.b.
l.d. -Wide sidewalks (8 [0 10'), when possible. Mike Buck noted that he had concems abou[requiring
wide sidewalks and impact of[his on private property. He wondered if these sidewalks were making
connections to the neighborhoods. Susan noted that regarding connections ro neighborhoods, the map on
page 29 of the town center report shows where there are existing and proposed sidewalks. Julia and
Carolyn added that we need to differentiate between sidewalks on Booaes Ferry and on the cross streets,
how they wrap the corned and transition to the neighborhoods. Sid Smither added that he would hate to
see buildings chopped that are close to the sidewalk. Denny clarified that wider sidewalks would be
required with redevelopment, otherwise i[would be the Boones Ferry Corridor Plan recommendation (5-
foot sidewalk with 3-foot wide tree wells.). l.d. was renumbered l.c. and rewritten as: Continuous
sidewalks or pathways. Commit[ee consensus was yes.
l.e. -Three stories okay if stepped back from street. Sid noted that he would like to see a fourvstory
building at the Pacific Lumber site. It was decided that more discussion was needed on this topic. It was
renumbered l.d.
Villaee Character. 2. Tvnes of Uses Business Cortidor vs. Cross Streetsl
2.a. -Allow some auto-oriented uses on Boones Ferry and dodt allow on side streets. It was noted that
auto-oriented uses needed to be defined. Ideas included gas stations, car washes and auto mechanics. I[
was agreed that more disc�ssion was needed on this topic. Donna noted tha[ this item should be moved [o
the bottom of the list, so was renumbered l.c.
2.b. -Limit size by use: si[e larger scale uses on Boones Ferry and smaller scale uses on side s[ree[s; and
prohibit big box retail (single retail use larger than 35,000 sq.ft.). This topic was renumbered 2.a.
Committee consensus was yes.
2.c. Develop a community facility and identify public/private partnership opportunities on one of Five
parcels identified. This topic was renumbered 2.b. Committee consensus was yes.
32
Lake Grove Village Center Plan Page 2
Advisory Committee Meeting Notes-April7,2004
VillaQe Character 3 Architecmral Desien
3.a. —Develop architectural design standards to promote village concepL Carolyn gave a brief update on
[he work of the architectural design sub-commit[ee. She noted they were working on a palette of
architectural styles. Ken asked if[he pale[te would dis[inguish between more intense development versus
less intense development on cross streets. Carolyn added [hey were okay with taking on streetscape. Ken
added he would like to have something to bring to the Plamiing Commission on May 10. Carolyn agreed
� and added that they had discussed going beyond the comntittee, perhaps a neighborhood charcette, and
were hoping for some guidance from the Planning Commission. Ken clarified [ha[the would need [o be
very defined in a request to the Planning Commission and should be careful about expectations. Carolyn
added that their approach was to guide rather than regulate design. Susan suggested that the sub-
committee share its work with[he advisory committee on May 5. Chuck inquired if[here were any
development proposals in [he area? Denny was no[aware of any. Mike added that he likes the idea of
gree� roofs and patios, too. Julia noted that the sub-committee l�as been focusing on architectural
features. She asked if[hey should expand to cover scale and style7 Ken said yes, and added he coulddt
imagine how you could look at one withou[the other. Lang Ba[es added that he has been helping the sub-
committee keep costs in mind. Commi[[ee consensus was yes.
3.b. —Sub-committee to work on architec[ural design standards. The phrase, including scale and
character of development was added. Committee consensus was yes.
Villa�e Character, 4. Gateways, Village Commons, Public Spaces
4.a. —Incorporate streetscape theme into gateway project at Boones Ferry at Kruse Way and Boones Ferry
at the RR tracks. Committee consensus was yes.
4.b. —Village commons—at the school. More discussion required.
Wilma would like us [o [aIk to Safeco about whal plans they may have to redevelop their site on Kruse
Way. Susan suggested [hat the committee should firs[decide if they are recommending[he property [o be
included in the village cen[er.
Consensus Work Session
Committee members gathered around a working map of the village center to discuss crossings and access
along Boones Ferry Road, and parking. The working map showed [he signalized mid-block crossing area
on Boones Ferry identified in the Town Center Plan, in the area between Reese and Bryant, and the
recommended 300-foot access spacing. Denny explained how a mid-block crossing would require the I
consolidation of driveways along Boones Ferry and rear access to the parcels on the south side of Boones '
Ferry Road. He also noted that a need for public parking lots was identified for this area, both north and I
sou[h of Boones Ferry. Denny added tha[Town Cen[er Plan and Boones Ferry Road Corridor Plan also
recommended an additional signalized crossing at Lanewood, also shown on[he working map.
Carolyn noted that the Town Center Plan said the peak parking problem is on the south side of Boones
Ferry between Reese and Bryant. Someone asked about the new development at State Ave. and A Street
(Lakeview Village), how much retail and how much parking? Donna added Ihat we need to be looking at
al[emative modes of transportation. For example,TriMet routes don't necessarily get employees duectly
to work. Carolyn asked if parking is related [o use. Mike confirmed it is. Carolyn suggested we might
want to look at parking standards in relation to use. Susan noted that the City's current standards look at
use and generally square foo[age [o determine the amoun[ of required parking. She agreed to summarize
the City's parking standards for the committee.
Darcey observed that we should also look at areas where parking is underutilized, like Wizer's. Chuck
expressed that he was uncomfortable picking potential locations for public parl:ing lots. He wondered if
we could specify that a parking lot be within a certain distance of a mid-biock crossing. Denny responded
that we could generally indicate areas where public lots would be needed, and facilitate their development
as a project through urban renewal. He added that the City general looks for oppoRunity purchases when
33
Lake Grove Village Center Plan Page 3
Advisory Committee Meeting Notes—April 7,2004
a site becomes available in a specified area. Mike inquired how wide the driveway at a mid-block
crossing would need to be. Ken replied about 30 to 36 fee[ wide, perhaps with a left turn lane. Mike
observed that could take out half of someone's lot. Ken agreed and added tha[Iwo properties could share
the driveway, with shared access agreements. Perhaps there would be an opportunity to purchase a
parcel.
Ken observed that he sees distinct azeas of the village center—Wizer's shopping center, between Reese
and Bryant around a mid-block crossing, at Lanewood, and at Mercantile Village. Donna wondered if we
could do a property swap with the post office.
The rear alley providing additional access to rear parking lots was discussed. Carolyn wondered if Mike
and his neighbors could get together and bring forward and idea for the area. Julia wondered if an egress
at La Provence would make sense. Mike observed that the location of parking Iots would be critical as
people won't walk in the rain from the cars. Sid suggested [hat under building parking could be required
for new development. Wilma requested a small map with an aerial photo showing the alley,current
parking lots, and buildings. Ken agreed that this would be helpful for everyone. Susan agreed to email
maps with aerial photos for the four distinct areas of the village center. Ken asked the committee how
they might plan the block if there were no exis[ing developmenL Several people suggested they would
like to have the alley, but not have it go all the way through to Reese Road. The possibility of signalized
two access points/crossings in this srretch was discussed, lessening the need to go all the way through to
Reese Road. The committee liked the idea of exploring two crossings of Boones Ferry. Susan mentioned
that one issue may be stacking distance for the left turn lanes at Reese and Bryant.
IV. Other Business/Committee Member Reports
None.
VI. Public Comment
None.
VII. Adjournment
The meeting adjoumed at approximately 6:10 p.m.
L:\Case Files�Planning Project Files�2001\P OL0002 Lake Gmve Town CenlerWdvisnry Commit[eeWdvisory Commi[[ee
Meeting No[esWC mee�ing no[es 04-07-04 Final.doc
34
Lake Grove Village Center Plan Page 4
Advisory Committee Meeting Notes—April 7, 2004
Lake Grove Village Center Plan
Implementation Advisory Committee
Meeting Notes
April 21, 2004, 4 to 6 p.m.
Lake Grove Elementary School, 15777 Boones Ferry Road
Members In Attendanee: Ken Sandblast, Chair, Lang Bates, Dazcey Eaton, Julia Glisson, Vic Keeler,
Carolyn Krebs,Jack Lundeen, Chuck O'Leary, George Psihogios, Sid Smither
Alternates In Aftendance: Michael Buck, John Hurlburt A�elle Jenike, Jeff Novak, k3arbara Zeller
Staff In Aflendanee: Dennis Egner, Susan Millhauser
Guests In Attendance: ]ay Clark. Brenda Falson, Frank Groznik, Elaine Johnson, Milt Mittclstedt, Bob
Stageburg
I. Welcome/Public Comment
Ken Sandblast called the meeting [o order and welcomed everyone. Puhlic comment followed.
Milt Mittelstedt,owner of Hollyfield, housing for low-income, e►derly people,expressed his strenuous
objection to the siting of a pathway on the Hollyfield property. Milt added that he could not see how a
pathway connecting Sunset Drive to the rear of the commercial properties along Boones Ferry Road could
benefit either Holly6eld or Lake Grove Presbyterian Church. Bob Stageburg,a Sunset Drive resident,
spoke in support of Mil[, saying he also is not in favor of a pathway. He added he has hisrory with the
alley and is concemed [ha[a pathway behind Nola Court (bridlepath� poses security, lighting, trash issues,
and Ihat neighbors dodt want a path along Iheir backyard.
II. Meeting Notes
Meeting no[es were not available.
III. Process—Next Meeiings
The archi[ectural design committee will share its findings with [he committee a[ the next mee[ing.
IV. Task 2—Review Existing Zoning Standards and Determine Appropriateness
Jack Lundeen shared a concem from the business and commercial property owners regarding joint access
poin[s on Boones Ferry Road. He passed out a written statement from lhe Lake Grove Business
Association,dated April 21, 2004. He noted that business owners agree with the concept ofjoint access
drives and driveway consolidation, but do not want specific Iocations identified or shown on the map. He
continued, they would rather general areas be shown, with the specific location of access points
determined with overall redevelopment of several lots. He added that there is concem that showing a
joint access way on a specific lot could negatively affect property value. Ken noted that consolidation of
access might never happen if it no[ shown in the plan. He passed around an appendix from the Wes[Lake
Grove Design District that showed access, as an example. Denny noted that the draft town center plan
from las[year showed a general area, rather thao specific Icea[ions, for consolida[ing access. He added
that one option could be the purchase of one property through urban renewal to focus access. Another
option is ro address consolidation of access as redevelopment occurs by showing a general area where
consolidation is needed, with the first property to redevelop triggering aceess consolidation. Jack
suggested that it would be helpful to summarize this information and bring i[ to concerned property
owners on a parallel track to show them how property dcesd[ get condemned. Ken noted [hat the Boones
35
Ferry Road Corridor Plan recommended 300 foot access spacing. Mike Buck no[ed tha[ the Corridor Plan
advisory committee didn't address access spacing as it was such a tough issue. Susan no[ed the City's
Transportation System Plan recommends 1,000 foot spacing for new access/new development Chuck
O'Leary noted that showing specific locations tor consolidated access could hamper redevelopment—no
one wanting to go firsL He added Ihat[he Wes[L,ake Grove Design District access map shows an access
way [ha[ isn't being built by a new development. Ken replied [hat shows [here is flexibility during
development review, that the drive is not in that specific location.
Julia Glisson observed that this topic needs more time and buy in from commercial property owners. She
suggested that it would be helpful to see various altematives and what the impacts are to property owners,
such as extending a rear alley. Denny noted that staff, Ken and Frank Groznik, and others would be
mee[ing with Mike Buck tomorrow to look at his parcel, but is not sure we can do this for every parcel.
Jack opined that redevelopment thus far has happened in areas where everyone would agree it is needed.
He added tha[ we will get buy if the plan can be implemented without adversely affecling business
owners economically. Frank Groznik added that he would like to see the City use incentives to create
win-win situations, falling somewhere in [he middle between strict regulation and the marke[place. Ken
reminded the committee that a plan does no[become reality unless a property owner[akes aclion upon
deciding it is economically viable for them. Vic Keeler wondered what property owners would be tied in
to. Jack noted tha[ [he process needs to be outfined, specifying that property will not be taken to
consolidate driveways without monetary compensation. Ken agreed that was a good idea, and went on to
reiterate that the plan needs to be a binding document. Frank added, that it must be binding, but allow
flexibility.
Julia observed that we need ro take into account other factors such as parking, density and demand.
Denny noted that the assumption is that current development meets existing parking requirements. Ken
suggested that the committee focus on five areas to look at various development scenarios - lot area, lot
coverage, building area, different heights, uses and needed parking. Denny noted we could detertnine if
there is a carrying capacity that is constrained by parking requirements. Adelle Jenike added that we also
need to consider nawral resources. Ken added that such an analysis could help everyone feel more
comfortable and help us know if we're close to target capacity for employment and housing. Denny
no[ed that looking at distinct areas could also help define projects. Someone mentioned there is also
money from the Bridgeport development that could be used for a project brought forward to the City.
Regarding projec[s, Denny shared that s[aff has been working to iden[ify a portion of the Boones Ferry
Corridor Plan that might be funded, and are currendy focusing on the Lanewood intersection
improvement for submittal for the next round of Metro/MTIP funding.
Committee members identified five sub-areas for further analysis, and separa[ely identifying areas being
considered for inclusion in [he village centec Ken suggested we could look a[ maximum development
poten[ial versus 25°In lot coverage. Carolyn Krebs suggested each group could decide for a particular sub-
area. Ken thought 25% was a good starting point and that he hasdt heard [hat folks want 100%n lot
coverage. Julia noted it would be helpful ro use one baseline to compaze all areas. It was agreed that a
base case wouW be brought to the next meeting. Ken noted it would also be helpful too look at the draft
town center plads proposed land use to see where that gets us. Denny added that everyone should be
thinking about density and intensity of use—can we get there with two or three story buildings?
Carolyn suggested that we start the next meeting with review of the consensus summary, starting with
boundaries. Ken took a quick s[raw poll on boundaries and most committee members agreed it made
sense to include additional areas. Jeff Novak expressed Ihat[he Waluga neighborhood would like Ihe
parcels at the northwest corner of Boones Ferry and Kruse Way and the Safeco site remain office/campus
(OC). They are happy to with that type of office development.
V. Other Business/Committee Member Reports
Susan passed out a memo summarizing current City parking standards.
36
Lake Grove Village Center Plan Page 2
Advisory Committee Meeting Notes-Apnl21,2004
VI. Public Comment
Susan passed ou[copies of a le[ter from Bill Barbat addressed [o the committee and [he Planning
Commission, received April 16, 2004. Mr. Barba['s letter addressed his co�cerns about the safe[y of
bicycles using lanes located in the road with cars. He described a model used in Europe, where bicycles
share a wide sidewalk wi[h pedestrians, using a specially marked lane, and suggested this would be
preferable in the village ce�ter along Boones Ferry Road.
VII. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at approximately G:10 p.m.
L:\Case FileslPlanning Project Files�200t�P 01-0002 Lake Grove Town CenterWdvisory CommitteeWdvisory Committee
Meeting No[esWC mee[ing no[es 04-21-04 Final.doc
I�
37
Lake Grove Village Cenier Plan Page 3
Advisory Committee Meeting No[es—Apri/21,2004
38
Lake Grove Village Center Plan
Implementation Advisory Committee
Meeting Notes
May 5, 2004, 4 to 6 p.m.
Lake Grove Elementary School, 15777 Boones Ferry Roatl
Members In AttendanCe: Ken Sandblast, Chair, L�ng Bates, Darcey Eaton, Julia Glisson, Vic Keeler,
Carolyn Krebs, Wiltna McNulty
Alternates In AtlendanCe: Michael I3uck, 7ohn Hurlburt, Karen Jacobson,Jeff Novak, Barbara Zeller
5taff In Attendance: Dennis Egner, Susan Millhauser
Guests In Attendance: Paige Douglas, Scot Siegel
I. Welcome/Public Comment
Ken Sandblast called [he meeting to order and welcomed everyone. Public comment followed. i
Mike Buck thanked Frank Groznik, Ken Sandblas[,Dennis Egner, and Susan Millhauser for organizing a
meeting with an architect from Frank's firm and Bob Galante, Lake Oswego Redevelopment Director, to
look at his properties in terms of parking and alley access. Mike added that he is not convinced a 26-foot-
wide alley would help his situation. He also noted that in terms of access spacing recommendations, 300
fee[may be a goal ro work toward, but he wished this [opic had been brough[ up earlier in the process as
it is very complex. He added that such spacing could work with a long-[erm plan [hat has a lot of
flexibility. Darcey Eaton asked Mike for clarification regarding his comments on the rear alley. Mike
replied that during the meeting it became clear that if the rear access alley was to continue, it would have
[o come out somewhere—likely back ou[to Boones Ferry. Darcey wo�dered if the alley could come ou[
on[o Reese Roxd. Julia Glisson noted that the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association does no[ want the
aliey to come out on Reese. Ken clarified that the meeting with Mike was to look at what the village
center plan might mean on the ground. Denny added that how an access lane system and new buildings
might work on the si[e were discusses. At the end of the meeting, it was concluded that connected
driveways and parking lots are a better solution[han extending the alley, but there were no conclusions on
how a series of connected driveways and parking lots might work. Denny also noted that it became
apparent that 300-foot driveway spacing was perhaps too wide in that area, with 150-foot spacing
potentially being more realis[ic.
John Hudburt shared that [he Lake Grove Pire District board will be meeting tomonow night to discuss
their building on Bryant Road and what to do with iL Julia replied that feedback she has gotten from
Lake Grove Neighborhood Association members is that the building should be retained as a meeting
place, and the trees on the si[e should be protected. She added tha[[hese desires speak strongly to
including this parcel in Ihe plan area. A guest noted that the building is thought to have some hisrorical/
architecWral merit.
Scot Siegel, owner of the Kumon Math and Reading Center located in the Jenike building, shazed that he
would like the committee to identify short-term improvements for Boones Ferry Road, such as pedestrian
crossings and connected sidewalks. He continued, he observes parents who drop children off at Kumon
and then ge[back in their cars to make short trips in the area[hat could be done on foot if such pedes[rian
improvements were in place. Ken noted that we will be coming out of[his effort wi[h a list of projects,
including short-term and long-term projects. He continued, staff also told the coaunittee at the last
meeting that the City is working on applica[ion for submittal of a portion of[he Boones Ferry Corridor
Plan—the Lanewood in[ersec[ion— to Me[ro for funding [hrough MTIP(Metropolitan Transporta[ion
Improvement Program). Carolyn Krebs inquired if the committee has the latitude to diswss other options
39
for funding through MTIP. Ken replied that is outside the purview of[he committee, though we could �
spend a few minutes discussing. Den�y noted that the City Council makes the final decision whether to
submit the application, and the item is scheduled for the June 6 City Council meeting. He added he could
talk with other City staff working oo the proposal ro share the committee's input as the proposal is still in
draft form, or commi[tee members could contact Tom Tushner direcdy.
II. Meeting Notes
Susan passed out draft meeting notes from March 17, 2004, and asked committee members to review for
the next meeting. Additionally, Susan agreed to provide meeting minutes for all meetings through April
to the committee prior[o[he May 12�'mee[ing.
III. Task 2—Review Existing Zoning Standards and Determine Appropriateness
Summary of Committee Consensus
Commit[ee members reviewed, discussed and made changes to the Consensus Summary document dated
April 8, 2004, as summarized below.
Village Character. 1. Scale and Type of Development
l.b. —No vehicie parking areas Iocated between building and streeL Carolyn suggested we add language
to clarify that on-street parking is allowed where feasible. The committee agreed the language should be
clarified, and had already agreed Ihat consensus was yes.
l.d. —Three stories okay if stepped back from street. Barbara Zeller wondered if we woufd want to allow
three story buildings that weren't stepped back? Denny replied that initially the idea was to encourage
taller buildings at the comers on Boones Feny, and added[ha[[he committee had not ye[come [o
consensus on this topic. He suggested the sub-area analysis should help provide some direction.
Villaee Character, 5. Streetscape - sienase, street trees, lightine, etc
S.a. —Like idea of common identiry. Wilma McNulty wondered if this meant all the street trees would be
the same. Carolyn and Susan replied that was not the intent, and Carolyn agreed that she does not want to
see an`brchard"of the same species of trees along Boones Ferry. Committee consensus was yes.
S.b.—Need to more fully develop theme using Darcey's sketches as a starting point. Denny asked what
Darcey's ideas were as he had no[ been at the meeting when she shared them. She explained she had
done some sketches of a logo and sign ideas featuring fir trees. Ken suggested we could build on existing
City signs—using the same kinds of materials with a unique Lake Grove emblem. Julia suggested we
could involve the larger community through a design contesL Committee consensus was yes.
S.c. —Sub-committee to integrate with work on architecmral design standards. Cominittee consensus was
yes.
Village Character, 6. Namral resource orotection and enhancement & stormwater mana e�ent
6.a. —Protect large firs, native trees. Wilma noted tha[neighborhoods need to be working on tree
preservation in Lake Grove. Carolyn replied that they have been. Denny noted that the City's sensitive
lands overlay protects [ree groves, wedands and streams, where as the tree code protec[s individual [rees
on a site, allowing for a building envelope and driveway, with trees protected in setbacks, open space
areas, etc. He added that it might be helpful to form a sub-committee to identify significant trees or
clusters of trees in the village center. Carolyn replied it would be helpful [o have an inventory. Denny
noted that the City's inventory captures larger trees groves, with the tree code protecting trees on an
individual basis. Barbara wondered if we are hurting trees by bringing buildings up[o the front of lots.
Denny agreed that could impact trees at [he front of lots, but tha[development could be configured [o
pro[ect identified trees. Committee consensus was yes.
40
Lake Grove Village Center Plan Page 2
Advisory Committee Meeting Notes-May 5, 2004
6.b. —Enhance natural water features—explore possible project in Mercantile to daylight creek and create
lake. Committee consensus was yes.
6.c. —Encourage use of sustainable site development and green streets for cross-streets. Carolyn noted
[ha[there could be green stree[s tools that could be used on Boones Ferry Road as welL The phrase "for
cross-streets" was stricken. Commi[[ee consensus was yes.
Mixed Use. 8. Proximi[v of Uses. [Note: This and following sections were subsequendy renumbered as
7 was inadvertently skipped.]
8.a. —Encourage a vuriety of uses in close proximity to each other. Committee consensus was yes.
Mixed Use. 9. Connectivitv between uses
9.a. —Provide safe and convenient pedestrian connections between uses, including across parking lots.
Carolyn said the word "uses" is confusing; "between uses" was replaced with"within the village center".
Julia asked if we agree to 9.a. dces that preclude taking a pedestrian path off the map at a later date?
Susan noted that off-sveet pedestrian connections from the neighborhoods are specifically addressed
under Connec[ivity/Transi[ion to Neighborhoods, i[em 14. Susan and others shared examples of areas
around town where pedestrian connections are highlighted by the use of differen[ or raised paving
materials or paint to delineate a pedestrian area, including the path to the east of the Bank of America
building on 4th and A Ave, the path from Evergreen up to A Ave. near Tucci's, and the path connecting
Ihe two parts of Waluga Park. Committee consensus was yes.
Consensus Work Session
Ken passed explained the Base Case spreadshee[and the sub-areas map, which had been emailed to
- committee members. The spreadsheet includes assumptions for the sub-areas based on land area, building
�` envelope, landscaping and pa[king. The committee reviewed and discussed the spreadsheet. Julia
' observed [hat existing developmen[ in [he village cen[er is economically underutilized, as shown by very
low Iot coverages. Scot Siegel inquired if the spreadsheet assumes no new housing. Ken replied it does
noL Scot remarked [ha[ by including housing it may lower the number of required parking spaces.
�z Denny also observed that the spreadsheet assumes faidy low FAR (floor area ratio) and lot coverage.
=± Someone asked if the land area includes roads. Susan replied that it does. For the next meeting, Susan
> will calculate tax lo[ totals for each area to provide a net area figure. Carolyn wnfirmed that we are just
looking at a very simplificd base case. Ken agreed, but noted that it does show trends.
Denny modified differen� variables, such as type of use and building height, to illustrate the
corresponding effect on parking (using an electronic version of the spreadsheet). For example, the more
restaurants, the greater the required number of parking spaces. Also, as buildings go up in height, the
number of required parking spaces increases. The exereise showed that required parking could be a
constraim for some types of future development. Ken wondered how the scenario would look with the
land uses recommended in the draft Town Center Plan. Lang noted that we need to make up for a deficit
in parking. He added that it would be interesting to see what happens when building heights vary by sub-
azea. For example, we could model four[o five story buildings in area 5, with lower buildings in other
areas. Denny and Ken agreed to bring make updates to the spreadsheet and email to Ihe commil[ee prior
[o the next meeting. Ken then asked if[he committee still wanted to break up in[o small groups to look at
specific sub-areas? There was no consensus on this topic. Julie asked, what questions do we want the
small groups to answer? Lang thought it would be more helpful to do a broad svoke review as a large
group, then break into small groups to further discuss sub-areas. Denny stated that he wants to committee
ro keep in mind last year's work, where the concept was to lceate general commercial, auto-oriented type
uses on Boones Ferry, with more of a mix of smaller scale uses on[he side sVee[s, with some housing.
He added that issues for the committee to think about are uses: commercial, mixed use, office and
residential; and intensity: building height. He added that staff will also provide a spreadsheet with
assumptions about uses and intensity based on Ihe drafr Town Center Plan via email.
41
Lake Grove Vi!lage Center Plan Page 3
Advisory Committee Meeting Nofes—May 5, 2004
IV. Other BusinesslCommittee Member Reporls �
Susan provided hard copies of the updated meeting schedule [hat had been emailed to committee
members.
VI. Public Comment
None.
VII. Adjoumment
The meeting adjourned at approximately 6:00 p.m.
L:\Case Files�Planning Projec[Files�2001�P O1-0002 Lake Grove Town Cen[er�Advisory CommitteeWdvisory Commitlee
Mceling NotesWC meeting noces OS-OS-0.1 Final.doc
42
Lake G�ove Village Center P/an Page 4
Advisory Commiftee Meeting Notes—May 5,2004
� � ��#�1 ��
JU�1 � i .2�10�
May 25, 2004
CI7Y dF LAKE OS�C�O
Dept.at Punning 6 pevNpprqent
City of Lake Oswego: Lake Grove Village Center Plan,
Implementation Advisory Committee
Kenneth L. Sandblast, Chair
380 A Avenue
P.O. Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Mr. Sandblast and Committee members:
This letter is to inform you that a majority of residents living in the Sunset Drive ,
neighborhoods, Lake Oswego, Oregon oppose any new circulation route(s) (i.e.
walkway, pathway, etc.) proposed by the Implementation Advisory Committee
(IAC) to provide "connectivity"from the commercial properties located along
Boones Ferry Road into the residential areas bounded by Bryant Road, Sunset
Drive, and Reese Road.
The attached petition underscores the number of residents who feel strongly that
additional circulation routes would adversely affect the quality of life in these
neighborhoods, and as such, would negate any benefits realized through more
direct access to the commercial sector. The primary reasons for our position are:
1. Limited benefit for pathway use to "non-collector" Sunset Drive as
opposed to improvements to circulation routes (i.e. sidewalks) on "major
collector" Bryant Road or "neighborhood collector" Reese Road.
2. Increase of safety and security issues, especially for children and the
elderly.
3. Minimization of backyard privacy, green space, and potential loss of trees.
4. Loss of property value with proximity of public walkway.
5. Maintenance concerns for pathways, lights, and gates/fencing.
6. Litter and other cleanliness issues.
7. Noise level increase associated with the influx of pedestrian tra�c.
In summary, the undersigned residents of Lake Grove oppose the IAC proposed
pathway(s) from Boones Ferry to Sunset Drive, but support any and all enhanced
pedestrian facilities along Bryant Road and Reese Road. With these arguments
ATTACHMENT G•1 4
and signatures, it is our sincere hope that the IAC will expeditiously remove the
aforementioned circulation routes from the Lake Grove Village Center Plan.
Thank you in advance for your community support.
Respectful ly,
�_,_
y.�`�,� 9,,.�
Brenda Falson
Lake Grove Resident
Cc: James Johnson, Chair, City of iake Oswego Planning Commission
Jack Mishler, Chair, Lake Grove Neighborhood Association
44
PETITION
Wdh regard to the Lake Grove Village Center Advisory Committee's proposal to introduce
"connectivity" from ihe commer�ial properties located along Boones Ferry Road into the
residential area bounded by Bryant Road, Sunset Drive, and Reese Road in Lake Oswego,
Oregon:
We strongly believe any change of this nature will adversely affect the quality of life in our
neighborhood, and as such, would negate any benefRs realized through more direct access to
the commercial sector.
We, the undersigned residents and property owners oppose any new circulation route
(i.e. pathway, walkway, trail etc.) which encroaches upon the aforemenfioned reside�tial zone.
1 (-�
i . �Yjo�.J Ibl i o `R.o'-A C�t �-���x_ �..�-z �.
2 �(P NL��Q� . � �
3 ' � �� � ��r�. � G-ll '�'j�3J
q �; ,
l ��Z/,/l�� � �' ��% �'t . /_�,(e �« c� `)� 3
5 �vt�►M- ` I lo l (05 tJ��-A C i L, � � �j 703
6
�`� I�`� �PlC� � ���t C�. � ,(J. � �� 3
7
�1 � r�l��.� �,- � q�td -
S
�j'�' _ _ �f i�`� 5,,.��!"� �C���
9
io
B Su�� p ��35
� - /
� � � ��� �r.�� i�r� ;"�`�035
�2 '" 4� -� q�3s
�3 , �1 /l�l �t C��, �l '7035
ia �
is �
l � � Na4-�+ ''T `����5�
� — � � —
�2- / c� .��
16 /� -
� _ � � ��
�7 0 - -
LC� „H � Z 1GIu3 iv,;�� a L ,
45
PETITION
With regard to the Lake Grove Village Center Advisory Committee's proposat to introduce
"connectivity" from the commercial properties located along Boones Ferry Road into ihe
resfdential area bounded by Bryant Road, Sunset Drive, and Reese Road in Lake Oswego,
Oregon
We strongly believe any change of this nature will adversely affed the quality o( I'rfe in our
neighborhood, and as such, would negate any benefits realized through more direct access to
the commercial sector.
We, the undersigned residents and property owners oppose any new circulation route
(i.e. pathway, walkway, trail etc.) which encroaches upon the aforementioned residential zone.
18 —�
��, z,� ,� � �
,
�9 , / � aa i �:,tise.; r�-., -
zo
�,
- • - a�� S, �,J. s u,�.s�i �� 2
�.- � � �
22 �� /�'3 �J � `
:�un)St�'L� � C�`
23 ^
,� ,�,.,�z�yr '-a �, �1� � ,L�� ��. �
za . �� �l � S wn tJ_� C�Gu�
2s ��
, -, �
� � k_ 'Sf �" _1�z,.,,•.:-f" '�s- ,� � �
26 ;�
yf� ,�nJ �/1
27 � .
�� V. �
2R
�� �
iq
� ` Y t�� �� �.+ �P� �,/
13� I ,
; � �. r .
i3� � � � / J �
3� ls� n. � q � \
� 3 i� D �b ..,,- 1�r,
33 - . �� � 3 �0 ,.�lo�
3� � � ._�� .,�� C� 11�s o C � f�� ------
�� ��� ���" '�-�,���� -�.� �t�sv l,�P� ��.
46
i
PETITION
With regard to the Lake Grove Vil{age Center Advisory Commitlee's proposal fo introduce
"conneclivity"from the commercial properties located along Boones Ferry Road into the
residential area bounded by Bryant Road, Sunset Drive, and Reese Road in Lake Oswego,
Oregon:
We strongly believe any change of this nature will adversely affect the quality of Irfe in our
neighborhood, and as such, would negate any benefits realized through more direct access to
the commercial sector.
We, the undersigned residents and property owners oppose any new circulation route
(i.e. pathway, walkway, traii etc.)which encroaches upon the aforementioned residential zone.
36 � ,� � /
`��� 2tiU ��� � JU1�15� '-" ! w�.%�' � ii�% ���b�r�
37
��-- ��.� �%�,�. ya �� ��u-.�=�` .1� , ,,
3s -., , � � �, ,
39 �IL � K �f=-3`�3 �C,�ns.eTC�Z -_ ,�7G�
ao . � ��.���. �,�-�� 'r � 1 "1 ��, � �`a-. � c , ti
41
-� (611t� 111o(aC��,.�� Lp ���d35
a2
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
47
48
�fi �7, �oa� I!
��"a,.a-✓ �-�-a�"� " �
� � � �/ 7� ��//1�,� .
� /1 _ . _�_�>� �L�'>T_. ZK.P�J !/`—��Cuf�.Sf2� .,.
{�O'n+G l� l��
�,-�� ��•� I�
,
��
���� ' ,
.�.�-.-�-�; � �-�
`-h-�.,�.,�.L:""`�,-`"`� K �"'�O� ,.
/ �'7't'd�E'"2� ..C�
Gil� �aL� '�� ��
�(,�"`'Q".c� �e�
�c�a-.�-c-�� ' ��
„ _ �_ a l� C:rr��
�.����--T-
� �crc-v�e�...-� K
i ,
�,` ��`��.�3
Lc��. --����
,��� ��z� �� �ry����
� � ��
� ��_-.-� ,�c_o•��a� ..L�o--=-+�
�G -��`-��/—J: �/�y'� —�'-' � �`�
. _ ..1] ita��G�vGeL.iL--x�"" � �9
�Ti•• � —�
�.t�i 5�.c�-"'-' �,��aa �� I
-�-yzE �aZ ���-�'�°'�
� �� ��.�.�t��el/ —B-�z� cc�
� �y� �-, ��'C�`rL�
���� �,-C-�- �c�,���1
,/�e-¢�ir.L�-� z'o ' .
�� ti ��--��, �J�
ATTACHMENT G•2
49
�
50
� , ��or iw�cE usp�� /� ( r`_
'� L/L�
�/
w[caM
COMMUIITY DEVELOPME'VT DEPARTn4E!��T
June 1, 2004
loyce and Jay Hyde
146�5 SW Uplands Dr.
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Re: Lake Grove Village Center
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hyde, ,
Thank you for your written comments sharing your concems about the May 26, 2004 Lake Grove V illage
Center Advisory Committee meeting. I will provide the Committee members and members of the Lake
Oswego Planning Commission with a copy of your letter. The Planning Commission is the body that will
review and make recommendations on the work of the Commi[tee.
The Planning Corrunission will be holding a work session to heaz a report of the Comntittee at i[s June 28,
2004 meeting. You will be receiving a meeting notice postcard. Additionally,the Planning Commission
will be holding public heazings on the Village Center plan in the fall of 2004, and will make
recommendations to the City Council. The City Council will then hold public hearings later in the fall
aad will make final decisions regarding the Village Center. These are all opportuni[ies where you could
express yo�r concerns.
As a commercial property owner in the Village Center, I would recommend that you also voice your
concems d'uectly to the commercial property owner and business owner representatives that serve on the
Advisory Committee, if you haven't already done so. Pve included their contact information below:
Sid Smither Vic Keeler, 503-636-7896 Jack Lundeen, 503-635-9393
PO Box 1337 Vic's Auto Center 4040 Douglas Way.
Lake Oswego, OR 97035 15880 Boones Ferry Rd. Lake Oswego, OR 97035
Lake Osweeo, OR 97035
Thank you,
��t,�-�-, % ��.,���
Susan Millhauser,
Associate Planner �r�
CC: Ken Sandblas[, Lake Oswe�o Planning Commission& Advisory Committee Chair
Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager ��
��
(��
[A'I.I � L..WGYL
380 A Avenue•P.O. Box 369•Lake Oswego, OR 97039•503-635-0290•Fax 503-635-0269•www.ci.oswego.or.us (,`l�uzry,�c���
�o�.�E o�w '
� `�o
�
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
June 14, 2004
Joyce and Jay Hyde
14655 SW Uptands Dr.
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Re: Lake Crrove Village Center
Deaz Mr. and Mrs. Hyde,
At the June 2, 2004 meeting of the Lake Grove Village Center advisory committee I shared copies of your
May 27, 2004]etter regardirig yoar concems about the advisory committee meeting that you attended on
May 26. Carolyn Krebs, the Lake Forest Neighborhood Association representative on the committee, has
asked that I pass on the enclosed letter that she has written in response. Copies of ihis correspondence
will also be fumished to the Planning Commission in prepazation for their Iune 28 work session.
Thank you, .
`"�,.u�c��, I�,�u.Q,� �'tin�.�� -.��
Susan Millhauser,
Associate Planner
a
CC: Ken Sandblast, Lake Oswego Planning Commission &Advisory Committee Chair
Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager
Carolyn Krzbs
_.
��
�
Artie�/��1_ca'
C�IM��li(.�i�211�
380 A Avenue• P.O. Box 369•Lake Oswego, OP. 97034 •503-635-0290•Fax 503-635-0269• www.ci.osivego.or.us L�Pi<.z�v�ca1�
June 12, 2004
Dear Susan,
This letter is a response to a handwritten letter you distnbuted fiom Jay and Joyce
Hyde dated May 27, 2004. I have thought about this letter and feel a response is
appropriate. Since the ]etter was addressed to you, I am hoping that you can see that my
letter gets to the Hydes and becomes an official response of record.
First,I want the Hydes to know that the concerns of business are very important
to all on the advisory committee. Unfortunately, they would need to be present at each
meeting [o know this and to be able to place all of the committee dialog into context. Our
committee works to bring all interests together— and that includes residents as well as
business. The Lake Forest neighborhood has asked me to represent their interests on this
committee and that includes creating a more pedestrian-friendly environment in Lake
Grove. I am aware, as I know the Hydes are, that many Lake Grove businesses service
the residents in Lake Grove. As customers, the safety and convenience of these residents
aze important to business. In an eazlier meeting, a business owner in Lake Grove
provided comments to our committee about his concern for the safery of his clients
walking (and I think he mentioned pushing strollers) around the azea of his business. Out
of fairness, this comment too needs to be taken into account by our committee.
The availability of parking is a paramount concern for the committee. Somehow,
all discussions seem to lead back to this— so it has been a practical consideration of any
land use proposal we have addressed. Addressing increasing scale or density for
businesses leads to consideration of allowable parking space and adequate access,
allowing space for increasing auto traffic as well as other transportation modes means
that the space needs to be created—this too affects parking. We will need to determine if
current parking lot designs actually address the parking needs of the future. This is a
growing pain that we need to address—but just like my 12-yeaz-old son's growing pains
—i[needs to be placed into context. The emphasis should not be on the pain but on the
growth! We wi11 address pazking so that workers and tenants also have safe and
convenient access to business as well address the increased scale, density, and mix of
uses that are implications of developing a Metro-designated Town Center.
The last paragraph of the Ayde's letter offers the common ground that I think we
are all seeking. We want a beautiful area. I would like to believe that given a collective
common sense we can create a beautiful area in L,ake Grove without restrictions.
However, I have seen actions of property owners that do not reflect the vision of Lake
Grove that ou�committee has worked long and hard to create—the clear cut property on
the corner of Madrona and Boones Ferry comes to mind. It is clear to me that restrictions
are necessary for our community to remain economically competitive, livable and
beautiful. I believe that our committee will do what is necessary and appropnate to
ensure that the Lake Grove Village Center azea remains successfu] and vibrant now and
into the future.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Krebs
53
54
,� _
_ �_�� ,,
� _
� ��I ,V, � �— � - - • - - � - - •� � '� �
�- . r �.
�� ��r- ;� 1 L
% � ' � �I�' �
� i .. _ . �
� f 'Note: Need ro revisit. Per meetfng notes, keep
��J �� � current zoning if community facility a CU. However,
r ---__` --I- sx" � - ♦ � a closer look at the code shows that recreation
I `�S � facilitylindoor or outdoor pool, athletic fields are
� � NOT PE'RMITTED.
_ ' � OC/R-3 �
� •
i � �
; ���� . � , �
,
' _ \ � ��. �, • � � , � r . � � , � � �\.
� ' � _ � �� , � �
i \ � '�!'`[R_' �' RR�F�Dsr„�
\ .�,.�.
�\ ♦
GC �
� `
.
� � ' .
\
��,
Q . y�+� _ , . . , i
e . _._ I -a-. �G1REW�D57 �, K OC ', � � . __
�c� - . I `�A� RLSFk'qY �PRINGIN . -
� A � .
�-,-_ � . . - � ' �
��= ��� � � ' � �
� �v �� � � / � •
� �� , � �
�o
��r � _ , �
I � VMU P����„K,o„ �
— �+ r��t
�
� .
� � I i
• I
� � � � ,
� •
GC R-3 ,
� �
� HARVEV Wqy • �
�
� � '
—��, I--i—' ._ OC/R-3 ,
-� �_ I I .;_�� � .
� �
o �
COLLINS WAY � �Q. COLLINS WqY
� � VMU �
, � � � ! � � '' • � I
� � � . . � � . . IVMU �� � � ' REDCEDARWAY . ... -
� ,
� � � � � ' � � ' � � � � � . . ��
. ' � DOUGtAS WAY � j i
� R-7.5 , � N . _'
- - . . 3 � j
'wf �
; �� � ��;- �
� - �� I i
, ! LANEWOODST
� a�s���wAY PF i �—I
� ,
� e'�� VMU� - - - - �
� � ' -
' � � • � � • � � ' � � • 1. y`��` i
1 00°�� i� � ����--�
R-5 vMu VMU ,
� �R-o �
� R-0;
on�rtioce eo , VM U �
� VMU . �_ i
' . . . � 1 p_O IR-O VMU , � � � , 1AKEGROVEAVE
_ . Il � � i ,.���.
� R-0 •
�. � � �. . � �, .�
- .� r �
. �.. ' , , , _.
-- 1 • . ,��`�`�
z , GC • '� P^'�, � ATTACHMENT C
— .e�[uv000Ro ��
. ' �: ` �
lil � �'
♦
1 •
� �� • , I
o ' -
� � � ' Lake Grove Village Center %������°° .
1- - • - - • - ' VMU . ,'� ,
� Draft Zoning (Working Map) `��'
,
� �. �s VMU-Village Mixed Use - R-0-Residential High Density'
� GC �
� — • � � � � � VMUIR-0-Uilla e Mixed Use/
PF � 9 R-3-Residential-3,375 sq.fl. area/unit
�� � � ' \ � Residential High Density'
�', vM� I • i� • \ GC-General Commercial R-5-Residential-5,000 sq.ft. arealunit
�r
� ' � � � n OC-Office Campus R-7.5-Residential-7,500 sq.ft. area/unit
•�� � � • � I�i 1 � � OCIR-0-Office Campusl PF- Public Functions
' J� Residential High Density"
I ' , OC/R-3-Offce Campusl j ' � ' Village Center Boundary(includes some
Residential-3,375 sq.ft. area/unit � � � � areas proposedlrequiring more discussion)
� \ ��� 'R-0-Minimum area per unit determined by FAR
0 350 700 1050 1400 1750
Feef ��„a za_zoa.scmvc�i�m�aka os�yo
- � � A �r � � � s
Lake Grove Village Center Plan ���`�
� �
Planning Commission Public Meeting -
Monday, June 28, 2004, 6:00 p.m.
City Hall, 380 A Avenue, Council Chamber
Come and learn about the continuing work on the Lake Grove Town Village Plan.
The citizen advisory committee has been working to identify land uses, site development and design standards, and
projects that implement the vision for the Lake Grove Village Center. The advisory committee is responsible for making
recommendations that refine and implement town center concepts developed in the first phase of the project.
At this meeting, the Planning Commission will review and provide feedback on the committee's work.
Formore in/ormation contact Susan Millhauser.Associate Planner,at(503)635-0291 or visif fhe projec�website at www.ci.oswego.or.us/plaNigtcllgtc.htm
�__������� ��
� �i �' . _... ;,._. �' °'� �
� City of Lake Oswego FC Postage
! � � "`) I PO Box 369 PAID
q � Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Permit 124
• Lake Oswego, OR
Susan �lillhau�cr
Plai�nin�
June 28, 2004
{� O1- ��'�_' ,�-
��Li� ����-�{
� Background
Lake Grove Village Center Plan . Implementation Advisory Committee
appointed by City Council, with
Planning Commission
recommendation
Planning Commission Work Session
)une 28, Z004 ■ Committee was formed in October
Advisory Committee Check In 2003 and work is guided by Charge
Statement
Background Tasks 2 & 3
. Committee includes citizen representatives . Committee is working on Tasks 2 & 3:
from the business community, commercial .Task 2. Review existina zonina standards
property owners, neighborhood and determine ao�rooriateness for achieving
associations, citizens at large, LGTC Plan objedives and Guiding Principles
Transportation AdviSory BOard and .Task 3. Define work on zoninq and desian
Planning Commi55ion standards based on issues idencified in LGfC
. Committee has met 14 times since first Plan report.
Planning Commission check in January
2004
Tasks2 & 3 Tasks2 & 3
. Committee members have: . Sub-committee formed to look at
.Identified"hot topics", compiled from Village architectural design standards and
Center desired charaderistics in vision
statement streetscape elements that reflect
.Conducted work sessions[o consider options village character
related to land use,site development, urban
design and transportation ■ Sub-committee to bring findings to
. Developed consensus summary and zoning Committee for review and approval
map working draffs
. Members have been soliciting feedback
from their"constituents"
1 of�2��
�
June 28, 2004
Tasks 1, 2 & 3 - Outstanding Items Committee Presentation
■ Finalize vision statement, with a clear
definition of mixed use
. Complete consensus summary
. Refne zoning concepts / map
Proposed ` Height to Width Example
Boundary ; .. ._....._._.::.�:;,�................:..�,,
Changes /
,,
;. "'
� „ ...�, .�,,�.
i - i� t',., ,.,,..un,.�..,ui ...M........................""..................
� ��
. .. �.,.....,,:��,i,.. . . . .... ,
� - . ' ,...��,���— �
,.r�...,. _�, �_.
.
.
� _ ',. , . �.ap...w :d� .I
t.. ��y /_'z_�_� � 1t.: ,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,�,,,,.,.,.�.,�.d..,..,..u,,,,,,,,,.
- � -_ •
,: �S'.> „. + t�..:
,: . ._.�.�
_, . .
,- .���,,....,�.,..w....,_ :, , ...,,.
� T A
' . _... y'ie9i�.l _t' �...\ �
Draft ' —-__
zoning '� ..; " : - � Next Steps - Tasks
COf1C2Pt ��`�,�: �� `\ - . Committee needs to complete Tasks 4 &5:
-_. � .Task 4. IdentiN and orioritize imolementation
._ `; �� " � ro oiects, induding projects proposed in the
. ` ����- LGTC Plan report; identiN ootential fundina
!-- _ `; '- sources; and develop an overall timeframe for
' ��_�- -• � implemen[ation. Coordinate wi[h Lake Oswego
�"" _� Redevelopmen[Agency(LORA) staff.
- � .Task 5. Draft Community Development Code,
�_"�-`, . � � Comprehensive Plan,and Transportation
, _ _ Sysfem Plan amendments.
Z Of 2 =',
�
June 28, 2004
Next Steps - Schedule Next Steps - Schedule
. Committee meetings are on-going - next
meeting scheduled for]une 30�" . Joint Planning Commission work
. Staff to draR/compile Plan producLs(July- 525510f1 WICh DBVeIOPfll211t R8VI2W
Augus[):
. Task 4 prqect list and map Commission and Transportation
. Task 5 code and plan amendments,updated maps Advisory Board to be scheduled for
and diagrams
. Additional Committee meetlngs to be scheduled September/October 2004
�au9usc): ■ Planning Commission and City Council
. Task 4 and Task 5,induding presentadon by
archi[Murai design sub-commdtee public hearings Fall 2004
. Review and mmmen[on Plan producGs
Next Steps - Schedule
. Meeting schedule, agendas, meeting
notes, charge statement, draft vision
statement, consensus summary and
other materials are posted on project
web site -
www.ci.oswego.or.us/plan/Igtc/Igtc.htm
3 of��